Talk:Transsexual

My hunch was right. "Trans***ual" is from the 20th-century. It dehumanizes and objectifies people into sex things. I researched this. It isn't used by civil rights groups like Human Rights Campaign. The APA style tells people that it is outdated. GLAAD says it is old and don't use it. You couldn't tout yourself to get elected dogcatcher. Arbeiten8 (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Trans editor here. You are misstating your own cited sources, which say that while the term transsexual is largely outdated, some trans people do still identify with it. Regardless, please recognize that any significant changes to an article on a highly controversial topic such as this one need to have consensus. Funcrunch (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Transsexual people would take offense to that statement. Floraracine (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

"Jenna Talackova, the 23-year-old woman who forced Donald Trump and his Miss Universe Canada pageant to end its ban on transgender contestants"

The use if the phrase "forced" here is unprofessional and incredibly vague, this event happened through a legal proceeding that challenged pageant organizers and owners, including but not limited to Donald Trump. The office of Donald Trump released a statement allowing Jenna Talackova to compete before any court mandated decision took place and therefore no "force" was used. Language used should reflect that. 107.2.83.124 (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi 107.2.83.124! The text was literally copied from the source. I changed the text, and in that copy edit, exchanged the word "forced" for "successfully challenged". About the part "including but not limited to Donald Trump", please provide a source for this. Lova Falk (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't directly oppose the change, but I do oppose the reason for it. Saying that the fact a judge did not finally rule on the case means that the organisation was not "forced" is akin to saying you handed your wallet to the mugger voluntarily cuz he didn't actually shiv you. The organisation was, indeed, forced by the threat (and actuality) of legal action they could not successfully overcome. The 'challenge' wording would be reasonable if this were a government body where a coequal branch of government made the decision, but 'forced' is far more accurate, professional, and specific in this context. The incessant revisionism surrounding that particular politician's misogynistic and anti-trans history is exhausting. Ta, Bitten Peach (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bitten Peach. I cannot understand you are not happy by my reason to change the text. It is not because I am some kind of revisionist, it is in order to remove WP:copyvio. Please give me a good alternative to the word forced, and I put it in. Lova Falk (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

No, your edit is fine, and the wording you chose is fine. I was objecting to the original comment and the IP's reasons it needed to be changed at all. Sorry that was unclear. Ta, 17:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC) Bitten Peach (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Bitten Peach I can see clearly now that your reply was to 107.2.83.124 and not to me. Lova Falk (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Much of the content of this article is redundant with transgender. It would make more sense if this article focused specifically on the term "transsexual" (rather than the broader concept) and how use of that term differs from "transgender". Nosferattus (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I wonder that Over the Sex Border by Georgina Turtle it is not mentioned under the sources though it precedes Harry Benjamin's The Transsexual Phenomenon by 3 years.

From Daria Cabaj's contributions, she has attempted to add images of herself into multiple articles on transgender topics (Transgender sexuality, Feminizing surgery, Legal status of transgender people, and now Transsexual). All of these have been reverted, and I reverted the original edit adding it, but it went back-and-forth, and to not violate WP:3RR I've made this section.

The image she has added to this looks like a similar image to File:TransgenreatParis2005.JPG, which is included in the article, but the background blur, being created in 2025, not in 2005, when the demonstration happened, and other things make it seem unusual. There are probably other things I could mention about this, but I'm not an expert at images.

When reverting additions of the image, I voiced concerns about AI usage, and on the talk page section she made, she said that "The image is not AI-generated. It is a real photograph of a real person, with only minor post-processing (e.g. basic retouching such as smoothing skin or reducing wrinkles), similar to standard photo editing tools like Photoshop or Remini. It was not generated or altered to create a synthetic person".

Nevertheless, she has received two warnings for including images, at User talk:Daria Cabaj#February 2026, with the main problem being that the images added were decorative and not illustrative. I believe the same problem is also here. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I've notified WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am still learning its norms and practices. I apologize for any mistakes I have made during this process.

My intention in participating here is to learn, contribute constructively, and integrate into the community — not to create conflict. I would appreciate patience, guidance, and help in understanding best practices, rather than overly harsh assumptions about my intentions. Daria Cabaj (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation.

I would like to correct one factual point for the record. The image was not enhanced or retouched at all. It is a direct photograph of a real person, exported without cosmetic modification. No generative AI was used, and no post-processing (such as smoothing, wrinkle reduction, or similar adjustments) was applied.

I understand that concerns about AI-generated or manipulated images are valid, and I appreciate the scrutiny. However, any assumptions about enhancement in this case are incorrect.

That said, I acknowledge the core issue raised here, which is not the technical nature of the image but its encyclopedic relevance and appropriateness. I accept that self-portraits should not be added to articles unless there is clear consensus that they are illustrative rather than decorative.

I will respect this guidance going forward and will not re-add images where inclusion is disputed.

