Talk:Transphobia/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Definition of transphobia/cissexism

I have some issue with the definition of transphobia presented in this article: "Transphobia (or less commonly cissexism, transprejudice, trans-misogyny, referring to transphobia directed toward trans women and trans-misandry, referring to transphobia directed toward trans men) is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards transsexualism and transsexual or transgender people, based on the expression of their internal gender identity (see Phobia – terms indicating prejudice or class discrimination)."

The problem is that it deals exclusively with displays of prejudice and disregards structural issues which have a similar effect on trans* folk, such as the assumption that all women are biologically female. These issues might not necessarily be "transphobic," but they're certainly cissexist.theBOBbobato (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

We should also consider splitting cissexism from transphobia, since they are not the same thing at at. theBOBbobato (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Radical Feminism

People saying there's "no source of radical feminism being transphobic" needs to stop. That section should add, as a reference, Pretendbians.

Whoever keeps deleting my edit, please explain why you think pretendbians (a site that misgenders and openly attacks trans women by giving their private information (phone number, place of work, home address, email address, social networking info) to the public) is not relevant to a wikipedia page about transphobia? StolenBlueBox (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you see my edit summary? I specifically stated that I wasn't going to restore the other text which had no source for the evidence-from-absence statement that most feminists don't do such and such things. However, you also need to improve your content if you wish to add it. At Wikipedia, we use secondary sources in order to confirm the encyclopedia-worthiness of our content. Pretendbians is a real site that does awful things, but that in itself does not make it suitable for inclusion. What you should do is either find secondary sources that indicate that the site might be notable, or work on developing the content we already have on transphobic feminists (like Sheila Jeffreys, Janice Raymond, or Mary Daly who I thought was in the article but who apparently is not!) Does that make sense? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
It does! Thank you, I'll acquire sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.88.4 (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguity

I find the second clause of this sentence confusing:

"Many trans people also experience homophobia and heterosexism from people who associate their gender identity with homosexuality, or because they also have a non-heterosexual sexual orientation."

(I assume that "their" refers to "trans people".)

It isn't clear who is meant by "they", or how the first group differs from the second. It appears implicit in both cases that the hostility derives from an underlying homophobia. But surely, sexual orientation is independent of transsexuality. Is the idea that some people don't understand that? Or that non-heterosexuals feel threatened by transsexuals? 172.56.27.159 (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternative meaning

Apparently, "transphobia" has an alternative meaning in the context of organometallic chemistry. (See the Google Scholar results.) 172.56.26.119 (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Neat! I'm not sure it's significant enough to merit mention in this article (then again, hatnotes are cheap, so a hatnote mentioning the Trans effect would probably be harmless), but I'll see about adding it to Wiktionary. :-) -sche (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

NO ACTION
User blocked, and is strongly advised to get back to work. Sceptre (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article is too pro-trans. When I attempted to add an alternative point of view regarding this topic (to achieve WP:BALANCE) it was reverted right away. The statement was cited with an article by someone notable enough that there is a Wikipedia article about them, so it satisfies WP:N. It's not like I added anecdotal evidence about these individuals calling me a TERF (which is a slur used by these people towards real women); the statement I added was cited and fully compliant with Wikipedia policies. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

When I navigated minutes ago to the link you provided to substantiate your edit (now rightly reverted), I was met by a great big white-text-on-black-screen announcement: "The article you are trying to read has been reported by the community as hateful or abusive content." Thus, your citation is not valid. JohnValeron (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
When I read the article a few days ago it didn't have that announcement. Apparently there has been some public controversy regarding the article and Gavin McInnes has been fired from his job as a result of responses to the article. [1] If anything, the widespread public discourse surrounding the article should mean that his view is more notable, not less. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thankfully, your opinion that hateful or abusive content constitutes a "neutral point of view" is not tolerated by Wikipedia policy. If you wish to promote hate speech, please try a different website. JohnValeron (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how disagreeing with the concept that transphobia is a negative thing is considered "hate speech". The whole concept of "transphobia" is being promoted to trivialize the experiences of real women (or "womyn-born-womyn" as some people call us). 143.231.249.138 (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
A TERF walks the halls of the Rayburn House Office Building! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.78.140 (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not for an instant believe that the vandal abusing the U.S. House of Representatives IP address 143.231.249.138 is a woman, as HE tries to suggest in this thread. It's just another silly ruse by the puerile male intern/staffer desperate to become the House's very own Jester. HE is quite simply a criminal, illegally misusing US Govt property and Internet service. He should be fired and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. JohnValeron (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
What is your obsession with the users from this shared IP address? I don't know what part of my statements would make you think that I am a man. There's nothing illegal about editing Wikipedia to promote official business that has been explicitly authourized by the Representative. When you have other Representatives trying to push for laws such as ENDA, or when you have the EU using neocolonialist methods to impose transgenderism on the nation of Georgia through a visa agreement, it's all the more important. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Besides ripping off us American taxpayers, you are a barefaced liar. I defy you to name the Representative who has "explicitly authorized" you to promote official business by vandalizing Wikipedia, as in this case where you tried to link to an article that its own community ostracized as "hateful or abusive content." If it's official business, why remain anonymous—other than to abuse the position to which you've been entrusted? JohnValeron (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't answer that. WP:DOXING you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement 31.211.192.162 (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Newbie
Not to worry, Newbie. There's no danger of IP 143.231.249.138 saying anything truthful at Wikipedia. He's never done so yet. Why would he start now? JohnValeron (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
To editor 143.231.249.138: No, nothing "illegal" about "editing Wikipedia to promote official business", but certainly against Wikipedia policy. You've been blocked numerous times already for disruptive editing, keep it up and a permanent block on this IP address is impending.

To editor JohnValeron: Tone it down please. This is a talk page for improvement of the article, not a battleground. -- Ϫ 07:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What's the Representative's Name?

143.231.249.138 said: "There's nothing illegal about editing Wikipedia to promote official business that has been explicitly authourized by the Representative."

What is the name of "the Representative" who authorized government resources and allocated taxpayer dollars to edit a Wikipedia article on "transphobia"? SqlPac (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Manifestations - Gay and lesbian communities

Regarding the phrase "trannie boys, boydykes, FTM's, Lesbian Avengers and young gender-variant women", I understand the reference; I'm merely concerned about the phrasing and its overall nessecity to the page. I feel it should either be more clearly shown to be a quote or restated in a way that doesn't use derogitory terms. I'm not an expert on transexuallism, I've only been dealing with the terms associated with it for a number of months, so any advice on how to best phrase this would be greatly appreciated.

HartDesign HartDesign (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we'd just want to make sure we were correct in our paraphrase. The festival had excluded trans women for a while and the source is saying this is the first year it excluded trans men, but I'm unclear on the nuances associated with all of the different words here. "Lesbian Avengers" are apparently cis, but support inviting trans women and were evicted in solidarity. (I'm just getting this from our article on Camp Trans and from following up in sources, because I was trying to find out what Lesbian Avengers had to do with it.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course, I have no intention of compromizing the truth I just feel it could be better worded. How about:
-the first time the 'womyn-born-womyn only' policy has been used against trans males, women supporting the transexual community and young gender-variant women.-
as I'm pretty sure this encompasses all the phrases used. FTM as I understand refers to those who have undergone sexual ressignment surgery so an aditional footnot may be required for them? HartDesign (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The phrase is in quotes because it is (probably) in the source and makes sense in the context as Rosecelese mentioned. I say "probably" in the source because I don't have access to the source . . . the ref is not that good and even has a wikilink in it but if you google the phrase, it shows up often in context of excluding transmen. The phrase should be restored in quotes.
FTM can be linked to Trans man. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm unaware of its significance to the source, however out of context it uses rather jarring slang to refer to delicate subjects. I'm only asking that the choice of words be reviewed in order to say the same thing in a different way, thereby still correctly informing readers without offending anyone. Perhaps the refference also requires a review in order to show this. HartDesign (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"Manifestations in Social Conservatism"

1) The Papacy is not a part of the US Christian Right. In this subhead, they are grouped together. Pope John Paul II's judgment is recited, and then the article states, "Other Christian Right opponents of transgender rights..."

2) The article fails to distinguish that an official Catholic pronouncement on a moral matter is binding on conscience only on those who accept the authority of the Church in such matters. Natural law theory may claim to be, but to the extent that it is, it has to argue itself on rational grounds, rather than faith-based ones, convincingly in the arena of ideas. This subsection makes none of these distinctions.

3) The Religious Tolerance Consultants of Ontario website, which is the only source cited for this section hardly seems reliable. The claim is made that sacramental Confession is a way around the Catholic moral teaching that moral evil may not be done so that good may come of it, since someone could do something immoral, with the intention of confessing it later, while still enjoying the benefits of the evil action. This is not a viable solution to the dilemma within Catholic theology. This parodic presentation of confession ignores entirely that such a pre-meditated course of action represents the sin of presumption. NihilNominis (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if there is much more to say

Seems this has been hijacked by a lot of people who are doing what the article is meant to be about. Why so much prejudice that even talking about it hurts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Beake (talk • contribs) 17:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is difficult to read from someone with lived experiences about this. Been doing my best to note where small improvement contributions can be made, but it would be quite an undertaking. Gersandelf (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The word misgendering

In [2], Godsy removed the word "misgender", claiming it was a neologism (and citing WP:NEO, although that page seems to concern articles about neologisms, not with which words articles use). I see someone has already correctly undone that removal. A look at an ngram of Google Books' corpus shows that "misgender(ed| ing| etc)" has been common enough to plot since at least 1990, and it's about as common as other terms we use in articles, like "methyl sulfate" — specifically, "methyl sulfate" is slightly more common, while the phrase we use to title the article on methyl sulfate, "methyl bisulfate", is so much less common than "misgendered" that it doesn't even meet Google Books' threshold to be plotted. On Wiktionary I gathered a couple citations from 1990; incidentally, those citations and others show that the term is in no way limited to discussions of or by trans people; one uses it as an accurate assessment of what happened when someone innocently typo'ed "Patricia" as "Patrick". -sche (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit you pointed to shows Godsy citing MOS:NEO, which is not the same thing as WP:NEO. Either way, this matter was taken to WP:ANI, with Dennis Brown stating in his closure of that matter, "As others have pointed out, this isn't an ANI issue, it is a WP:MOS issue. Please take it to the proper subpage there. Admin do not decide content issues." Flyer22 (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Whether it is MOS or an RFC, it just needs a bigger audience than a single talk page, as it is a wiki wide issue. And not at ANI ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Globalize

The article should be expanded to include views of Transphobia in other parts of the world.

