Talk:Transgender/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Transgender. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Transgender Individuals and the Greater LGBT Community

I think it's worth mentioning that the Transgender community has multiple exterior challenges that it faces, but on top of those exterior challenges lie interior challenges as well. Namely, the Transgender community is often left out to dry, seen by the Human Rights Campaign's (HRC) decisions throughout the years and the lack of transgender board members they have in an organization that is said to represent the LGBT organization on a national scale. Removing transgender protections from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in order to get it through more favorably, as Gay/Lesbian protections were more easily accepted by legislators, and removing the transgender flags from the Equal Marriage Rally outside of the Supreme Court of the United States while the case was still being decided upon, are two acts that specifically upset many in the transgender community. Many individuals, on blogs, side websites and articles often call for a sole transgender community and to split off from the "LGB" because of these past actions, which will only go to fracture a community that needs to stand together and uphold all of its members in order to help everyone involved, as all of these rights and regulations intersect with one another and the loss of an entire group leaves not only that one group to fend for itself, but also removes support for large LGBT activist organizations like the HRC.

I think it's worth mentioning these types of things, so people have a greater view of where the Transgender community tends to fit in relation to larger organizations and what they want to do.

Kisiriel (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this issue is worth mentioning, for years we have seen transgender people being left out of LGBT history. LindseyPhillips (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Section: Marginalization

I would like to create new section that ties the aspect of marginalization, culture industry, and media representation with transgender issues. If possible, linking these terms would give a better understanding of the role mass culture plays in the perspective of how transgender issues are viewed. Vvu9491 (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:Class assignment

Burt Macklin aka Tim Buckanowski, Jrweaver737, and LindseyPhillips, regarding this alert, would you explain what you have planned for this article? It is often important for student editors to discuss such plans with more experienced Wikipedia editors to ensure that the edits are in compliance with WP:Policies or guidelines. This is for reasons noted at WP:Class assignment. For example, it is easy to go overboard with WP:Primary sources. Do read the WP:Primary sources policy. Simply adding study after study, especially primary studies, is not a good way to build an encyclopedia. Also read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) and WP:Fringe; those are important guidelines for this article.

In my opinion, it would be best that your class post your proposed additions to be evaluated, either in your sandbox (with a link on this talk page to that sandbox) and/or directly to this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Kisiriel (talk · contribs), if you are part of a class assignment, also see what I stated above in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn Hello, we are all still figuring out all that Wikipedia has to offer. We are currently writing a proposal for what we would like to see improved on this article. We would love some feedback once we collect all of our ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindseyPhillips (talk • contribs) 14:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

I intend on making slight edits to three pages under the Contributions to the Series. Specifically: Gender Binary, Sex Segregation and Third Gender. My contributions are aimed at reframing the current binary lens. Gillian Ward (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The page for Transgender has been semi protected, and I cannot make any editsGillian Ward (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Gillian Ward, you can propose changes to the article here on the talk page and have auto-confirmed users (such as myself, Flyer22 Reborn and others) make the changes for you, though we may ask to make changes or copy edit your proposed changes. See WP:Edit request for more information on proposing changes to article content. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

I would like to make an edit to the LGBT section that notes the disconnect between the HRC and the transgender community. The edit would look something like this,

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has been one of the transgender communities strongest allies. However, there has been a disconnect that has been addressed by the transgender community as well as the HRC. The disassociation of both groups stems from several instances that have made the transgender people feel that they have not been fully endorsed by the HRC. One of these incidents between the HRC and the transgender community began in 2007 when the HRC supported an employment anti-discrimination bill^[where?] that would have made it illegal for companies to discriminate against gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. This bill did not include the anti-discrimination of transgender people. The president of the HRC, Chad Griffin, has recently admitted that the campaign has done wrong by the transgender community. In September 2014, Griffin made a formal apology in front of an audience of transgender people at a southern comfort^{[clarification needed]} conference in Atlanta. Griffin also discussed the need for a more inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and stated that the HRC will lead the campaign for a fully-inclusive, LGBT civil rights bill.

LindseyPhillips (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC) ^[1]

I've done a minor copy-edit of the proposed addition, I will see about doing more at a later time today/tomorrow LindseyPhillips. BTW, the ENDA seems to have already passed with transgender-inclusive passages;

In 2009, following Democratic gains in the 2008 elections, and after the divisiveness of the 2007 debate, Rep. Barney Frank introduced a transgender-inclusive version of ENDA. He introduced it again in 2011, and Sen.Jeff Merkley introduced it in the Senate. On November 7, 2013, Merkley's bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support by a vote of 64–32. President Barack Obama supports the bill's passage.^{(From the ENDA article.)}

Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware of Wikipedia:Systemic_bias and avoid an undue bias towards content on American and Anglophone politics, and assumptions that the same issues are universal. Your material might better belong in a separate page on Transgender issues in American politics. Trankuility (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

[1]
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/28430-human-rights-campaign-under-fire-in-lgbt-community. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Proposed Section: Transgender in Pop Culture

A classmate and I want to propose a section about transgender in popular culture such as television and include popular T.V. shows such as The L Word, Transparent, and Orange is the New Black. We would also include information from an article discussing how roles for transgender actors are changing. Jrweaver737 (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jrweaver737, if you and/or your classmate could post an "original vs. proposed" comment, that would be appreciated and will allow us to review, copy-edit (if needed), and agree or disagree with the change - hopefully with reasons for disagreement. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC

==In Pop Culture==

In the past a transgender role might be used as a joke or comic relief in a show while trans actors and actresses found it difficult to receive major roles even if the character themselves were transgender. Recently, there has been a prominent rise of transgenders in popular media and are gaining an increased presence on television shows. Many believe that the increased exposure in television and magazines is a positive sign of society moving forward but there is still controversy against the casting in the transgender role.