Thank you for pointing out the relevant policy considerations. Daria Cabaj (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I've removed it, the image is clearly inorganically composited and is self-promotional. Please follow the guidance for editing with a conflict of interest (self-inserting photos of yourself across multiple articles counts as COI editing) and propose changes on talk pages (by using the {{edit COI}} template), so that they can be peer-reviewed, and refrain from further edit warring. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe it is unfair to frame unsubstantiated assumptions as factual conclusions. Daria Cabaj (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I came here for integrity and community and I am receiving accusations Daria Cabaj (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I need to address several statements made here, as they go beyond policy guidance and constitute unsubstantiated allegations. First, the claim that the image is “clearly inorganically composited” is incorrect. No evidence has been provided to support this assertion. The image is a genuine photograph of a real person, and there is no manipulation or compositing involved. Presenting this as a factual conclusion without technical proof is misleading. Second, labeling the image as “self-promotional” and asserting conflict-of-interest editing requires careful application of policy. Being the subject or author of an image does not automatically make its use promotional, nor does it automatically constitute improper COI editing. Policy requires evidence of promotional intent or biased editing, not assumptions based on identity. I have already acknowledged the encyclopedic relevance concerns and explicitly stated that I will not re-add images where inclusion is disputed. That commitment remains unchanged. I am fully willing to follow appropriate processes, including discussion on talk pages and peer review of proposed changes. However, I respectfully ask that future comments avoid presenting speculative or accusatory claims as established facts, as this is neither constructive nor consistent with Wikipedia’s principles of good faith. Thank you. Daria Cabaj (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I would also note that comparing this photograph to an unrelated image from France is not meaningful. I am Polish, and the photograph was taken in Poland, in a specific local and cultural context. Drawing parallels with images from a different country does not constitute evidence regarding the nature or provenance of this image. Daria Cabaj (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

As with the others, passing File:Transgender woman at a pride march.png to any EXIF viewer like https://exiftools.com/ shows a variety of tags like 'Claim_Generator_InfoName=ChatGPT', which are all identical to those output normally by asking ChatGPT to generate an image. I'm incredulous that your camera or other photo editor accidentally inserted this data.

I apologize if my tone is accusatory, but I am moreso baffled trying to grasp an alternate explanation beyond the most obvious. What camera do you use? Do you have any other photos from your visit to the parade? Was writing XY on your hand inspired by July Schultz's photo? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 02:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I handle all my photos this way because I am not a professional photographer and do not focus on preserving original camera metadata or production-quality workflows.

I routinely store my images in Google Photos for convenience and download them from there for sharing or uploading. Any metadata changes are therefore a by-product of this casual workflow, not an indication of AI image generation.

The photograph itself was taken with an iPhone XR at a real public event, and I believe the image content clearly reflects that. Daria Cabaj (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I will be more forward than RoxySaunders:

The EXIF data shows that the resulting image was created via GPT-4o, this is not the result of using Google Photos or any other software aside from OpenAI's. Dishonesty is incompatible with a collaborative environment, continued dishonesty will eventually (or shortly) lead to a block. Stop it. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Please check the second photo before making accusations.

This is not AI-generated — the photos are real. Any editing was limited to minor cosmetic adjustments (for example, softening a few wrinkles), which is completely normal and common.

Threats and insinuations are inappropriate and unacceptable.

They do not help resolve anything and only escalate the situation.

If someone has doubts, they should address them calmly and based on facts, not through intimidation or attacks. Daria Cabaj (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I will be more clear.

This image is cryptographically signed as being issued by OpenAI, it is impossible for this to have occurred in any manner other than the use of OpenAI's software, specifically GPT-4o in this case. Any assertions to the contrary, such as the above I routinely store my images in Google Photos for convenience ... Any metadata changes are therefore a by-product of this casual workflow ..., are false.

Earlier you also stated that No generative AI was used, and no post-processing (such as smoothing, wrinkle reduction, or similar adjustments) was applied , but just now you've stated that Any editing was limited to minor cosmetic adjustments (for example, softening a few wrinkles). These are incompatible statements, both made by yourself about the same image.

You uploaded an image edited using GPT-4o, then repeatedly lied about it. Please endeavor to act with more honesty on the project in the future. I will not be responding here again. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Check another photo I just uploaded from the same parade, please Daria Cabaj (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I took a look at the images you uploaded to Commons. Maybe it's just me, but it seems as if File:Daria Cabaj.jpg and File:Daria Cabaj Transgender.png have an identical facial expression at an identical angle with similar or identical lighting despite being in two different environments that (from my amateur photography experience) should result in different lighting and color balance. Is what I just described impossible to happen in two separate photos of the same human subject? No. But it is highly unlikely. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how to send you a link or whatever to the photo I just uploaded, because I am disturbed by this conversation Daria Cabaj (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Nazwa pliku to: Daria Cabaj Transgender.png Daria Cabaj (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The file name is: Daria Cabaj Transgender.png Daria Cabaj (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I have additional photos from the same parade.

Like many casual attendees, I took several pictures for personal use, but I do not upload or publish all of them. The uploaded image was simply the one I considered most suitable for sharing. Daria Cabaj (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I was not inspired by Julia Schultz’s photo.

The writing on my hand was done for the event itself.

Similar symbols and messages are very common at Pride marches. Daria Cabaj (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2026 (UTC)