The Anglo-Saxon world undoubtedly generates much written material in Queer theory in general and the discussion of Transphobia more specifically, and is very likely the leading language of publication. However, it is not a topic that is limited to the English-speaking world. If nothing else, the Language Links in the left sidebar will show the interest in the topic in other parts of the world. The Wikipedia articles in German, French, and Portuguese all have significant references, bibliography entries, and/or External links in their respective languages, with somewhat fewer in Italian, Russian and Spanish.

The article should reflect this. Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

First sentence is wrong

The first sentence is wrong in its description for the basis of transphobia. Currently the first sentence reads,

Transphobia (or much less commonly transprejudice) is a range of antagonistic attitudes and feelings against transsexuality and transsexual or transgender people, based on the expression of their internal gender identity (see Phobia – Terms for prejudice).

Number one, the lede is supposed to summarize what's in the article body, and not introduce new material that is not mentioned elsewhere in greater detail. This description of the basis of transphobia as rooted in gender expression does not appear in the article body.

Number two, it's incorrect to state that transphobia is based solely on gender expression. For some transphobes, probably the majority, this statement is no doubt true, but not for everyone. There are some radical opponents who are opposed to it in principle, and for them it is not true. Statements from radicals like the one from Janice Raymond, "All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact" make it clear that her opposition is fundamental, and is not based on any acceptable gender expression for a transsexual; it is the very idea and existence of a transsexual which she opposes, not how they dress or act. This counterexample (and she is not alone) renders the definition in the first sentence unacceptable.

To remedy this, the article should probably include a "Definition" section, which should probably be the first one of the body. Needless to say, it should be carefully sourced, and competing interpretations (if there are such) should be represented in proportion to their weight in reliable sources. Whatever consensus we end up with as the correct description, may then be summarized in the lede. (The article contains sections for both Origins as well as Etymology and use but neither one contains a definition. Perhaps the definition could be included in one of them, along with a section rename; perhaps, "Definition and Origins".)

Finally, as a minor stylistic or formatting issue, I don't think "(see Phobia – Terms for prejudice)" is appropriate in the first sentence, or indeed in the article at all; there's a "See also" section for that. Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, Without commenting on the appropriateness of a "Definition" section, I believe that a simple improvement wou;d be to remove , based on the expression of their internal gender identity (see Phobia – Terms for prejudice) from the lead section.
Unless there are objections from editors, I will make this change later in the week. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ryk72 that works for me. As I wasn't sure how controversial the article was, let alone how much work may or may not have gone into consensus for the Lede, I was loathe to change it myself. Thanks for your response. Mathglot (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The removal discussed above has now been made. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Deadname redirect

Deadname redirects to Transphobia#Misgendering and exclusion, but that section, nor the entire page, contains the text "deadname". why not? Should it better soft-redirect to wikt:deadname? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi SmokeyJoe, while I have no personal preference for either redirect target (this article or the wiktionary entry), I do note that the Transphobia#Misgendering and exclusion section includes the term "deadnaming"; a verbing of the "deadname" noun. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

this article should not exist

neither should any article related to transsexuality and the like. it's all falsehood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.88.46 (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Why, exactly? I personally believe that this page is somewhat subjective and biased on the matter, absolutely, but i don't see why it should be removed.94.214.239.5 (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Both of you! Not in any way shape or form is discrimination okay! Increasingly, transgender individuals(especially now) are demonized, assaulted, and studies show that this hate rhetoric is ruining their lives! (Redacted) It would also help if one of you helped me take of the worldview exclamation note on the transphobia home page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinawa Rosebud (talk • contribs) 14:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
It is not the duty of wikipedia to analyse the validity of claims. As I noted above, if you have a problem with the terminology, take it to academia and publish. This article cites reliable sources which vouch for its relevance and truth. 2602:306:80B3:DB00:D496:6569:3284:ACC (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Improvements to Summary

I've made a series of edits to the article in order to improve the Summary section, based on the WP:LEAD guideline that the Summary should introduce or summarize topics already covered in the article itself. There were errors here both of omission and commission that have been addressed.

In the former case, there were sections in the article (such as the long #Manifestations section) which had no mention in the summary at all. In this case, I attempted to weave together the subheadings and main concepts from the section in question in the article into a short summary, and added that to the Lead.

In the case of errors of commission, there were topics discussed in the Summary section that weren't covered in the article at all, for example the related concepts of cissexism, cisnormativity, etc., and some of the consequences to esteem including acting out of various kinds. In this case, I moved most or all of the Summary content discussing it into an existing section if an appropriate one could be found (e.g., section #Consequences) and if not, I created a new section (e.g., #Related concepts). In place of the block of text moved out of the summary, I added a brief intro summarizing the moved content.

There is very little new content in this series of edits. I did not touch the lead paragraph at all. The main addition to the lead is the new paragraph three in the Summary which summarizes section 3 Manifestations. The main changes to the article resulted simply from moving chunks of text out of the summary into the right section where appropriate, and perhaps adding some connecting words to ensure smooth flow. I welcome review and any modifications to further improve the Summary and the article.

Further work is needed: in particular, I think the lead paragraph is unwieldy, goes into too much detail, and contains material not covered in the article at all, such as a definition, and the acceptability (or not) of transphobic attitudes. The body of the article needs a new #Definition section, which should get most of the text from the lead paragraph and expand upon it, leaving a more concise lead paragraph in the summary itself. Mathglot (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

When it comes to this edit you made, I moved and tweaked the material, as seen here and here. I think the term trans bashing should be re-added to the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Neologisms

A discussion about neologisms in the Transphobia article is taking place on a User talk page that rather belongs here instead. Hopefully it will be moved, but in the meanwhile it can be viewed here. (Please feel free to clobber this post by placing that discussion on top of this one, and linking here from the Talk page.) Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Definition of "phobia"

I believe that the entire article is fundamentally flawed, as "phobia" means "fear of," but the article nonetheless defines transphobia as an entire range of negative attitudes towards transgendered people, none of which are fear.

Does anyone happen to know an English professor or other expert who could comment on this and possibly re-write the article? 173.172.209.100 (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your rationale is the same type of rationale that people keep applying to the Homophobia article talk page, as recently as this and this discussion. See the FAQ at the top of that talk page; what is there similarly applies to the Transphobia article, especially since, as noted with WP:Reliable sources in the Homophobia article, transphobia is an aspect of homophobia. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The reason that "homophobia" is widely regarded to not mean a fear of homosexuals is because of activist movements that have, for the past several decades, applied the word to anyone with ill feelings towards homosexuals in an effort to suggest that the reasons for said feelings are rooted in fear.
While the intentions behind that are noble, the method is intellectually dishonest, and has resulted in a word that, when one thinks about it, makes no sense. 173.172.209.100 (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
As the lead of the Homophobia article and its sources show, the term homophobia does include fear; it, however, includes other things as well. And either way, fear is naturally a negative feeling; so, yes, it is naturally a subset of what it means to have negative feelings. Flyer22 (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The emotion of fear plays an important biological role in all animals, and is not a "negative feeling," even though it can have harmful impacts under some situations. That aside, taking an article that incorrectly describes its subject and then claiming that the article is correct because the incorrect description is similar to the correct one only serves to mislead anyone who reads the page. 173.172.209.100 (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Ask people whether or not they consider fear a negative feeling, and I'm certain that the vast majority of them will state that it is. And their perceptions that it is negative certainly qualifies it as a negative feeling. As for the rest, I've addressed that above. I'm done replying in this discussion, as similar discussions at the Homophobia article talk page show that it will be fruitless. Flyer22 (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That there are fears behind homo/trans-phobic beliefs and actions isn't so controversial, but "fear" is not limited to that which poses an immediate personal harm. Just look at Societal attitudes toward homosexuality (and of course this and the homophobia article). People still say gay people will corrupt "the children", in the early days of AIDS it was thought to be a homosexuality-related disease, some have routinely promoted a link between homosexuality and pedophilia, some religious figures preach fire and damnation if you're gay, parents disown their children, it's illegal in some parts of the world and was illegal in many more parts of the world... These are fears with a long history.

But there's a simpler answer: "-phobia"/"-phobe" as a suffix pre-exists both the DSM and clinical psychology. See hydrophobe, for example. It can mean fear and can also mean something closer to "aversion" or "repelled". --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason the word doesn't make actual sense is because "transphobia" isn't a real word. It's a made up word - and you're right, 173.172.209.100, its literal meaning would be "an unreasoning fear of change" which is obviously not what the article here is using it for. 173.209.103.239 (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place for linguistic prescriptivism. We do not define the discussion, we report on it. It is not our place in any sense to change the nomenclature. ALL words are made up by somebody. If it's published in reliable sources, it's good enough for us. If you have a problem with the term transphobia, go publish. 2602:306:80B3:DB00:D496:6569:3284:ACC (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

All words are made up. Knittea (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Third sentence in lead

Commonly an aspect of homophobia,[3][4] it is similar to racism and sexism, but while views that are homophobic, racist or sexist have largely become unacceptable in modern society, significantly more individuals still maintain transphobic views without fear of censure.[5]

Homophobia, racism and sexism are the norm in many (probably most) places in the world. Even if that weren't the case, the article should still avoid putting all societies in the world under the generalizing umbrella of so-called 'modern society'. Another problem is the world 'still' near the end of the sentence. It implies that those individuals hold outdated views. (And although I personally agree with that, it is subjective.)