Transparent is an Amazon original series portraying the experiences of a family who learn that their father identifies himself as a woman and is transgender. The show is praised for accurately representing the trans community but still receives criticism for casting Jeffrey Tambor as the role of Maura Pfefferman because he is a cisgender actor. On the other hand, Rhys Ernst and Zackary Drucker are transgenders who played a key role in editing the script and co-producing the show which adds to the show's authenticity.[1] [2]

References
Jump up ^ Ruiz, Michelle. "Trans Actors and Hollywood Insiders Discuss the Complicated Reality of Trans Casting". Cosmopolitan. Retrieved 3 December 2015.
Jump up ^ Bernstein, Jacob. "n Their Own Terms The Growing Transgender Presence in Pop Culture". The New York Times. The New York Times. Retrieved 3 December 2015.

This is what I have worked on so far. Jrweaver737 (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any glaringly obvious copy-editting needed, but I would like to ask for Flyer22 Reborn's assessment and comment as they are more knowledgeable in this area than I am. I would also appreciate other users comments as well, to reach both a consensus (even if mostly silent). Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Recently, there has been a prominent rise" This phrasing will quickly become outdated, use actual dates such as "since 2007".

"of transgenders in popular media" Usage of transgender as a noun is highly contentious.

and are gaining an increased presence on television shows." The subject of this phrase is not well defined. It seems to link to the word "transgenders" in the previous clause, but there are parsing problems with that as well as the previously mentioned problems with transgender as a noun.

I would suggest rephrasing to "Since {please insert an actual year here}, depictions of transgender individuals have become more common on television."

"father identifies himself as a woman and is transgender." Redundant. Suggest changing to "father is transgender" or "father identifies as a woman".

"The show is praised for accurately representing the trans community but still receives criticism for casting Jeffrey Tambor as the role of Maura Pfefferman because he is a cisgender actor." Change "as the role" to "in the role". Would also suggest rephrasing as "The show is praised for accurately representing the trans community but still receives criticism for casting the cis-gender actor Jeffrey Tambor in the role of Maura Pfefferman."

"On the other hand, Rhys Ernst and Zackary Drucker are transgenders who played a key role in editing the script and co-producing the show which adds to the show's authenticity." There is also confusion over past vs present and singular vs plural in the roles of Ernst and Drucker. Consider rephrasing as "On the other hand, the show has greater authenticity due to Rhys Ernst and Zackary Drucker having drawn on their experiences as transgender individuals while editing the script and co-producing the show." --Khajidha (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

So more like this then?

==In Pop Culture (draft 2)==

Historically, a transgender character role might be used for comic relief in a show, such as... , while trans actors and actresses found it difficult to receive major roles - even if the character role was for a transgender character.

As of {date}, there has been a significant rise in public transgender peoples on popular media. Transgender people are also gaining an increased presence on television shows. Many believe that the increased exposure in mass media and popular media is a positive sign of society moving forward but there is still controversy around casting transgender roles to cisgender - instead of transgender - actors and actresses.

Transparent is an Amazon original series portraying the experiences of a family who learn that their father self-identifies as a woman. The show is praised for accurately representing the trans community but still receives criticism for casting a cisgender actor, Jeffrey Tambor, in the role of Maura Pfefferman, the transgender father. However, the show has greater authenticity due to Rhys Ernst and Zackary Drucker having drawn on their experiences as transgender individuals while editing the script and co-producing the show. [1] [2]

I incorporated the changes suggested by Khajidah. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggest changing "identifies themselves" to "self-identifies". --Khajidha (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Done - Jrweaver737, Khajidah, is this an acceptable revision of the text? I do have concerns about the citations and where they are placed, but we can deal with that next. Cheers, 21:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems good to me. I share your concerns about the citations. --Khajidha (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Editors adding material on pop culture need to be aware of Wikipedia:Systemic_bias and avoid an undue bias towards content on American and Anglophone pop culture. That material might better belong in a separate page on Transgender in American pop culture. Trankuility (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Basic definition still not correct

This can not stand, this is the basic definition of the term. Transgender is a blanket term that includes many different types of people and does not necessarily have anything to do with someone's self proclaimed identity. I quote from the APA: "Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth" This page is deliberately leaving out the BEHAVIOR part of it. It needs to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

How is behavior different from expression? Funcrunch (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I came to this page because I don't know specifically what "Transgender" means. I have no judgement; I simply want more information. This page doesn't provide that; it seems like it jumps right in with a debate. People who feel they were born expressing the wrong gender, or people with a miss-match between genes and gender as a function of gene expression? Is it only for hermaphrodites? People who have sex changes? Both? Neither? I hope somebody with basic knowledge can write a few basic sentences. Further more, if the definition of this term is under debate, perhaps it could be written "The precise meaning of the term is under debate, but in some cases it is defined as ... and in other it is defined as ...". Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.94.178 (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The lead sentence is in fact the currently accepted definition of transgender: "Transgender people experience a mismatch between their gender identity or gender expression and their assigned sex." The term "hermaphrodite" is not appropriate to use for humans; the preferred term is intersex. Some intersex people are transgender and some aren't. Funcrunch (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

To make my above response more clear by rewording the lead sentence specifically as a definition: "A transgender person is a person who experiences a mismatch between their gender identity or gender expression and their assigned sex." Funcrunch (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps it might be a good idea to add a section before "Evolution of transgender terminology" than expands on the sentences you've written here, and gives some broad examples? An introduction for those who know nothing? I come to Wikipedia ever day to learn about topics that I know nothing about. For example, electric field has an initial section that is horrible - only somebody who understands electric fields will understand the page. I think now that I think about it, it isn't a definition I'm want, but an introduction. I found this website to have some great introductory material. However, I would tend to trust Wikipeida editors more for introductions than the APA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.94.178 (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Clarify this statistic

Summarizing healthcare, discrimination and laws in the lead

Lead changes

I reverted Wwallacee's changes to the lead (seen here and here), per the "is a term whose precise meaning is in flux, since activist groups, religious groups and scientists have often defined it in different ways." sentence not being a valid WP:Lead sentence, per recent discussions now seen at Talk:Transgender/Archive 4 and Talk:Transgender/Archive 5 about defining the topic, and per this, this and this recent discussion at Talk:Transsexual about defining the topic and what should be in the lead. Per WP:Lead sentence, the lead sentence should clearly define the topic when it can. And it can in this case. The lead should not take sides on what is or is not transgender, but should rather report what the literature states...with WP:Due weight. Given that the terms transgender and transsexual are sometimes used interchangeably, but transsexual is commonly considered an aspect of transgender and so many transgender people reject the term transsexual (even if they had hormone replacement therapy and/or other sex reassignment therapies), and that intersex people may identify as transgender or transsexual, the lead should not state "[Transgender] is not synonymous with a transsexual, defined as a person who undergoes surgery or hormone treatment to change their secondary sexual characteristics. And both are to be distinguished from hermaphrodite or intersex people, who are born with gonads that are not fully male or female, or even with chromosomes that are neither male nor female." Yes, the terms transgender and transsexual are sometimes distinguished, and intersex people may not be transgender or transsexual, but there is no consensus in the literature regarding the interchangeability of transgender and transsexual, and we should not be telling our readers how to think. Furthermore, the word hermaphrodite is considered an inappropriate descriptor for humans. And, per WP:Lead, the lead should adequately summarize the article.

