Category talk:Fictional transgender characters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Noun?[edit]

I have a massive problem with this page. The author should perhaps educate themselves about how using transsexual as a noun is offensive to trans people... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transgender,_transsexual_and_intersex_fictional_characters Hardylane (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See below copied discussion from the Hayley Cropper talk page dealing with this issue.87.113.14.41 (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Transsexual" - as a noun[edit]

I continue to have a very serious objection to the use of the word "transsexual" as a noun, which is why I will revert any edits to this article which attempt to do so. However, this not a 100% agreed usage throughout the trans community... of that I am aware.... but the modern, humanist, accepted thinking amongst those people who actually care about whether or not they are offending others is that it should NOT be used as a noun. It is deprecated usage.

The reasons are detailed here: http://www.tsroadmap.com/wisdom/t-word.html

They are also discussed here. http://www.deeplyproblematic.com/2010/05/transgender-is-adjective-not-noun-or.html

This site is talking about the word transgender rather than the word transsexual.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and here http://goodmenproject.com/comment-of-the-day/people-insist-on-using-a-transsexual-because-it-became-familiar-before-anyone-cared-that-its-a-dehumanizing-reduction/

and even here http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender

This site uses "transsexuals" on the page as a plural.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst there is still no general consensus about this usage, the very fact that it objectifies trans people should be an incentive to adopt the policy of its non-noun usage. Since this article has conformed to this standard for many years, it is therefore not appropriate to then rewrite it in a way which insults and objectifies the minority group this character represents.

In other words, if using "transsexual" as a noun offends some people, then why on EARTH would you use it is such a way when using it as an adjective never does?

Please think about this before reverting corrections or adding data. Hardylane (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much any word or phrase probably offends someone somewhere. Why should a single someones hang-ups be given preference when the usage they dislike is widely used on wider wikipedia.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do some research. This is not my personal hangup - it is current accepted thinking. Repeatedly reverting just makes it look as if you are determined to offend. Hardylane (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one else here seems to have any issue with it.Firsly you say there is no consensus now you are saying that is currently accepted thinking.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GLAAD uses transsexuals plural on the page you linked to if they do it why shouldn't it be done on wikipedia.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
quote from the website you gave(bolding mine)"Transgender An umbrella term (adj.) for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. The term may include but is not limited to: transsexuals, cross-dressers and other gender-variant people."MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are not addressing the core issue. Calling a trans person "A Transsexual" is offensive to a large number of trans people. Calling someone "a transsexual person, or woman, or man" is not. Why do you persist on pressing for the term which offends, unless to offend? As I said, there no clear consensus, but for the past 10 years, there has been a slow and steady movement to encourage the media stop it's usage as a noun, to avoid unnecessary objectification. Since both terms are used, I ask you politely to consider the feelings of others and stop reverting to a term which offends. Hardylane (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the usage you object to is used across wikipedia there is no reason why this article should be a single exception to that. These show that you have applied this preference elsewhere in the past but the plurals have been added back in the long term[1][2]. If it is freely and without problem used there and in other articles why not in this one?MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to continue this pointless, offensive edit war, you may. Hardylane (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
A lot of the references use the term "transexual" or "trans" and two of the references clearly use the word as a noun. [3] [4] My third opinion is that it's reasonable to use the word here. Dental plan (Lisa needs braces) 13:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If one reference causes offence but one does not, isn't it simple, plain human decency to use the one that doesn't... or is it just plain obtuse, deliberate intention to offend that wins out here? I find this utterly incredible, that some people would wish to be so provocative. Hardylane (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me - but what exactly is the issue here. I see no genuine interest in this article - rather an expressed interest in avoiding offending Trans men and women. I am all for progress in LGBT issues - but if it does not have the article in mind - then it bothers me little. This article could do with editors interested in expanding and adding content. Hayley Cropper is a character that broke boundaries in British society. Why not use such passion to good use, instead of edit warring. It does appear like agenda pushing. I feel strongly about LGBT issues - but if society doesn't play along, why sugar coat it in Wikipedia articles. The word as a noun appears to be widely used. Only the niche avoids the use of a noun – to prevent offending their niche - but Wikipedia focuses on broad coverage and does not censor.Rain the 1 02:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-dressing[edit]

Is this category supposed to encompass all cross-dressing characters? Not all cross-dressing characters are transgendered or transsexual. What about characters who cross-dress for practical reasons of disguise, such as Mulan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goustien (talk • contribs) 16:40, 25 July 2014‎

Quite right. As of the second CfD, officially "no action", Category:Fictional cross-dressers has been created so non-trans characters known as cross-dressers can go there. --BDD (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word gay is used in a christmas song, And originaly mean't happy. Homosexual is what they are... So sugar-coating this is lying.

A fag is a cigarette in england. Lesbian Came from the island of Lesbos. Why is society twisting the english language?

Then there is Mentally Challenged! I ask you What is the challenge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:798A:C800:3C4C:A796:B38B:76D2 (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Fictional_transgender_characters&oldid=1134944976"