I think this sentence needs to be rewritten or removed completely. Uncle Alf (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I don't have access to the source that's supporting this statement (which honestly seems questionable to me, modern Western society is still pretty homophobic/racist/sexist, but), but maybe "Even among people and societies which frown on other prejudices such as homophobia, racism, or sexism, transphobia may be present"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Good point. I found the section of the cited reference which I think was being used to support the sentence, but it only speaks about the United States. I have modified the sentence accordingly. -sche (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Please excuse my very late reply. Thank you for editing; I'd say these issues are resolved now. Uncle Alf (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Citation issues

The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs of this article as well as the Etymology section have no citations included whatsoever. I was going to add a citation needed tag when I saw it the first time, but I thought that so many tags wouldn't be constructive to the article. However, all of these claims really need sources in order to improve the article if at all possible. Kmwebber (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Kmwebber

The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs of the article are a summary of sourced material appearing in the body of the article. There's a judgment call involved, but Wikipedia policy on the lead paragraph does not require redundant citations in the lead, when the material underlying it in the body is already sourced. Please consult the main body of the article for citations. The #Etymology section should certainly be sourced, and I've tagged it so; thanks for calling that out. Mathglot (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Misgendering - practice or experience?

I'm hesitant to dive in here but wanted to ask about this sentence: "Misgendering is the experience of being labeled by others as having ...". Isn't misgendering the practice of doing this, not the experience of being misgendered? I'm happy to change the page to reflect that if I'm right in my understanding but don't want to trample on something that's presumably had some thought before. Mortee (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I think you're right. I wondered if it had been changed at some point out of concern that misgendering might be seen as automatically malicious if it were framed as an action on the part of the misgender-er, or something like that, but it's like that at least going back to 2014! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

A certain problem with this article

is that it conflates things such as physical violence, verbal abuse, or ideologies viewing trans people as less than fully human (thus justifying the former behaviors), with philosophical or political arguments against notions such as male people being literally women if they identify themselves as such. From what I can tell, Wikipedia already has a WP:MOS policy of referring to such people as "trans woman," which is like "black woman" or "blond woman" or "tall woman" etc., and as such implicitly supports the ideological position that the word "woman" is to be defined in such a way that it includes certain male people (even though this goes against the definition given in most English dictionaries including Wiktionary, as well as the introduction of the Wikipedia article 'woman'), and in fact I don't even have a problem following such a rule if that's what it takes to contribute articles in which this issue arises, but I would draw a line at the point where opposition to that ideological position is represented, on Wikipedia, as being equivalent to committing or supporting abuse against transgender people. Male people, or men, are full human beings regardless of what they wear, how they present, how they identify themselves to others, what beliefs they hold (including the belief of being a woman), or what psychological or neurological condition they have that makes them desire to alter their sexual anatomy, and as such it makes no sense to claim it to be transphobia when someone says that they view trans women as being really a particular type of male person, or in short, a kind of man. To call this abuse seems akin to calling open atheists abusers of Christians, because some deeply convicted Christians feel strongly offended by the notion that their deity doesn't actually exist. If Wikipedia is to remain neutral towards differing ideologies (be it religious or political ones), then there needs to be a strict distinction between actual harm, and ideological disagreement leading to personal offense.

In conclusion, Wikipedia may say for instance that feminists who don't see trans women as women are perceived as being transphobic by some members of the transgender community for having opinions that offend them, but not that they are transphobic, which is the current implication in some parts. In light of this, I'll see what improvements I can make to the article (specifically in the feminism section, as that's a topic of interest to me). I wanted to declare the logic and intention upfront as I imagine that some of the changes I'll make may offend some of the other editors. I also apologize in advance for any possible such offense caused; please understand that I merely want to nudge the article back towards the neutrality Wikipedia aims for. TaylanUB (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of a Talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article. They are not a forum to discuss your personal feelings about a topic, or whether certain things make logical sense to you or not, or whether one thing you don't like seems akin to something quite different. This all sounds like a declaration that you want to add material that adheres to your view of what is "logical", as opposed to what we actually do here at Wikipedia, which is to add and organize material that expresses the consensus of what reliable sources have written about a particular point, and then cite those sources. That's pretty much it. So it would be better to just forget about figuring out whether something is "perceived as X" versus "is X", and just confine yourself to reading up about "X" in reliable sources, and reporting what they say about it.
Secondly, you've already pretty much warned that you're going to offend somebody, before you've even started. Why do you say that? If you faithfully report what reliable sources say about some point related to Transphobia and then add a citation for your change, you won't give offense if you've followed the guidelines. Regarding NPOV: certainly a neutral point of view is one of the core guidelines of Wikipedia, so "nudg[ing] the article back towards neutrality" is a good objective; just make sure you understand what neutrality is in the way the guideline describes it; for example, there are principles of proportionality, which is covered in the section on due and undue weight. "Nudging" doesn't mean making the article agree more with the way you see the world. Stick to what the sources say.
Finally, before you dive in to the article, you might try picking one thing you plan to change, and discuss your proposed change here on the talk page, first. And good luck! Mathglot (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your response. I'm still trying to get the hang of the exact rules, but my intent is to make things more neutral as some of the articles/sections regarding this ideological divide seem biased in some ways. (I suppose they're mostly written by people on one side of the debate, specifically those dominating the public discourse, so some amount of bias is to be expected.) I'm doing my best to curb my own biases, and hopefully others will correct me when I fail at that. The reason I've said in advance that some of my edits may offend people is that I've experienced a constant and extreme vitriol with regard to this topic on pretty much every medium through which I've talked with people about it so far, as the positions I hold are being literally held on roughly equal grounds with neo-Nazism by a substantial number of people, including some prominent figures. (Example: Autostraddle senior editor Heather Hogan has very seriously compared separatist lesbians [who I don't belong to but ideologically agree with] to the "alt-right" on Twitter, which is generally considered a euphemism for "neo-Nazi" by the same political circles [and by mine as well, to be clear].) Consequently, I'm really exhausted and permanently walking on eggshells even just trying to neutrally present these opinions anywhere. In fact, in another talk page, it already happened that a Wikipedia editor opined that a change I recommended to an article may have the adverse effect of indirectly leading to more deaths of transgender people, although they expressed this kindly. I hope this clears up my seeming "paranoia" so to say.
All that said, things aren't nearly as bad as I had feared they might be. So far, I had more headache with ideological positions while trying to edit software-related articles! :-) TaylanUB (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I have some feedback for you, but this is getting too far afield from "improving the article" so I will follow up with you on your Talk page. Please do not reply here, except to pose questions or make comments about the article, and how to improve it. This discussion continued at User talk:TaylanUB#comments at Talk:Transphobia. Mathglot (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Transprejudice comment has apparently been ignored

There is a comment at the beginning of the lead which states:

PLEASE NOTE: When the article Transprejudice was merged into this article, consensus was reached that that term must remain in this article. Thus, please do not remove references to the term "transprejudice" from this article. Thank you.

The article currently contains no instances of this term. Perhaps I'm too new to have been part of any conversation that overrode this comment, but if that's not the case, then this needs to be fixed. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I would be interested to see the conversation that lead to this consensus. Could some more established editor in this article space provide a reference? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
That consensus was reached here. The section was removed in version 625011041 on 23:18, 10 September 2014 by 3298230932782302 (talk · contribs). The consensus to keep the section after a merge was reached in 2007, and the section was removed in 2014. I don't have an opinion on whether this still remains consensus at this point, but since it was removed without discussion contrary to consensus, I have restored the section for the time being, pending a new discussion. Mathglot (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Views about transsexuality

The section header above added by Mathglot (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC) to separate it from the closed #Neutral point of view discussion just above.

It's rather disturbing that any debate over whether transsexuality should in fact be viewed negatively is so roughly censored by the pro-trans.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Whether you view transsexuality negatively or positively is entirely up to you, and you may hold whatever opinions you please about it. Here on this Talk page, we discuss subject matter pertaining to the article Transphobia, and how to improve it. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and it is not a soapbox, which means that this is not the proper forum for discussing your opinions about transphobia, although there are plenty of forums off-site that will welcome your thoughts. Please confine your comments here on the Talk page to improving the article. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe the article would be improved by viewing its subject with a more neutral point of view rather than taking the soapbox position that it must be viewed negatively.NPOV is supposed to be Wikipedia policy yet this article as edited allows no trace of it.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@12.144.5.2: Thousands, perhaps millions, of articles on Wikipedia might be improved by viewing its subject with a more neutral point of view. This page, the Talk page for Transphobia, is about discussing ways to improve this article. If you have some concrete ideas about how to do that, by all means please go into that in more detail here, so other editors can discuss your suggestions. Otherwise, it's just idle complaining, and doesn't belong here. Do you have anything specific to contribute about how to improve this article? Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The article in its present state consistently conflates critical sentiment toward transsexuality with violent conduct toward transsexuals,and makes no presentation of the grounds on which critical sentiment is based.The introduction declares the mere possession of such sentiments similar to racism and sexism,when those with such sentiments generally see no such connection.The only presentation of negative reasoning is under "social conservatism" and alludes entirely to religious motivations.No respect is given to how the transsexual appears to the critic's logic while the transsexual's own self-view is presumed infallible.This does not allow for neutral presentation of the issue or explanation of where disagreement lies,for example,on whether it is sound public policy to grant legal protection to transgender identities.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand your point of view, but someone at this IP has been making contributions since 2003, and if it's you, then you know the ropes around here well enough to know how to interact on a Talk page, what's off-topic and what isn't. You speak well and clearly can put across an argument: now, if you just translate that into specific suggestions on how to improve the article, editors can engage with you. If you just keep restating your opinions, I have to remind you that the Talk page guidelines say, "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it."
Please make specific, concrete suggestions on how to improve the article, or there's no point continuing this. If you just want to vent, this is not the place. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I just made 2 changes that I feel introduce a needed counterpoint...can they avoid reversion to presentation of the pro-trans POV as incontestable fact?--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Your changes were reverted instantly, at no big surprise to you, I'm sure. As this is no longer about improving the article anymore, but about your editing behavior, please find the continuation of this discussion at User talk:12.144.5.2#Disruptive editing at Transphobia. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Transphobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Transphobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Transphobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I know it's been said before...