I prefer the lead that -sche mostly wrote, and that's what I reverted to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I also dislike Wwallacee's wording of "chromosomes that are neither male nor female." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And as for "Activist groups have recently promoted a range of new terms that complicate or undermine the above definitions - terms such as transitioning gender, genderqueer, bigender, pangender, genderfluid, or agender.", it's not just activist groups, and "transitioning gender" would need to be sourced. And if sourced, it should not redirect to the Transitioning (transgender) article. It should redirect to the Genderqueer article and have a bit of material on it there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

One more thing: I want to know what Wwallacee meant by "references to unreliable sources." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your revert, Flyer22, and thank you for starting this discussion on the talk page. On the changes made to the inclusion of intersex, I believe that Wwallacee may have been attempting to describe intersex as a separate, distinct concept, in the same way that being lesbian, gay or bisexual is a distinct concept. I don't believe Wwallacee was intending to suggest that there is no overlap in populations, as clearly there is an overlap in each of those cases. If the language on intersex is updated then the language used by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is a reliable source, and similar language is spreading to other UN agencies and institutions. Trankuility (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that was Wwallacee's intention as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I have undone the revert because it is not an improvement on my version, however imperfect it may be. The lead as it stood prior to my edit read more like an activist political statement than like an encyclopedia article. At the very least, I made the lead clearer and more coherent. I also incorporated suggestions made in the Talk page (including the material user Flyer22 objects to about the fluidity of the definition). To avoid a revert war, please improve the page rather than reverting again.Wwallacee (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Re chromosomes: there are cases of hermaphrodism that are due to failure of the gonads to produce hormones, or failure of those hormones to be effective at their receptors; and there are other cases of hermaphrodism which are due actually to chromosomal abnormalities such as XXY etc.Wwallacee (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: unreliable sources - sources such as a local activist group's website, in contrast to the American Psychological Association's website, which I consider a reliable source.Wwallacee (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources and appropriate language on the intersex page. It's not clear that the American Psychological Association is a more appropriate source than a leading human rights institution. Intersex is not a psychological issue, except in the contexts of, inter alia, managing stigma. Trankuility (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

My proposed improvements to the Lead of this page have been reverted twice. Rather than revert again, I am tagging the page as needing an expert. It seems to me that the page as it stands violates Wikipedia's requirement for a neutral point of view. In particular the page gives undue weight to the positions of acitivist groups as opposed to mainstream medical and psychological thought. In my opinion this verges on pseudoscience.Wwallacee (talk)

You were reverted by me first, as is clear above. And you were reverted by JzG afterward. You stated, "The lead as it stood prior to my edit read more like an activist political statement than like an encyclopedia article. At the very least, I made the lead clearer and more coherent." I disagree. And the sources you take issue with can be easily replaced; for example, I just replaced the first three. Yes, that first source is citing GLAAD, but that's because GLAAD is considered a reliable source for LGBT issues. Furthermore, these sources, and even the sources you called activist sources, state the same thing that the American Psychological Association states about the term's definition: "an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth." Therefore, since the literature commonly defines the term transgender in this way, WP:In-text attribution is not needed in this case. There is no need to single out the American Psychological Association's commentary. Doing so also makes it seems like only the American Psychological Association states that, which is a violation of WP:In-text attribution. All we need to state for the first sentence is that "Transgender people experience a mismatch between their gender identity or gender expression and their assigned sex." We can go into the umbrella term aspect after that, like we already do. The only thing that was WP:Undue about the current lead was the prevalence information, which I removed from the lead; per WP:Lead, that should be covered lower before it's covered in the lead. There is no WP:Fringe violation in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Violation or no violation, the lead nevertheless exhibits poorly structured writing. The title of the article is "Transgender." However, the subject of the first sentence is not "transgender" but instead "transgender people." (bait and switch, we call that.) Then the subject of the second sentence is "transgender" considered as a term. (Switchback!) I think it is legitimate to expect of an article whose title is (according to the article itself, not to mention the OED) an adjective -- thus a _word_ as such, either a simple definition[Transgender is an adjective describing....] or a statement to the effect that the definition is currently in flux. Because this term is so frequently in the news these days, the article about it deserves a clearly composed lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.136.240 (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

IP, see WP:Not a dictionary and WP:Refers. While this article addresses the definition of the word, it is not about the word. Wikipedia has articles on words, but this is not one of them. It is common for our articles to address the concept first, and then note definitional aspects after that, whether in the lead or lower in the article (via a Definitions section or similar), or both. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I feel it is important to note, that while several style guides do suggest that transgender only be used as a adjective, many people including transgender people use it as a noun. This article has transgender used as a noun several times when quoting articles.

Factchecker170 (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Point of View / Neutrality

As I expressed above in the Lead Changes section, I find that the point of view in this article is not consistent with the neutrality required of an encyclopedia. In particular, the political agendas of certain activist groups are being imposed and given undue weight as against scientific biology and psychology. I have tagged the article accordingly.Wwallacee (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your tags because the "expert needed" tag assumes that no one here is experienced enough in this topic to source the lead properly. That is incorrect. Furthermore, the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are not written by experts. And Template:Expert needed states, "When adding this template to an article, state the specific issue that you believe a subject-matter expert needs to address – not 'the whole page in general'. This may be done using the |reason= parameter and/or on the article's talk page. An unexplained or trivial {{expert needed}} tag can be and should be removed by any editor, and is usually replaced with {{expert needed talk}} on the article's talk page if the reason for the request was clear but the issue is minor. Realistically, do not expect a response when posting this tag. It is very rare for any subject-matter expert to respond as a result of seeing these tags. Your issue is far more likely to be addressed by one of the alternative methods listed in When to use."

And as for Template:POV, you have not shown any WP:Neutral violation. Like I noted a little above, what you removed is supported well enough in the literature, and the lead sentence should usually be precise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wwallacee: First of all, Wikipedia articles are about concepts, not words. We are an encyclopedia, not a usage dictionary. Thus I think the original lead is more encyclopedic. Regarding the article not reflecting biology and psychology, could you be more specific about what viewpoint of biology or psychology is not adequately represented so that it could be discussed here? Kaldari (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the POV is all too evidently that of a believer/activist/'community' voice. The whole subject is treated as if it is established it's a real physical condition, when all professional opinion agrees it is a MENTAL DISORDER. People who think they are a cat, or a six year old girl when really a middle-aged man are clearly mentally deranged, but there's been a concerted campaign by the politically correct 'CGBT community' to put trans in the realms of sexual choice and human rights. Cutting off bits of a mental patient because they say they need it done is not caring or sensible. They need curing, not encouraging. It's become a PC campaign by students who should be learning, not thinking they know and pretending to be politicians. But all too often these ludicrous campaigns get started, and all discourse is halted by mob bullying, and eventually they get their way and it's accepted as a human rights issue by some such as the media, it's utterly ridiculous. Some surgeons have amputated legs for people obsessed with their need for amputation. That isn't the role of a doctor. Neither is altering sexual organs with plastic surgery. I consider it an extreme form of transvestism, another mental condition. 146.199.204.178 (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

More on POV neutrality and expert needed

Folks, I still maintain that this article is not POV-neutral, and in particular it seems to me that several critical comments made in the Talk page have a common root in the lack of POV neutrality of this article. These comments have not only not been heeded, but they have been sidelined.

One comment is that "the lead exhibits poorly structured writing", because it begins "Transgender people" when the title of the article is "Transgender". Another comment is that "Transgender is a blanket term that includes many different types of people and does not necessarily have anything to do with someone's self proclaimed identity." And a third comment is: "I came to this page because I don't know specifically what "Transgender" means. ... I simply want more information. This page doesn't provide that; it seems like it jumps right in with a debate. People who feel they were born expressing the wrong gender, or people with a miss-match between genes and gender as a function of gene expression? Is it only for hermaphrodites? People who have sex changes? Both? Neither? ... Further more, if the definition of this term is under debate, perhaps it could be written "The precise meaning of the term is under debate, but in some cases it is defined as ... and in other it is defined as ...".

The latter two comments have actually been removed from the Talk page, but are acsessible in the History pages here.

These comments are still true of the article as it stands today - and the common thread that explains them is that the lead is written from the point of view of a political activist who is advocating for a cause, rather than from a more objective, encyclopedic point of view.

The citations for the first sentence of the lead are better chosen now, but the actual text of the first sentence does not match the wording of the definition found in the citations. Moreover, the definition given in the citations is the same as that of the American Psychological Association's statement - so why not cite that too? In effect, there is consensus among the sources, but this is not yet reflected in the language of the lead. - Wwallacee (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

With regard to the "expert needed" tag: what is lacking from this article from a scientific perspective is a clear distinction between biology and psychology. To repeat my earlier comment: there needs to be a distinction made between cases of Transgender where there are biological ambiguities in terms of "assigning the sex at birth", versus cases where a person doesn't "feel right" in their assigned gender. The biological ambiguities can be due problems with the function of the gonads, or with the function of the hormones secreted by the gonads, or even due to chromosomal abnormalities such that the person is not even clearly chromosomally male or female. I am asking for an expert to review this because I don't want to be the only one pontificating about it. - Wwallacee (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Wwallacee, the questions that you described as being "removed from the Talk page" were automatically archived by a bot, not removed by editors. This talk page has a very long history and is automatically archived by a bot on a regular basis. Search the page history for "Lowercase sigmabot III". Funcrunch (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Wwallacee, I do not understand your POV claims or "expert needed" assertion, especially since more than one editor here is well-versed in this topic. I see no support for the tags you re-added and no strong arguments for them. Because of this, unless enough support for those tags forms, I will be removing them again. I will wait at least two days. And, once again, there is nothing wrong with the well-sourced WP:Lead sentence. Like I told the IP above: "See WP:Not a dictionary and WP:Refers. While this article addresses the definition of the word, it is not about the word. Wikipedia has articles on words, but this is not one of them. It is common for our articles to address the concept first, and then note definitional aspects after that, whether in the lead or lower in the article (via a Definitions section or similar), or both." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, Wwallacee, the article has drastically changed since those old comments you cited; so I fail to see how any of that commentary reflects the current state of the article. Furthermore, this talk page and Talk:Transsexual commonly get drive-by criticism, usually based on the editor's point of view regarding what they believe to be transgender or transsexual. Wikipedia goes by what the sources state with WP:Due weight, not the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors or readers. WP:Due weight is a part of the WP:Neutral policy. And being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

One more thing: You stated, "The citations for the first sentence of the lead are better chosen now, but the actual text of the first sentence does not match the wording of the definition found in the citations. Moreover, the definition given in the citations is the same as that of the American Psychological Association's statement - so why not cite that too? In effect, there is consensus among the sources, but this is not yet reflected in the language of the lead." But I told you above: "These sources, and even the sources you called activist sources, state the same thing that the American Psychological Association states about the term's definition: 'an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.' Therefore, since the literature commonly defines the term transgender in this way, WP:In-text attribution is not needed in this case. There is no need to single out the American Psychological Association's commentary. Doing so also makes it seems like only the American Psychological Association states that, which is a violation of WP:In-text attribution. All we need to state for the first sentence is that 'Transgender people experience a mismatch between their gender identity or gender expression and their assigned sex.' We can go into the umbrella term aspect after that, like we already do." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

In other words, Wwallacee, the first sentence does not need to state "is an umbrella term," especially since this article is not about the term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added a final sentence to the lede, to distinguish transgender from intersex (what Wwallacee described as physical ambiguities) and I've also added a couple of reliable references. Following that, I've removed the expert request, given that this was explicitly requesting that psychological and physiological issues be distinguished. Trankuility (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Funcrunch - fair enough, the Talk item was archived by a bot - but that happened on 8 April 2016, i.e. less than ten days ago, and while this discussion was still under way. Moreover the item that was archived dated back only to February 2016, and the length of the Talk page was quite short - too short to justify archiving any material. So I believe my note of surprize was warranted.