...but, my goodness, this article is not written from a neutral point of view. Not sure what I can do about it other than noting it; my encyclopedic editing skills are not the greatest, and I don't currently have either the time or the energy to tackle such a huge project. Nevertheless, my assertion remains the same: this is a poorly-written article. Y'all ought to make it less like a polemic and more like, I don't know, an encyclopedic article, maybe? Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You're not wrong, Dozzzzzzzzzing off, it's got plenty of problems. It'll get better over time. Sue Gardner (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

This looks to be one of those WP articles that is written from a niche point of view and then viciously defended, by proponents of that view, against all WP policy incursions. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there a tag we can add in these situations or possibly request partial protection of the article? I agree. It is not neutral and does not feature any kind of criticism of the concept of transphobia. Biased article. 2001:14BA:2F8:F700:B0DA:9E3B:7ECD:C8DC (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
"criticism of the concept of transphobia"? Jesus christ. 82.25.217.190 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we take care to stop this article itself falling prey to transphobic bias?

I just removed a fair bit of copy from the "TERF" section that appeared to have been inserted into the article specifically to demonize trans people. The references to the speaker's corner incident are not relevant enough to receive special mention in such a small paragraph discussing a fairly broad topic and seem to only be in place to frame the section to make "trans activists" sound as negative as possible. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, and both trans exclusionary radical feminism and the "terf is a slur" viewpoint are extremely fringe in both modern feminism and trans politics, despite their often vocal presence online. Looking at the user who contributed much of that section, they look to be somebody who has a history of making edits along the ideology lines of said groups contrary to a neutral point of view. Even if the coverage is framed in neutral language and references factual sources, only providing coverage to support a particular biased point of view is itself a departure from neutral coverage. In order to avoid transphobia finding its way into the article on the topic, I'd really recommend more carefully paying attention to contributions made to certain sections of this article, especially the "TERF" section and other portions discussing transphobic attitudes from self-described feminist groups, given the propensity for activists in that camp to push their hateful agenda in online venues. 80.6.59.134 (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for trying to be constructive and explaining your edit but as I've explained above, Wikipedia at the moment seems quite biased in favor of transgender activists, which is probably the reason that even a physical assault by transgender activists that was covered everywhere in the news, commented on by national LGBT organizations (Stonewall, at least) and prominent trans activists (perhaps most prominently Riley J. Dennis), and is still being hotly debated in some circles after months, counts somehow as "irrelevant". I would beg you to keep an eye on your own biases. I will add back the removed content. TaylanUB (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't "hotly debated" meant that perhaps both sides of the debate should be examined? Given that there are two somewhat different descriptions of what happened that day and two different views of who started and continued the violence, why are we only presenting one? And, how is this event, no matter how it is presented, at all relevant to this article? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with ArglebargleIV. And if an event is well covered, we can use sources that would undoubtedly pass RS instead of opinion pieces from sites that aren't themselves notable. But even then, adding articles that are not directly about the article's topic are WP:OR. And of course, claiming someone committed an assault needs to be backed directly by RS that are not opinion peices. Rab V (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Also have to add that the section on the term TERF currently only cites people against the term and half the section is about an altercation that is at best tangentially related to the term. This clearly doesn't reflect RS discussion on the term TERF and goes against NPOV. Rab V (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree and have removed the paragraph about the assault.
Adding reliable sources with other notable perspectives on the term "TERF" would be good. I have seen people say the term was coined by the people it describes; if this is covered in reliable sources, it would seem relevant to mention. -sche (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Afaik, this is the original reference, but I don't claim it's an RS: tigtog blog post. Mathglot (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Update: this post by the same author is from 2 days earlier. Mathglot (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Let me respond to everyone above in one piece:
First of all, there is clear video evidence of the assault: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_d3ozhSE-U Pro-trans activist websites tend to show a small snippet from later footage and conceal the rest to reframe the victim as the offender.
Secondly, what I just said is confirmed by several undisputable reliable sources like The Guardian, New Statesman, and The Times, in which they clearly state that it was physical assault and note that police is looking for the assailants. (Note also, especially Rab V, that YouTube links *are* allowed on Wikipedia, so long as [I suppose] they aren't used as the source for a concrete claim.)
If you want to add the (provably false) framing of pro-transgender activist websites to the page, please do so, saying for instance something like "this and that source opined that it wasn't really assault blah blah".
As for the relevancy of this incident: a physical assault against a woman by a crowd chanting "when TERFs attack, we fight back" seems highly relevant to a section talking about the term "TERF". (To be clear, the "attack" their slogan talks about is these women's ideas which they want to share with each other.)
What we're seeing here is an extreme political bias by the editors of trans-related Wikipedia articles. Please stop it. TaylanUB (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Please note that while YouTube videos are technically allowed, they cannot be used with respect to living people because they do not meet the higher requirements for sourcing which are required for living people. In particular, self-published material, which this YouTube video is, may never be used as a source with regard to living people. Please remove the link above or I will have to have it redacted by Oversight. For living people, talk pages are held to the same sourcing requirements as articles. If the YouTube video cannot be used as a source on the article, it should not be linked on the talk page either. Skyerise (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I've looked around a bit but couldn't find where the rules you're referencing are explained. Any rules I found about linking videos and linking YouTube specifically didn't mention anything akin to what you said. So before I make the requested change, can you please link me to the rule(s) that prohibit linking to the video in question? Please note that the video in question is not used for biographical information but rather as documentation of a crime. TaylanUB (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Let's please take the issue about the YouTube video to the talk page of the article in question:
Talk:Feminist_views_on_transgender_and_transsexual_people
Thanks. TaylanUB (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Taylan, you ask that the paragraph not be removed without "good reason to, which I'd like to hear on the talk page". Several users have explained (above on this talk page, and in edit summaries) the reasons the paragraph is inappropriate to the article, biased in presentation, questionably notable, and tangential to the topic. That you disagree with other editors' reasoning does not mean you can ignore it as not "good reason". Unless anyone else wants to weigh in, the paragraph should be removed (again). -sche (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

And every time it was removed, it was because of:
  • Wrong interpretation or application of Wikipedia rules,
  • The editor's personal bias against Feminist Current, Meghan Murphy, or other radical feminist sources or individuals,
  • The implication that The Times, New Statesman, and The Guardian are somehow not reliable sources (?!?),
  • The claim that the sources in question aren't sufficient to say it was an assault, when the sources are very clear about this,
  • The editor's subjective opinion that a physical assault related to use of a term is "not relevant" to a page talking about that term, despite national news coverage, coverage by perhaps Britain's biggest LGBT organization Stonewall UK, and several prominent transgender activists.
If that weren't enough, pro-trans activist editors have tried adding sources such as "PlanetTransgender" or "The Queerness" which ran opinion pieces on the incident, and tried to use these sources for factual claims (such as that it was an "altercation" rather than an "assault") despite highly reliable sources (Guardian, Times, NS) contradicting this. Note for instance that on the contrary, I used Feminist Current only as a source for Murphy's or other radfem opinions, or for factual claims that are very clearly evidenced in the sourced article (e.g. prominent social justice activists / social media figures on the pro-trans activist side having defended the physical assault, for which the FC article provides an abundance of evidence most of which can still be found in original form on Twitter right now).
All of this makes me conclude that the reason people do not want this incident to be mentioned in Wikipedia is that it goes against their political ideology.
Wikipedia's point is not to further your politial ideals. It is to serve as a neutral and objective, encyclopedic recording of facts deemed sufficiently important. And a physical assault against a woman in a feminist gathering in the heart of London that had national news coverage is obviously quite an important incident. TaylanUB (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I think that you should leave now. This is no place for your hateful bias. If you can perhaps look past your knee-jerk reactions you'd see that your insistence in including this paragraph is a precise example of what you are accusing us of. The speaker's corner incident is a single incident and is irrelevant to this article no matter how well sourced it is. Not every article about trans people that mentions TERFs is required to contain unneccesary information to support your own obtuse viewpoint. 80.6.59.134 (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
If you so desperately want to discuss the incident then I would recommend you at least do so on a page that pertains to it rather than use up half of a paragraph in an unrelated article on transphobia as a tool to leverage your perspective and provide "evidence" that trans people are violent. 80.6.59.134 (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

For that matter, we should add some copy and less single-minded sources about the term "TERF" which reflect the actual significance of the term and of the exclusionary radfem community in perpetuating transphobia. I would do so myself, but I'm honestly too peeved off to collect sources right now. 80.6.59.134 (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You are demonstrating an extreme political bias right now. Sorry, Wikipedia is not your pro-trans activist blog. TaylanUB (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Whether I am right or wrong you have no right to enact changes contrary to editor consensus. You are currently at 1:4 against. 80.6.59.134 (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no consensus here. There could be 10 different politically motivated editors mis-applying Wikipedia's rules to further their ideology and that wouldn't make them right. Please stop removing content because it personally offends you. TaylanUB (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations, you broke the 3RR. 80.6.59.134 (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I... don't actually seem to have, but thanks for letting me know there is such a rule. If I'm not mistaken, you'll have broken it if you undo my edit one more time. I think you should calm down and understand that what a few violent, misguided trans activists did is not an indictment that "trans people are violent" or whatever. It's only a hint that maybe there's a toxic (misogynist) element to some aspects of trans activism, which could well be worked on if people just accepted that the problem is there. Anyway, this is not a political forum, so I'll leave you to your own devices. I just want trans- or feminism-related articles to have a fair coverage of all facts and viewpoints relevant to the topic, since 1. first and foremost, that's the point of Wikipedia, and 2. I believe that when all facts and viewpoints are clearly presented, the rightful ones will win at least among the well-intentioned people. TaylanUB (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

While it's abundantly clear that the "consensus" here is formed between ideologically and emotionally charged editors (I have been called a "hateful bigot" by one, others have repeatedly mis-applied rules to try to remove content), I've decided that perhaps the article "Transphobia" should not go too much in depth about the misogyny of some transgender activists. As such, I won't try to add back the long-winded text about the Speaker's Corner assault, but instead added brief mentions of the vandalization of the Vancouver Women's Library and the Speaker's Corner assault. That is just a brief mention of two highly notable events related to the damage caused by the term, which should most definitely be mentioned in a section talking about the term "TERF". TaylanUB (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: Just a reminder to everybody that civil behavior is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles, and assuming good faith on the part of other editors working to improve the encyclopedia is a major component of that. This talk page is for discussions about achieving consensus on how to improve the article. It is not a place to state personal opinions about transphobia or other topics, to right great wrongs, and especially not to attack other editors based on perceived affiliations, personal attributes, or anything else. Please stick to how to improve the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Is the section on "TERF" even appropriate in this article?