Flyer22, I am not contesting the knowledge of editors on this page. But if there is such knowledge, let it be shown! The lead at present does not read like a coherent exposé of a well-understood topic. It jumps from one topic to another without explanation, and seems to assume familiarity on the part of the reader with terminology which the article itself should be introducing. In one way you could say that the lead is overly technical, but the "technical" terms are not necessarily scientific. There is a mixture of political terms like "genderqueer", and scientific terms like "assigned sex" - all of this is kind of melted into an overly-hyperlinked soup.

I still don't fully understand what you objected to in my previous edit of the lead. It seems to me that I was fair to all points of view, even though some of them are quite fringe. I think most importantly, what I tried to do was to separate out the different strands of the topic and put them in sequence. For instance there are the mainstream definitions ("Transgender is an umbrella term...") that still assume an underlying male/female dualism; and then there are the alternative definitions that contest the male/female dualism; and then there is the biology, which normally does include male/female dualism, but in rare cases this is more ambiguous.

In my previous edit I also wrote the lead starting with the phrase "Transgender is a term...", which I believe, along with the previously-cited editor, to be the preferrable phrasing. Beginning the article with the phrase "Transgender people experience" is self-referential and assumes the definition that the article itself purports to be giving. I'm not saying that the article is about the term, but I am saying (along with the other anonymous editors I previously cited) that the term itself is in need of definition, and that the reader's knowledge of the term, and of its use in a particular social context, should not be assumed.

I am not at all insisting that my previous edit be restored, but I would like you take another look at it and try to understand what good points it may have had, and also to articulate your own objections to it - other than simply "we were here first and we don't like being criticized". In particular, if you do try to craft a new lead, I urge you to look at my previous edit as a model for the sequence of material.

With regard to the American Psychological Association, I am not going to press the point, but I don't understand your unwillingness to add in that citation. I am not recommending it be "singled out" or that it be the only citation. It's true that in my previous edit I did make it the only citation, but at that time you had not introduced your new ones.

In conclusion, if the lead can be rewritten peacefully and in a constructive spirit to address the above criticisms, I am willing to withdraw my request for an expert and for POV review. -Wwallacee (talk) 06:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

One more comment: Flyer22, you said that "the article has drastically changed since those old comments I cited". I strongly disagree for the following reasons. First of all, the comments are not old, having been made only two months ago. More importantly, the article has not actually changed very much, at least with respect to the lead, and above all, whatever changes have occurred have not really remedied the criticisms made in those previous comments. Compare the current version of the lead with the version as of 8 February 2016, i.e. as it stood before the "old comments" were made. In other words, the reason I am resurrecting those comments is that they are still valid. -Wwallacee (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Wwallacee - re archives, I should have also noted that links to them are available on this talk page; the most recent is here. I'm not sure who is responsible for the bot setup and whether it archives when the page reaches a certain length or after a certain number of days, but it might be worth reviewing if active discussions are being archived too frequently.

In regards to your above commentary, I question labeling the term genderqueer as "political" while labeling the term assigned sex as "scientific." Indeed, many people I've encountered who deny that trans identities are valid say that assigned sex is just political correctness for "actual" sex. (I speak as an agender trans person myself.) Funcrunch (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Wwallacee, you argue that the knowledge of editors on this talk page, with regard to transgender issues, is not being shown because of your objections to how the lead is presented; I disagree with that assertion because what you are contesting is well-supported in the literature. I told you that it is not simply an "activist" matter. And I state that as someone who commonly objects to activism editing on Wikipedia; editors know that I commonly point to WP:Activism. You stated, "The lead at present does not read like a coherent exposé of a well-understood topic. It jumps from one topic to another without explanation, and seems to assume familiarity on the part of the reader with terminology which the article itself should be introducing." But, per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the topic; it is not meant to be overly detailed. More detail is for the lower part of the article. I think the lead does an okay job of clarifying what being transgender means and addressing the different aspects of it. That is what a lead here at Wikipedia is supposed to do. It needs to address the terms (well, some of them) you call overly technical (WP:TECHNICAL), but it does not need to define each of those terms.

I'm not sure how else to explain to you why I objected to your edits to the lead, other than what I stated to you above. I was also clear to address your WP:Fringe concerns; while "bigender," "pangender" and "agender" can be validly argued as WP:Fringe, the topic of genderqueer (or genderfluid) is not WP:Fringe, and "bigender," "pangender and "agender" are aspects of genderqueer; it is therefore fine to briefly note these aspects in the lead, especially since they are significantly addressed lower in the article. "Agender" has even gotten more traction in recent years, as seen here. Transgender is an umbrella term, and that umbrella includes "genderqueer." That stated, transgender is also commonly distinguished from genderqueer. When health professionals, the medical literature or the LGBT community cite a transgender topic, they are not usually using the term transgender broadly; they are not usually including all the genderqueer aspects and/or the topic of cross-dressers. This is why it's important to simply state "Transgender people experience a mismatch between their gender identity or gender expression and their assigned sex." for the lead sentence, and then to address the umbrella term aspect after that. Notice that we state "may include genderqueer people;" this is exactly per what I just stated.

We should not start this article off by stating "Transgender is a term"; do read WP:Refers, which makes it clear that cases like these should not be treated that way. This article is about transgender people; it is not about the term transgender. A lead sentence can have a definition without stating "is a term for" (or similar), and the lead sentence of this article is a definition without treating this article like it is about the word. It is very common to start a Wikipedia article off this way, and then go into the definitional aspects after that. That's what this article does.