If I were driven by my personal political ideals while editing Wikipedia, I would honestly try to keep the part about "TERF" in the article. That is because there are a great many factual and reliable sources out there on the violent speech and actions against women that are associated with this term, and in contrast mostly just opinion pieces on "TERFs" supposedly being hateful transphobes. This is reflected in the current state of this section of the article: it contains more information about the misogyny committed in connection with the term, than the alleged transphobia of the people labeled with it. But I'm actually trying hard not to be driven by my ideals when I edit Wikipedia, believe me. In light of that, I just started pondering whether the whole section shouldn't perhaps just be removed from the "Transphobia" article. The parent section already talks about perceived transphobia within feminism. Having a section focused on "TERF" only shifts the focus towards misogyny committed by contemporary transgender activists and their allies, which honestly doesn't sound like it belong in this article.

Therefore I would propose to:

  • simply delete the section, and
  • (optionally) mention the term "TERF" *very* briefly at the end of the parent section in a neutral and factual way, i.e. without omitting the fact that it has rather foul connotations.

I'll wait for others' input for at least 72 hours before doing the above myself. (I will skip the abovementioned optional part in that case, to avoid any controversy regarding how *exactly* the term should be framed here.) TaylanUB (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Your second sentence there is a fairly straightforward admission of bias. That's okay, as long as one can edit without that bias showing. There are also a great many factual and reliable sources showing violent speech and actions from some of the transphobic and transmisic elements of the feminist movement -- some of the people that have been labelled as TERFs. If the current "TERF" section has a "focus towards misogyny committed by contemporary transgender activists and their allies", it is largely because you have insisted that it become that way. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I've been called a "hateful bigot" by another editor over adding factual information to an article about a woman being assaulted. Why do you think I would put up with this sort of treatment if this topic weren't personally important to me? I'm starting to think that this is why nobody else is touching trans-related articles; strongly ideological people are the only ones who are left. Anyhow. I would like you to present us some of those factual and reliable sources showing violent speech and actions by people labeled "TERF" against trans* people. I'm fairly certain you won't come up with much. Hard mode: only events from the last 20 years. TaylanUB (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It's going to take a few days -- I'm not going to be able to do serious research until the weekend. While I might opine or discuss before then, I do pledge not to touch any of your changes before I have a listing to discuss. (Given that I have so far yet to touch any of your changes, it won't be hard.) BTW, I believe that there are people here, myself included, who have been the target of violent speech and threats from a few people (not everyone!) in the radical feminist movement, among others -- I've got a personal stake in this as well. With that in mind, as a Wikipedia editor, I want this topic presented fairly and evenly -- and pretending that the violent speech and threats are only coming from one side, and that they are somehow caused by the word "TERF", is neither factual, fair, nor evenly balanced with respect to sources. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I would say that the question about whether there should or should not be a section on TERF in the article rests on two factors:
  1. whether TERFs are ever a source of transphobia (if not, no reason to go any further), and if so, then
  2. assigning due weight to the section, with respect to other sources of transphobia.
Regarding the second point, currently, the section "The term TERF" is 1.2% of the article (989/79526 bytes).
In addition, in thinking about this, this issue may be complicated by another one, namely the fact that some find the word itself to be a slur or hate term, which is a separate issue from whether there should be a section about the concept; and decoupling the two issues as much as possible would be advantageous to discussing and finding consensus for either or both.
Taylan, is it the concept itself which you wish to remove from the article, or the word? Put another way, if the gloss "TERF" was not in the section title anywhere, would that change your view to removing the section? Suppose the section were entitled, "Radical feminist opposition", and the content of the section mentioned "trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs)" somewhere in it, but not in the section header, and with a note that some find the term offensive, would that change your opinion about removing the section? I'm trying to determine here if it's the concept itself and discussion about it you want removed, or just the usage of the term, either abbreviated, or written out in full. Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem is the word. The parent section already talks about the type of feminists / feminist ideas that get labeled "TERF" so as far as I can tell the only reason the section was introduced in the first place was to introduce and legitimise the word itself. Which was more likely than not intentional (I'll explain what I mean with this further down). But as there is more evidence (as far as I'm aware) of "TERF" being used to silence, harass, and dehumanize people, than there is evidence of the people labeled "TERF" committing comparable acts, the section ironically turned into an exhibition of trans activist misogyny. (Of course, admittely, it was me who made it become that way. When User:ArglebargleIV concludes their research, we'll see whether I was being biased while doing so. I don't believe so, but I'm open to accept it given evidence. Biases are by definition something we can't fully control.)
Now as for why I said "more likely than not intentional" with regard to the "TERF" section being introduced to legitimize the word: it seems that a few days ago some screenshots popped up of trans activists discussing on how to best strategically manipulate Wikipedia. I'll create a section on the talk page of Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people about this in a bit, because it seems they're talking about that page in the screenshots. TaylanUB (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@TaylanUB: Okay, I understand your PoV. Rather than concentrate on whether someone is being biased or not (since that has to do with editor behavior, which is appropriate for User talk pages and not here), let's concentrate on how to improve the article. Also, while it's a good demonstration of good faith to wait and see what another user believes about a situation, if it doesn't concern article improvement, it's not germane here and should be taken to the appropriate venue.
So, on to the topic at hand. There's a lot more to unpack in your last statement than I really want to address right now, so let's try to deal with it in smaller bites first, and see if everyone can come to some agreement, bit by bit. So, let's start with the section title. If we change the section title to "Radical feminist opposition" (or, "Opposition by radical feminists", or "Opposition by some radical feminists") and use the expression "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" in the body of the section, followed by the parenthetical '(TERF)' and a description of its pejorative connotation to some, could you live with that? (Otherwise, feel free to propose your own solution.) Remember that in choosing terminology, Wikipedia uses the common names for things as actually employed by the preponderance of reliable sources, so anything you find in such sources could be relevant to this discussion.
Let's just talk about this one thing first, and try to hash this out. As to all the other stuff you alluded to above, can we just agree to set that aside for now, until we come to some agreement on this? Once this bit is done, we can come back to your other issues one by one, but I'm just afraid if we try to talk about everything all at once, temperatures will rise, and nothing will get resolved. Agreed? Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't personally have any problems with the current state of the section. As I was trying to explain in the paragraph with which I opened this talk section, the only reason I suggest removal of the section is that the term "TERF" is associated more with misogyny than transphobia, and this article is about transphobia. If User:ArglebargleIV proves me wrong and demonstrates that it is associated with transphobia at least as much as with misogyny, then of course the section should be updated to reflect that and as such it would also make sense to keep it. If that doesn't happen and the section continues to be more about misogyny than transphobia, but you also prefer to keep it, so be it; my resources are already exhausted trying to prevent anti-feminist bias.
That said, your suggestions don't sound bad as a general improvement to the section; it could be expanded into a more general sub-section on (radical) feminist opposition to the claim that feminists are being transphobic when they criticize transgender politics or the practice of transsexual surgery, and as part of that it could mention misogyny in transgender activism like the vandalizing of women's libraries or attacks during feminist gatherings. That way the section would be on-topic again in the sense of talking about feminist perspectives on transphobia instead of talking about misogyny in trans activism "just because". Currently I don't have the time for such a restructuring of this section though. TaylanUB (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Just want to note here, User:TaylanUB, that I was going to be looking for incidents of violent speech and actions from those in the radical part of the feminist movement, not necesarily what you said. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what there is to add here. There isn't going to be a definitive consensus because TaylanUB is coming at this issue from a fairly one-sided perspective. The majority of editors above do agree that the section should at least be improved in the meantime, however. I was trying to do just that. What are we waiting on in terms of consensus? If we are waiting for everyone to come to agreement then we're going to be waiting a while. BlackholeWA (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure either, but one thing that is helpful, is when there is a dispute going on, step gingerly if you're going to edit the article page directly by making small, incremental changes.
Even better, is just come straight here to the Talk page, and make very concrete suggestions, like, "After the clause "colorless green ideas", let's add the text, "but time flies like an arrow" along with this <ref>..." or something equally concrete for a removal. An even better wasy to do that, is with "before" and "after" sections, showing very clearly what changes you are propsing, i.e.: Before: <blockquote>The text as currently in the article</blockquote> <br />After: <blockquote>The new text you are proposing</blockquote> and see how people react to that. Mathglot (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

TERF section roundabout continues

People are still making changes to that section, so I'm going to post my revision from a few days ago here for posterity and consideration. Mathglot (talk · contribs), I understand you feel that some of my phrasing might have been too strong, but I think some of the content (particularly regarding the origin and general usage of the term, which would seem to be immediately relevant to the section, as well as some reference to one of the many sources describing TERF groups as prejudiced) could be used/reworked in a future version of the section.

Current revision:

Radical feminists who hold controversial views on transgender politics are commonly called "TERFs", short for "Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists".[1] Those whom the term is targeted against, in turn, have perceived their labeling as "TERF" to be a slur.[2][3][4] Feminist journalist Sarah Ditum, who writes for The Guardian and the New Statesman, said that the term is used to silence feminists through guilt by association.[5]


My previous revision, incl. citations:

Radical feminists who exclude trans people from their feminism, deny their gender identities and oppose trans activism are often referred to as "TERFs", an acronym for "Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists".[1] Those whom the term is targeted against, in turn, have perceived their labeling as "TERF" to be a slur.[2][3][4] Feminist journalist Sarah Ditum, who writes for The Guardian and the New Statesman, said that the term is used to silence feminists through guilt by association.[5] However, this framing of the term is rejected by those who point out that the term was in fact coined by members of the radical feminist community as a descriptive acronym, with the purpose of attempting to address transphobia within their community.[6] Indeed, the beliefs of TERF factions are highly at odds with those of the mainstream feminist movement.[7] In comparison, such TERF factions have been described as being composed of "transphobic bigots" and being "collectives with a simple message of hate".[8] Common TERF stances such as denial of trans-related healthcare, the framing of trans women as threats due to their genitalia, and opposing allowing trans women access to women's spaces on the basis that they are "men" "invading" those spaces, have been criticized as inaccurate and hateful.[1]

[6]

[7]

[8]


Look, I know there's been a lot of back and forth about what constitutes NPoV here. I'm willing to cede ground on the wording of the section from what I wrote above. Honestly, I don't want roadblocks to the section being amended because of particular phrasing of things, or particular emphasis. What I really most want here is to see the section updated to reflect the broader consensus on the term, in a manner that is agreed upon and stable overtime. It really bothers me to see that there have been repeated attempts to colonize this and other articles with transphobic propaganda through emphasis on negative sources, and I'd rest a lot easier knowing that a better solution for the section was put in place with appropriate moderator oversight. What I'd really like is if a moderator could take a look at the section and the suggested changes and implement those that they feel appropriate, if anything just so we can end this somewhat ludicrously long-lasting dispute. I think a moderator decision here is the only way to bring a close to the perpetual back-and-forth. I personally am looking forward to not having to check this page, aha. BlackholeWA (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

"Controversial stances" is too vague, but "exclude trans people from their feminism, deny their gender identities" is jargon-y. (Would someone who doesn't already know what the debate is about have any idea what "exclude from their feminism" means?) More broadly, this revision is trying to stick the whole "transphobia in feminism" discussion under the "TERF" heading. We already have a big section on transphobia in feminism, and I don't think the existence of a controversial term can be used to shoehorn in back-and-forth argument in place of encyclopedic coverage. All that needs to be said is that a term used to refer to the already described politics is "TERF", with, if people believe it to be necessary and can cite it properly, another sentence about its misapplication to describe people who do not hold transphobic views. The "it's associated with violence against women" on the one hand (we don't do this even for terms that everyone agrees are pejoratives) and the "TERF factions are hate groups" on the other are unnecessary and unencyclopedic.
The TransAdvocate also seems to be a pretty clearly unreliable source that should only, if at all, be cited as opinion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Of the three sources you provided, two are opinion pieces by transgender activist Cristan Williams who runs TransAdvocate, and the third is an opinion piece by someone who seems to be a relatively no-name author (Meka Beresford; correct me if I'm wrong) writing for PinkNews. The first two sources could be used to add a sentence or two about Cristan Williams' personal opinion on the topic, but then I would demand to also add Feminist Current founder and radical feminist Meghan Murphy's position. Feminist Current is currently higher on Alexa than TransAdvocate, so TA and its founder are not any more notable than FC and its founder. I would say the PinkNews article should not be used as a source for anything. If you insist, I would in turn insist on mentioning an opposing viewpoint based on any number of op-eds from more significant publishers than PinkNews (there are some on big sites like New Statesman and The Times, which I have avoided adding to the article in the past).
My tone above sounds a bit "threatening" like "if you do that, I'll do this" but my intention is to assure NPOV. For any subjective opinion presented by the transgender activist side, an opposing subjective opinion by an equally notable radical feminist deserves mention.
By the way, your accusation that people are trying to "colonize this and other articles with transphobic propaganda" could be considered a breach of WP:AGF (I think). I'm slowly documenting a collective pro-transgender activist bias in my user page, and you might want to do something similar if you want to make a serious claim of anti-transgender activist bias on the part of one or more editors. I also find it to be a useful practice with regard to reflecting upon one's own past actions and detecting possible bias or hotheaded behavior in times of frustration, so that's a bonus. TaylanUB (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference hp-what-is-terf was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference ny-what-is-woman was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference bm-trans-exclusion was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference cp-sex-gender was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference fc-terf-ditum was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ a b "TERF: what it means and where it came from". Transadvocate. Retrieved 2017-12-13.
  7. ^ a b "You might be a TERF if…". Transadvocate. Retrieved 2017-12-13.
  8. ^ a b "What is a TERF and why should you be worried?". Pink News. Retrieved 2017-12-13.

Steinem's views: what is directly from her book and what is WP:OR?

I just added an "original research" note to the following sentence in the page:

In the 1970s, second-wave feminist and activist Gloria Steinem expressed negative views towards transsexuality and SRS, calling the surgery "mutilation" and expressed discomfort with the "need for and uses of transsexualism."

The reason is that it's unclear whether it's Original Research or a Point Of View that she "expressed negative views" and "expressed discomfort" since the only citation is the book itself and not a secondary source interpreting it. It would be good to provide more direct quotes from the book and make sure that no subjective interpretation is happening here. It would be even better to find a reliable secondary source, as otherwise it cannot be established whether her position was ever really considered a form of transphobia. This is a more general problem with this section by the way, as it reads like it was written with the underlying assumption that all the feminist positions/actions listed under it fall under some objective definition of transphobia, or are widely considered transphobia, etc., when this is a much debated topic. Still pondering on how to approach this issue; input welcome. TaylanUB (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I have now edited the section to be more tone-neutral with regard to what she wrote in the book, and improved the rest of the paragraph to be more detailed and accurate in line with what she wrote in the op-ed that's cited at the end of the paragraph. TaylanUB (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Possibly useful source regarding Steinem: https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/its-time-end-long-history-feminism-failing-transgender-women EvergreenFir (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I used some direct quotations from the book that could be found in the Gloria Steinem page and also used the Bitch Media citation to generally improve coverage of her position. I also made some restructuring of the section... I removed two citation-quotations ("|quote=...") in the process of doing that since the citations are now used in more than one place and the quotation only fits one. Does anyone know if there's an elegant solution to this, or does the whole reference need to be duplicated to use different quotes with the same source? TaylanUB (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@TaylanUB: FWIW, these have been good edits. Thank you for them. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Taylan (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Can you please break up large edits with changes in different sections, or different parts of a long section, bu using multiple, separate edits targeted to specific portions? On large edits with multiple chunks, the diff utility isn't adequate to piece together what's going on, and will often show large chunks as apparently deleted (yellow bar on left) whereas actually they're still there, but appear as insertions (blue bar on right) whereas actually they're unchanged, but render that way because of numerous, intervening changes peppered here and there, that the diff program doesn't know how to deal with.
I just reverted an edit which I don't actually disagree with that much (I think) but it's hard to tell, because the diff shows changes all over the place, and I can't make head nor tail of what's actually been changed. Can you please try again, this time with localized changes in chunks, and call out separate edit summaries for each one, so it's easier to follow and respond to? Also, it makes it easier to improve the article that way, incrementally, with fewer reverts. P.S. I think your original changes to make the Steinem portion more tone neutral were fine. Not the move, though, after the Raymond section, because her comments predated Raymond's. And you're right that we have to be careful with primary sources and seek out secondary ones for interpretation.
Oh, here's where I saw that: about the citation quotation thing: WP doesn't have a great solution for that, but I already posted some ideas about it on your talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
You're right, the diff got botched because I mixed together unrelated edits because I was lazy. Will do them in logical/local chunks now. Taylan (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. Note that I did the rearrangement again, since the "in the 1970s" was unsupported and the book in question published in the 80s. I think the confusion came from the fact that one of the cited articles talks about how Steinem wrote about a person who transitioned in the 1970s. Taylan (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the date: Her comment was from 75 or 77, will get you a reference later, hard to type and research stuff on the bus. Mathglot (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC) It's from 1977. Her 1983 book is not where I originally saw it, but it does include her earlier essay, dated it properly 1977. The '83 book includes a footnote to Transsexual Empire in that chapter which could not have been in the original essay since Raymond's book didn't come out until two years later, but it's illuminating that she chose to include a footnote to Raymond as the only footnote in the chapter when she anthologized the essay in the book version. I can get you a page number, if you want, but it's the last page of the chapter, same page as has the footnote. Mathglot (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruption

There seems to be new editors "from both sides" attracted to this article as well as Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people. Not sure source or motive, but discussion and WP:CON is needed for TERF-related changes. EvergreenFir (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Misrepresentations of Sources: Sloppiness and Outright Dishonesty

I've only read the lede and one small section of this article and found some very disturbing misrepresentations of the sources on which the claims purport to rely. It is academic malpractice.

  • The article claimed that one third of transgendered repondants to the USTS 2015 survey lived in poverty and that 5 percent of the general US population did. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE STUDY SAID. It said 29 and 14 percent, respectively. Come on, people.
  • In many, many, many instances, this article asserts causation when no such cause has been proven and conflates survey responses with elsewise verified facts.

I haven't the patience or time to fix this article, but it is an absolute mess. Better it be deleted altogether than remain like this. Lukacris (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Having two sections for the same kvetching is not productive. Grayfell (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for catching my oversight. This section is actually my main concern, so I am going to readjust but leave this comment so others can follow the change Lukacris (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell Promptly undo your revert of my edit fixing the poverty statistics to 29 and 14 percent. That's what the study says. The revert is error and misstates the source. Lukacris (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Did you see this edit from before your urgent post? This matches the statistics from the source. Is there some other problem here? Grayfell (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Lede: Correlation is Not Causation

The lede presently includes this paragraph: "Besides the increased risk of violence and other threats, the stress created by transphobia can cause negative emotional consequences which may lead to substance abuse, running away from home (in minors), and a higher rate of suicide." (emphasis added).