As for the American Psychological Association source, it is not needed. A few sources exist in lead essentially stating the same thing. I don't like citation overkill.

Yes, I stated that "the article has drastically changed since those old comments [you] cited." It seemed to me that you were citing significantly old comments. This article underwent a drastic overhaul in August 2015 (take a look), around the same time that the Transsexual article underwent a drastic overhaul. For how these overhauls started, see this discussion from the Transsexual talk page and keep scrolling down until you reach the Cross-dressing section. The editor largely responsible for those overhauls is -sche. This edit shows what the article looked like before that overhaul; notice the bullet-point format of the lead, and that the lead no longer looks like that. When it comes to the latest complaints about the definitional aspect of this article and the Transsexual article, there has been one editor (an IP editor, with the use of different IPs) mainly doing the complaining, as seen at Talk:Transgender/Archive 5#Definition is wrong and not supported by the rest of the article, Talk:Transgender/Archive 5#Basic definition is not correct and Talk:Transgender/Archive 6#Basic definition still not correct. And it's based on that IP's viewpoint, not on judging the transgender literature with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This article, like most articles, is not about a word but rather a topic; it would be so inappropriate for the article to be phrased like "Transgender is a term that refers to..." that there is a widely-cited essay advising against that, as mentioned already. As for the content of the lead: it is supported by the consensus of reliable sources on the subject. (Flyer and others have pointed this out above.) The lead actually doesn't do that great a job of summarizing all the key subtopics the article body covers, which it is supposed to, but that's not a neutrality problem, and can be resolved by adding a few sentences covering the missing topics. I may start a separate section about the article-body topics which the lead does not currently summarize, including healthcare and discrimination + laws. -sche (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I note that the POV and expert needed tags have been removed again, although I do not agree that the changes made to date, or the above talk page discussion, warrant that action. I take this to mean that the editors who I have been in dialogue with will respect my own recent edit in the spirit of peaceful and constructive improvement without outside arbitration, and therefore will not attempt a blanket revert. -Wwallacee (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I reverted because I do not see how your latest lead rewrite is an improvement. It's not as neat, and exceeds the four-paragraph standard that is noted at WP:Lead. I prefer that significant wording changes for the lead be proposed on the talk page first, which is what -sche did. This allows editors to collaborate and build a WP:Consensus by noting what they like or don't like about the proposal before it is ready to be added to the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I myself have now made futher changes to the lead. Once again I am trying to work with the material that is currently on the page, but address concerns of intelligibility that have been raised by other readers. Among other things, I removed the statement: "Many transgender people experience a period of identity development", because the statement is basically true of almost anybody in the developed world, not only transgender people. -Wwallacee (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Like noted in the #More on POV neutrality and expert needed section above, I reverted because I do not see how your latest lead rewrite is an improvement. It's not as neat, and exceeds the four-paragraph standard that is noted at WP:Lead. I prefer that significant wording changes for the lead be proposed on the talk page first, which is what -sche did. This allows editors to collaborate and build a WP:Consensus by noting what they like or don't like about the proposal before it is ready to be added to the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

(The preceding two comments were moved from the #Summarizing_healthcare.2C_discrimination_and_laws_in_the_lead section below because it is good to have discussion in one place rather than two, and the comments pertain to this discussion and not to that one.) -sche (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Wwallacee, I did feel that the latest way you worded the WP:Lead paragraph (not the entire lead) was an improvement, so I restored most of it. I questioned stating "Transgender people are people," but I suppose it's not too redundant and flows better. I also did not like that you moved the transsexual and third gender parts from the lead paragraph; so I restored those parts there because it gives the umbrella term aspect of the lead context. In that case, there is no need to go back into the definitional aspect when we can simply address it in the lead paragraph, where it should be. And stating that transsexual people are changing their sex is iffy wording depending on how one defines changing sex. People can change their sexual characteristics, but there is also the matter of chromosomes and brain anatomy.

Any further significant changes made to the lead are changes I feel should be discussed here on the talk page first. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Flyer 22, I am glad you did respect some of the last edit I made to the lead. I in turn have edited your edit, respecting I hope most of your preferred wording.

Some comments:

I moved the paragraph about "Being transgender is independent of sexual orientation" up to the second paragraph, because it clarifies or explains statements made in the first paragraph.

In the first paragraph, "transitioning" should not be used without a direct object, because there is not only one kind of transition which the word always refers to. The article that sentence links to (Transitioning (transgender)) refers to transitioning from one sex to another, so I have used that word as the direct object. I want to add that the "Transitioning (transgender)" article has been tagged since 2008 as containing original research, i.e. not being adequately cited. I would actually go further than that and say that that article contains political advocacy.

In the sentence about "transgender congruence", I changed "is" to the more circumspect "has been referred to": the word "transgender congruence" is not a household word, nor is it a scientific fact - it is a kind of label which has been proposed, but is not in universal circulation.

The article Gender dysphoria is much better sourced and better worded than Transitioning (transgender). Among other things I would like to highlight this statement from the lead to that article: "Evidence suggests that people who identify with a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth, may do so not just due to psychological or behavioral causes, but also biological ones related to their genetics, the makeup of their brains, or prenatal exposure to hormones." This statement in my opinion is greatly preferable to the one from the UN Free & Equal Factsheet, i.e.: "Intersex people are born with sex characteristics (including genitals, gonads and chromosome patterns) that do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies." At some point it needs to be admitted that human and other mammalian bodies do naturally occur as male and female! This is necessary for procreation and thus for the existence of the species. Even intersex people do have a mother and a father.

As this shows, I feel there is some basic kind of "reality check" that is necessary here, and that I think is being forced aside by the wording of this article. And also by the wording of the UN Free & Equal Factsheet! But because this wording does stem from the United Nations, I am leaving it in. But I find it closer to political activism than to genuine science.

I have also restored the word "may" in "Transgender people may experience discrimination" - this is not a given.