Either find a source proving a link between transphobia and "substance abuse, running away from home (in minors), and a higher rate of suicide" or remove the assertion of causation. To my knowledge, the link between the two is not the consensus view among psychologists (I don't believe there is a consensus view here at all). While there is a section on mental health and transgenderism, that section offers no proof of causality either. This is a scientific claim and sourcing veracity should reflect this fact. Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation. Lukacris (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeesh. Most people with a high school education already know phrase "correlation is not causation", repeating it over and over doesn't make your argument persuasive.
The lede summarizes the body of the article. This is a simple summary of already sourced content. The source you complain about below is a good example, as it summarizes this as a causative connection: "...the impact of stigma and discrimination on the health of many transgender people..." and elsewhere in that document.
Transphobia is defined, in this article, as negative attitudes, feelings or actions toward trans people. Discrimination against trans people is almost tautological with transphobia. If you're claiming that this harassment, stigmatization, etc. against trans people is somehow unrelated to transphobia, you're proposing something irrational without providing any plausible alternative. Even worse by Wikipedia's standards, you're ignoring what the sources actually have to say on this issue.
Expecting a source to spell-out "proof" of causality is misleading and pseudo-intellectual. Any source that supports these connection could be tritely dismissed as lacking "proof", because the standards of proof have not been defined here. Proof is not what the article should attempt to do. We reflect sources, we do not specifically choose our wording to cast doubt on the reliability of people being covered by those sources. Injecting weasel-wording to imply that these people did not really experience violence is editorializing, and is not acceptable behavior. Grayfell (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The source nowhere claims that "substance abuse, running away from home, and higher risks of suicide" are caused by transphobia. It notes a higher frequency of self-reports of these conditions/events among trans respondents. Those two things are categorically dissimilar.
I have read that study (and pointed out herein a direct misrepresentation that I ran across by accident) and, respectfully, you are mistaken about what it claims.[1] It does not claim causality, which is a distinct sort of relationship for which every discipline has burden of proof. Here's a link to a full version of the study, which does not make any claim of causality.
Precisely representing a quoted source is not pseudo-intellectulism and I would appreciate if you would not question my good faith here. I mean, really.
I claim absolutely nothing whatsoever by suggesting that we not lie about or misstate our sources. I imagine that transphobia is a cause of psychological harm, but it is not my place to assume so, and it isn't yours either.
It is not weaselly to be accurate. I am not remotely editorializing to tamper false representations of our primary sources. . The article nowhere asserts that it was even looking for a causal link. Your reversions misrepresent the source.
Please read the full study that I linked to if you're going to try and impeach my rationality.
I'll assume your good faith and please remember mine. Thanks Lukacris (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The lede summarizes the body, and this is explained in the body at Transphobia#Mental_health. This section has five sources, not even counting the survey linked. Are you claiming that all of these sources are wrong? Fixating on the word caused is simplistic. Using these kinds of rhetorical games to insinuate that trans people do not truly experience stress from discrimination is non-neutral in the extreme. That is the substance of what you are doing, and if you do not see why it appears you're doing this, you're not looking at this from an outside perspective. I am not concerned with your personal motives, but your actions are not acceptable. You are replacing the relatively straightforward connection made directly by sources ("The findings paint a troubling picture of the impact of stigma and discrimination on the health of many transgender people" from the survey) with faux-neutrality. Your edit summary saying that "...sociologists are prone to conflate verbal and physical [violence]" suggests that you're not taking these sources seriously (among other, serious problems) and this suggests that your not approaching summarizing these sources neutrally. Grayfell (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I've made my point and your tenuous grasp on social science is self-evident, so I'm going to leave this for others to settle. Lukacris (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
You say that, but then a day later you add additional content after I have already responded to the comment. That's not good faith behavior, and is not in accordance with WP:TPG, specifically WP:REDACT. In the future, avoid "ninja edits". The talk page is a record of the conversation, not a permanent record of your position, so it doesn't need to be updated when you think of new points to be made. Grayfell (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
For the benefit of others reading this, this comment (as I take it) refers to the sentence "It is academic malpractice", which I added to the first line of this section (not this subsection), and did so only to punctuate a point that was already there. It doesn't bear on this subsection on the issue of causality in the USTS report. Lukacris (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I could also dig for a good source on the topic of social scientists conflating verbal and physical violence if you think that's important. I know that Jonathan Haidt has spoken at length about the subject, and I imagine there are others. Lukacris (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Your quote is a summation of these findings: " A staggering 39% of respondents experienced serious psychological distress in the month prior to completing the survey, compared with only 5% of the U.S. population. Among the starkest findings is that 40% of respondents have attempted suicide in their lifetime—nearly nine times the attempted suicide rate in the U.S. population (4.6%)."

Re.: Better intro for "In feminism" section

Hi Aircorn (and others). What do you think about the following proposal as an intro to the section:

Some positions within feminism have been considered transphobic. This may include criticism of transitioning or sex reassignment surgery as a personal choice or medical invention, the exclusion of trans women from women-only spaces on the basis of not being born female, or the position that trans women are not women in a literal sense.

I think it would be an accurate intro, but on the other hand it may be considered WP:OR as I'm not sure how much the current content of the section really supports these exact claims and wording. What does everyone think? Taylan (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Not bad! And summaries, leads, etc. are not OR, but rather editors' summaries of the content of the section. Thus, as long as it conforms with WP:DUE, it's okay if it doesn't have references. Might I suggest we say not being "born female" since the whole "being born X" is disputed. It would be accurate, though, to say it that way since these feminists being discussed use that language. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't think the dispute of biological sex is a position so widely accepted as to dictate what language or tone Wikipedia should use. The vast majority of people understand and accept biological sex as a reality regardless of their culture, political or religious beliefs, or level of education. The "biological sex is a social construct" position seems relatively fringe and limited to portions of contemporary western transgender ideology (probably informed by post-structuralist interpretations of sex/gender beginning in the 90s). We don't even use such tweaks to appease much, much more significant ideologies; imagine we put "fetus" in quotes when talking about the abortion dispute because conservatives consider fetuses to be babies/children. Taylan (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
A link to AFAB, but not quote marks, would be okay with me. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry missed the ping. This is definitely an improvement. AFAB goes to a disambiguation page and Assigned female at birth is a redirect so maybe we should link the target article (Sex assignment) instead. AIRcorn (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that "AFAB/assigned female at birth" (without quote marks) would be the most accurate terminology in this context, and a link to the Sex assignment page would be appropriate. Vigilant0 (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Works for me! EvergreenFir (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Born female or assigned female at birth

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what was written but it seemed like editors were disputing the use of the phrase born female and there was some agreement to use assigned female instead in the article? Pinging Aircorn on this Rab V (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

If you use "assigned female at birth" please don't use quote marks, and don't pipe it; it is already a redirect, just use it: assigned female at birth. Mathglot (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The conversation up until Vigilant0s comment was unambiguously about using born female without the quotes. For example It would be accurate, though, to say it that way since these feminists being discussed use that language from Evergreen. Looking back I probably misread Vigilants comment as they started with "I agree" leading me to think they supported the change as discussed. AIRcorn (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Has "assigned female at birth" passed out of jargon and into common usage? And if not, are there other alternatives to "born female" that are clearer? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