- Wwallacee (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Wwallacee: Physical sex consists of many different factors, including chromosomes, genitals, and hormones. Intersex people vary in one or more of these factors from what would be expected for a "typical" male or female. This is part of "natural" variance. Intersex (and dyadic) people have parents, not necessarily a mother and a father. A trans man who gives birth, for example, would be unlikely to refer to himself as a mother, whether or not he is intersex. Some trans people are intersex, some aren't; some intersex people give birth (thus helping to ensure "the existence of the species"); some don't. This isn't political, it's simply factual. Funcrunch (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wwallacee, could you explain further what your concern is with the intersex sentence in the lede? It reads to me that you make a non sequitur between your statement about a diversity of reasons for transition and even intersex people having a mother and a father. I don't understand the link you make between those two different statements. The current purpose of gather material on intersex and on sexual orientation is simply to distinguish the concepts. Trankuility (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Funcrunch, I agree with most of what you're saying, and I don't want to quibble, so I'll just leave it at that.

Trankuility, I don't disagree with the notion that there is a diversity of reasons to "transition". What I was saying is that the word "transition" normally has the form: transition FROM something TO something. And in the context of how it was worded prior to my edit, the clear implication was: transitioning FROM one sex TO another sex. But maybe what is needed here is a slightly longer treatment of the concept of "transition". Just linking to another article is a bit abrupt, and can lead to too much hyperlinking.

I've noticed that user -sche has started a new thread below, so I'm going to move down to that one now to further discuss the lead.

Cheers, - Wwallacee (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2016

Balance?

The Constant changing of Transgender to only refer to transexuals

Back in the 90's when lesbian and gay pride in various countries changed its name to Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Pride - it was using this definition of transgender:

Transgender people are people who challenge 'traditional' assumptions about gender.

Then usually a bunch of examples would be listed such as Butch women, Drag Kings, transvestites, gender queer, pan gender, femme men, bi gender, cross-dressers, f2M and Male to female trans(s)exuals, Drag queens, etc etc.

The point was that those who seek to remove our rights and sometimes our lives - don't distinguish the subtleties that we might see. Yes there are differences between groups, but we have a choice: atomize ourselves in to ever smaller groups of people who are enough like me to feel safe. Or come together as union of diverse peoples that recognize in our diversity we share more in common in our experiences of society than those that divides us. However it is this very power and inclusion that can lead to some wanting to say - no, no, no, all the power - its about ME! (stamp foot) NOT all those others who don't meet MY criteria for inclusion. And that power insecurity can been seen in all sorts of groups.

In this context its usually transexual people who feel most insecure. Especially if you have moved from a Cis identity to a trans identity, the loss of privilege/power can be pretty steep, leading to grab onto any identity that has some form of self actualization such as Transgender but then demand that transgender is only about them! Not everyone else who they don't feel safe with, sometimes because they used to hold that identity themselves. One problem is that as soon as a Cis identity can be achieved they tend to drop the trans identity.

Since the 90's I have fought this exclusion by transexual people of other transgender people from being included in transgender. Of power/privilege gaming to gain some sense of self worth, but every time we try to communicate that transgender is an inclusive term, its grabbed by the next series of desperately insecure people who use it to cling to.

So instead of getting into yet another edit war with people who don't understand the history, and usually hurting so badly the need for any port in a storm makes them fight to protect what they believe is theres. I'm instead trying here to Note that the meaning of the word transgender is flux and that whatever is said on the main page is going to change from year to year X-mass (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Further changes to lead

-sche, I note that you reverted my last edit, stating in your edit summary: "edit worsened writing quality and introduced inaccuracies." But you then reintroduced some of my changes, such as the change to the paragraph order. I think your edit summary was inaccurate then, and you should give me some credit for helping to improve the lead. If you look at the recent edit history, the lead has improved tremendously - because of my own contributions as well as those of others who re-edited over me but preserved some of my changes, such as yourself and Flyer22.

I have now done a light re-edit to the lead, and let me summarize what I did:

(1) Changed "neither exclusively masculine or exclusively feminine" to the smoother "not exclusively masculine or feminine".

(2) Changed the wording of the sentence about "third gender" to be clearer. In particular, this term is not familiar to most people and although it is linked to another article, just linking without explaining at all is abrupt, and this is what has led to other editors characterizing the lead as hard to understand (see my links to their comments above). It also makes the lead too heavily hyperlinked.

(3) Created a new sentence for the statement about cross-dressers. This makes it read more clearly.

(4) Changed "is referred to as transgender congruence" to "has been called transgender congruence". Reason: as I've stated above, the expression "transgender congruence" is not a universally accepted term, it is a term proposed by some people. It's not correct to say "is" unless this is universally acknowledged or nearly so, e.g. "Barack Obama is the 44th president of the United States."

(5) Expanded the words "hormones, surgery and psychotherapy" to: "hormone replacement therapy, sex assignment surgery, or psychotherapy." Reasons: "Hormones" is too ambiguous a term - this could include adrenaline or even melatonin! "Hormone replacement therapy" is unambiguous and refers specifically to a gender transition therapy; and that is in fact the title of the article that is linked to. Likewise, "sex assignment surgery" is more unambiguous than "surgery", and is also the title of the article that is linked to. Finally I have changed "and psychotherapy" to "or psychotherapy" because it is not a given that a person who is treated for gender dysphoria will necessarily receive psychotherapy.

(6) Changed "Transgender people face discrimination" to "Transgender people may face discrimination. Again, this is not a given - as it would be for instance to say "Green on a traffic light means go." It would actually be incorrect to say: "Green may mean go." But in contrast, in the present context it is more correct to say "Transgender people may face discrimination" than to assert universally that they do. If you narrowed down the focus, e.g. "Transgender people in Iran face discrimination", there might be better grounds for making such a confident statement.

- Wwallacee (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The added verbiage about third gender being "increasingly prevalent in the social science literature" is undue in this article's lead; I've trimmed it. You also conflated the point that transgender people (trans men, trans women) are sometimes considered to constitute a third gender with the point that some definitions of 'transgender' include members of various cultures' recognized/defined third gender categories under the label 'transgender'.
"Transgender people may face discrimination" is an inaccurately weak statement, since references state that for many of the named forms of discrimination, a (sometimes very lopsided) majority of trans people experience discrimination. -sche (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

-sche, I once again ask you to be more civil - I have been making constructive contributions to this page over many iterations, and to call one of my contributions "added verbiage" is nasty and untrue.