What about "born biologically female" to distinguish between gender and sex. AIRcorn (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Seems to have fallen a bit out of common use and gets into the weird philosophical question of what is a biological female (are there nonbiological females?) I'd say its a more colloquial term just than other slightly jargony phrases like 'transfeminist' or 'second-waves feminism' in the article plus has a blue link for the curious to click so I think it's good to keep. Rab V (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
AFAB seems like the more accurate and common description imho. Wikilink will let anyone unfamiliar with the language to read about it. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
EvergreenFir, our article seems to substantiate my suspicion that "AFAB" is jargon. "Transfeminism", Rab, is not jargon, that's the name for that strain of feminism, but "AFAB" is a recent coinage to refer to something that already had terms, hence jargon. I'm hoping that if people don't like "biologically female", we can find an alternative that's in common, non-niche use. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I guess this is a IDLI thing for me (if I'm being reflexive about it), and though I think AFAB is just fine, I can understand your position. "Biologically female" is less problematic to me than "born female" as the former relies on older (to me, outdated) language distinguishing sex and gender. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd say second wave feminism and transfeminism are jargon since they are terms people only familiar with the history of feminism would know, but wikipedia can and should use jargon when appropriate. I'd agree the acronym AFAB is jargon and needlessly technical for the article but 'assigned female at birth' is a self explanatory term. And though the acronym AFAB is newer, the idea of sex assignment is not. Would a small explanation of the phrase in article be helpful though? Rab V (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
There are no more common terms for second-wave feminism or transfeminism though, whereas AFAB is mostly a fringe synonym to born female. The only people who are AFAB but not born female are intersex people, which is unrelated to the topic. Otherwise, for people who base their terminology on gender identity, "born female" could of course be confused with "born with a female gender identity (regardless of physical characteristics)" but that would be an extremely fringe interpretation of the phrase "born female". To my understanding, this fringe view is mostly the reason the term was popularized in the first place, so I don't understand why it should be used as a common term on Wikipedia, instead of being noted as a term used by people who adhere to a particular ideology? Taylan (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I agreed the acronym is jargonny and should not be used (or would require explanation if used) but the full term "assigned female" or "assigned female at birth" are clear, most accurate and good options for this instance. Here is a reference guide from GLAAD talks about issues with terms like 'biological female' when used to refer to transgender people. Rab V (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're calling the language of "sex assignment" fringe when its used by the American Medical Association's Manual of Style, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Australian Medical Association (p. 5), and the American Psychological Association. Moreover, the Associated Press directs its journalists to avoid "born as a boy/girl. The "assigned female/male at birth" and "sex assignment" language is also used by the NYTimes, NBC News, CBS News, and the BBC. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
She's calling it fringe because she's a terf and has ulterior motives about how she wants to sway the article. Obviously. I really wish y'all'd stop letting people get away with this sort of thing, wikipedia's trans articles are a cesspit of it. <_< BlackholeWA (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
To be fair the NYT uses "biologically female/biological female" more often (see searches below). AIRcorn (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
They are fringe because they confuse members of the general public. They're also neologisms, and the organizations you mention began adopting them not because the general public started to use them, but because there was a wave of "transgender awareness" and those terms were what activists recommended. "Born female" is a widely used, much more accessible synonym, unless when talking about intersex people. Saying "assigned female at birth" instead of "born female" seems a bit like saying "dihydrogen monoxide" instead of "water". See also Aircorn's references below re. popularity of the terms. AFAB is mostly limited to scholarly audiences, without being any more informative than "born female" when talking about transgender issues. Taylan (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand what "fringe" means. Perhaps you mean "jargon"? Regardless, it's a widely used term and clearly considered the appropriate term given the context it is being used in. RabV's point about the recent usage is important too. There's a clear shift in language. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
It's not used widely outside specific circles, not nearly as much as "born female", not even in recent times as shown by the Google statistics below. It's unclear to me why it should be considered more appropriate, when "born female" conveys the same meaning and is much more accessible. The only reason I can imagine why one would insist on "not AFAB" over "not born female" is that people who are convinced by the "inborn gender identity" ideology/hypothesis find "not born female" to contradict with their ideology, since they consider transwomen to be "born female, but with a penis and therefore wrongly assigned male at birth". Wikipedia should not prefer jargon/neologisms over accessible terms just to satisfy ideological groups; correct me if I'm wrong. In fact, I would suggest that "born female" is more appropriate/accurate in context, since what bothers feminists who don't accept transwomen as women is not what was put on their birth certificate, but what anatomy they were born with and consequently how they were treated by society. (Male socialization theory.) Perhaps it would be good if the article would make this explicit. Hey, maybe a change in wording and more accurate explanation of feminists' concerns could entirely obviate the need for *both* phrases? How about: the exclusion of trans women from women-only spaces on the basis of being raised male, ideally with some elaboration further down that cites some feminist works that detail the position... Taylan (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
That wording would indeed work well! Can we link to something related to the male socialization theory so it's clear what's being referred to? Or a citation explaining the position (perhaps on covering the Michigan festival)? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The MichFest citation already seems to talk about this: MWMF is not just a party. It is a space wherein females—who have been subjected to all manner of degradation from the moment of their first breath—can unpack and put down the oppressions that are directly tied to that experience under patriarchy. The Goldberg piece mentions it as well: In this view, gender is less an identity than a caste position. Anyone born a man retains male privilege in society; even if he chooses to live as a woman—and accept a correspondingly subordinate social position—the fact that he has a choice means that he can never understand what being a woman is really like. By extension, when trans women demand to be accepted as women they are simply exercising another form of male entitlement. It is also implied in the section about Stone's rejection to the notion of "biological woman".
In line with those, I would propose the following substitution in the lead, without changes to the body: ... the exclusion of trans women from women-only spaces on the basis of not having experienced life as members of the female sex ...
I'm not 100% sure though. What do others think? Taylan (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh and Adichie has also talked about this more recently, which I'll try to add to the page.[3] Taylan (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I thought I would run some tests to see what is used in sources, which should inform us of how we present information here. This is a Ngram result using the search terms assigned female,biological female,born female,biologically female.[4] It is not perfect, the wikipedia article explains why, but can be a good indication of what current usage is. I also searched for assigned female at birth,born biologically female as well.[5] Here are some results from NCBI "biological female", "assigned female" and "born female". This is the NYT "assigned female", "biological female" and "born female". These are all subject to whatever search terms you insert and are all not necessarily as reliable as each other (i.e some journals are specific to transgendered articles while others are more broad and some of the NYT posts are blogs). If any one wants to go more in depth they will probably have to look at each individual result to see if the context is correct. FWIW there is very little in the scientific literature, which may mean there is another more common term used or that this has not really been studied much. AIRcorn (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
To demonstrate the fickle nature of choosing search terms I just tried "biologically female" at the NYT and it returned this. AIRcorn (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
If it helps add more data, I used google scholar to compare terms as they appear in academic articles. Searching with assigned female gave me 1600 results and biological female gave 1090. If we restrict to the last 5 years, assigned female is about 3 times more common with 1240 results to biological female's 428.Rab V (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Not a great fan of Google Scholar as it has a low bar for what is considered scholarly and tends to have repeated entries. Also if you search for biologically female there you get another 611 hits so the discrepancy is not really that pronounced. All in all these should be taken with a grain of salt, I was just curious since there were a lot of statements being thrown around about common usage without much evidence to back them up. From my very unscientific take "born female" is the most common lay term, "biological female" is the most common in the media and "assigned female" is the most common in academic journals. AIRcorn (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • What about using both. ...the exclusion of trans women from women-only spaces on the basis of not being assigned female at birth due to the presence of male biological sex characteristics]],... AIRcorn (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • This seems unnecessarily wordy. I was going to suggest combining it with the latter clause in the paragraph to avoid Wikipedia having to make a call (something like "the position that trans women are not women in a literal sense and should not be in women's spaces"), but perhaps it's important to convey that the belief itself is thought to be transphobic, not just the exclusion? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I agree. Your wording should work. So we simplify it to This may include criticism of transitioning or sex reassignment surgery as a personal choice or medical invention and the position that trans women are not women in a literal sense and should not be in women's spaces. AIRcorn (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
        • @EvergreenFir: seeing your edit reminded me - I thought we were sidestepping the jargon question by going for language like this? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I still don't mind the wording above from Taylun, but I still do not like the born female language. Especially not an article specifically about transgender issues. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the ultimate solution would be to move the sex article to biological sex (it has been mentioned independently at that article before) and just link that. Saying assigned female at birth just makes it sound like the doctor didn't notice the baby had a penis and is probably more appropriate for intersex people. At the end of the day we want to make the article as easy to understand for readers as we can. AIRcorn (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: what about the wording directly above my earlier ping, which sidesteps the need to use either "born female" (which you say is offensive) or "assigned female at birth" (which I say is jargon and Aircorn says is...inaccurate or offensive? not sure I'm reading correctly). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Neologism: If assigned female at birth is a neologism, you might have to get rid of the Transphobia article per WP:NEO. Mathglot (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Born female does not mean quite the same thing as assigned female at birth, although maybe 98% of the time it does mean the same. And for 98% of the articles here, the expressions might be equivalent, so per WP:JARGON, the less technical, more common term born female is to be preferred. Except in the case of that sliver of articles on Wikipedia that concern transgender topics, in which the terms do not mean the same thing, and the more accurate one should be used, though it be jargon, as is permitted by the guideline. This article is in that sliver. Mathglot (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Not women in a literal sense

Thanks, Aircorn, for your explanation at your revert at Transphobia, restoring Roscelese's change, which was, in fact, an improvement, in the way they said it was. I was confused about what exactly had changed, and obviously, that wasn't it. Good catch, and thanks to Roscelese also for their edit. (See also comments above.)

Having said that, the "not women in a literal sense" is fine there, as long as it's clearly attributed to someone and is not being stated in Wikipedia's voice. The verifiability guideline is not that clear about how often you need to have a citation or what the scope of them are, but it seems clear that the closest following footnote is about Steinem, and not about this statement in particular, so I don't think that it covers this assertion (if it does we can just repeat the footnote closer in.) While personally I'm well aware that the statement is true (I could probably name five people), it nevertheless needs a citation as it's a strong statement for people not familiar with this topic. I've tagged it {{cn}}. Mathglot (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I did wonder at one point why we were debating the other wording so strongly, but not this one. I think this is ultimately going to need a bigger discussion than what we decide here as how we describe this effects many articles. AIRcorn (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Is it not effectively a topic sentence that summarizes the section? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
That's how I read it. StAnselm (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The rest of the section didn't seem to mention again the position that transwomen aren't women. I just added the Goldberg citation in place of the {cn}, which I think is clear enough in that trans-critical radfems don't consider transwomen literally women. (I missed this talk page section before doing the edit; sorry about that.) Taylan (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Templates

I've removed the "ref improve" template which had been there since September 2017. The article has 124 citations, so without some sort of obvious fix it will just linger forever.

I have also removed the discussion link in the "globalize" template, since that section has been archived. If others feel it's been resolved it could be removed. If not, a new discussion might help. Grayfell (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this, Grayfell. The previous discussion got no reactions, but the article status has not improved much in this respect since the template was originally added. I went through the article (not with a very fine-tooth comb) and it seems pretty clearly to still have a North American bias; e.g., Germaine Greer is not even mentioned. Based on this fresh perspective and reevaluation, I've updated the "date" param in the "globalize" template. Perhaps a new discussion should be started. Mathglot (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Misgendering citation overkill

The Misgendering section has thirteen footnotes in two sentences to cover incorrect pronouns(5), honorifics(3), and deadnaming(5). Did I miss an earlier edit war or something? This is WP:Citation overkill; surely one or two footnotes are sufficient to cover what misgendering means. Mathglot (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I would leave at least one citation per thing (pronouns, honorifics, names, and the term "deadnaming"), because citation overkill is undesirable, but uncited statements in this topic area are also an invitation to time-sucking debates. How's this? -sche (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Colonial mindset in introduction

"In the Western world, there have been gradual changes towards the establishment of policies of non-discrimination and equal opportunity. The trend is also taking shape in developing nations."

This works from the idea that progressive politics begins first in the civilized West and then is brought to nations which are, at a slower pace, developing toward enlightened Western ideals. I'd love citations of this claim that the West is Best in this regard. For a counter-argument, see: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Unlikely+Sex+Change+Capitals+of+the+World%3A+Trinidad%2C+United+States%2C...-a0269531960 I don't entirely agree with the premises of 'homonationalism' as a theoretical concern, but I think it's important to recognize that many different nations in many different regions are equally engaged in gradual, contested changes in terms of access to trans healthcare and legal protections. Meanwhile, the lives of Indigenous two-spirit folks was certainly better before Western colonial practices attempted to enforce binary gender expectations. Which I mention to further emphasis that this 'Western world' first, 'developing nations' later claim is definitely inaccurate as well as harmful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.172.89 (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Currency

Not an edit, but a question. Many of the references seem somewhat elderly, 1979 and so on. The article paints a bleak picture of widespread and virulent hatred of transpeople, from LGB, feminists, religious zealots and the community at large. To what extent is this still the case in 2018? Chrismorey (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Is Cisnormativity redirect correct? (Heteronormativity doesn't redirect to Homophobia)

I'm confused why Heteronormativity and Homophobia are separate articles, but there's no Cisnormativity article. The article on heteronormativity says sometimes it's linked to homophobia, but not that it's always the case. Is it possibly similar with cisnormativity, and if not, why? (NNPOV?) I'm not trying to argue one way or another, just curious, and wondering if there aren't enough articles on these topics... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.185.93.2 (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transphobia/Archive_4&oldid=1090583796"