I understand you feel that I conflated two different points about "third gender". However, I feel that your new change to that sentence has made things more confusing rather than less. In particular, the term "third gender" does not have widespread acceptance in the West, and it should not be assumed that the reader is familiar with it. To force the reader to follow a hyperlink in order to make basic sense of the text, is not good style - as per the guideline on hyperlinking which I must cite again. So to avoid reverting: could you provide a bit more detail to that passage, using terms that you find acceptable?

Overall I feel that the readability of the lead has improved significantly over the last few cycles of edits. I do remain critical of the phrase: "that do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies", which is sourced to a "UN Free and Equal Factsheet". The source itself is political as opposed to scientific; and I find the statement to be unrealistic, because it implies that binary notions of male and female are some sort of cultural prejudice, as opposed to being a biological fact. I prefer this statement, from the Gender dysphoria page: "Evidence suggests that people who identify with a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth, may do so not just due to psychological or behavioral causes, but also biological ones related to their genetics, the makeup of their brains, or prenatal exposure to hormones." (The source given is this: Heylens, G; De Cuypere, G; Zucker, K; Schelfaut, C; Elaut, E; Vanden Bossche, H; De Baere, E; T'Sjoen, G (2012). "Gender Identity Disorder in Twins: A Review of the Case Report Literature". The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 8 (3): 751–757. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02567.x.) This statement provides the basic facts. Facts like these don't have to give rise to social prejudice against anybody. But there seems to be a tendency in some circles to dismiss the entirety of human biology on the grounds that it justifies social prejudice. And that tendency is being echoed here. But in truth, biology does not justify morality - morality is a social phenomenon, not a science or an object of science. - Wwallacee (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

(P.S. - Apologies to Funcrunch for returning to this "binary notions" topic again after saying I was done with it. - Wwallacee (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC))

The "political" source, the "UN Free and Equal Factsheet" is a product of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It's a reliable source for a definition of intersex, but this document is not a source of information on reasons why people are transgender. Trankuility (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I've now changed the sentence in the lead about "third gender", as per my comment above. - Wwallacee (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 has reverted my last change, and I have reverted his revert. Again, the term "third gender" does not have widespread acceptance in the West, and it should not be assumed that the reader is familiar with it. To force the reader to follow a hyperlink in order to make basic sense of the text, is not good style - as per the guideline on hyperlinking. The language I have put in is directly quoted from the referenced citations, so I don't see how it is problematic. However, if anyone does not agree with the current wording, could they please provide new wording that clarifies the issue rather than simply reverting again? - Wwallacee (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were offended by the description of your earlier edit as "added verbiage"; Dictionary.com defines "verbiage" as "1. overabundance or superfluity of words, as in writing or speech; wordiness; verbosity; 2. manner or style of expressing something in words; wording", so I thought it was an objective description of added wording, particularly added unnecessary wording.
You continue to conflate the two things which references say about transgender and third gender into one inaccurately narrow statement. Why do you think "Other definitions of transgender also include people who belong to a third gender" is unclear, and why do you think "Some cultures classify transgender individuals as belonging to a third gender" makes "third gender" any clearer? The phrase "third gender" has the advantage of being readily intelligible: what is a third gender? Well, what is a third mug on a desk? The mug that exists in addition to the first two mugs which are on the desk. So, a third gender would be... -sche (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

-sche, as I have said several times previously, the term "third gender" does not have widespread acceptance in the West, and it should not be assumed that the reader is familiar with it. To force the reader to follow a hyperlink in order to make basic sense of the text, is not good style - as per the guideline on hyperlinking. This is what I am trying to correct, and what you keep reverting to. But your last edit has an edit summary stating that my version "does not accurately reflect what the sources actually say." This is literally impossible, since the language I have put in is directly quoted from one of the referenced citations. I understand you feel that I am "conflating two things", but I genuinely do not understand how these two things are different: "include people who belong to a third gender", vs. "conceptualize transgender people as a third gender". I am therefore restoring the wording I last put in. Can I ask you to please therefore add new wording that clarifies the issue rather than simply reverting again? Thanks - Wwallacee (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's unpack the sentence:
"Other definitions of transgender also include people who belong to a third gender": this means there are some definitions of transgender which include not only the people mentioned in previous sentences (trans men and trans women), but also people who belong to a third gender (who are not men or women). Examples of this are reference works that label all two-spirit categories/people (some of which are very androgynous) or all hijras (some of whom are adamant they are not men or women) as being transgender people.
Next, "or [other definitions] conceptualize transgender people as a third gender": this means that there are definitions which consider transgender people to be a third (and sometimes a fourth) gender. Instead of considering trans women to be women (or men), some people consider trans women to be neither men nor women but instead a third gender (and likewise trans men). Examples of this are North American tribal societies that had one or two gender categories besides "men" and "women" (two-spirit categories) for people who Western reference works sometimes view as being transgender women because they were distinguished mainly by having clothes, occupations, etc associated with women but genitalia associated with men (or vice versa people who Westerners view as trans men because they have clothes etc associated with men).
I think the current wording expresses this as concisely as possible, especially the first part, although "conceptualize transgender people as a third gender" could perhaps be changed to something like "consider transgender people to constitute a third gender" if "conceptualize" is too big a word. (I don't think "consider transgender men and women to constitute a third gender" would work, in part because I doubt that sources which consider trans people to be a third gender would include only trans men and trans women while excluding androgynous, non-binary transgender people.)
The two-spirit and hijra examples I give are for informational purposes, and I wouldn't propose including them in the article unless a source actually uses them as examples (I wouldn't want to run into wp:SYNTH issues).
-sche (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Transgender/Archive 6

Transgender Individuals and the Greater LGBT Community

Proposed Section: Marginalization

WP:Class assignment

Proposed Section: Transgender in Pop Culture

External links modified

Basic definition still not correct

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Clarify this statistic

Summarizing healthcare, discrimination and laws in the lead

Lead changes

Point of View / Neutrality

More on POV neutrality and expert needed

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2016

Balance?

The Constant changing of Transgender to only refer to transexuals

Further changes to lead

Citations in Section 9

Cross-dressers

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2016

Creation of Transgender Healthcare Article

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks