Talk:Trans woman/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Page image

Why does the image need to be of a peron who transitioned before adulthood, are older transfolk less representive in some way?

I would like to swap the sidebar with the image under the first subsection, the one of a trans woman at a Brazillian pride parade. I'm not terribly attached to this image in particular, but on a page which clearly has multiple high-quality images already in use, I can't see a reason not to have one of them as the page image. I attempted to BOLDly do this but it was reverted by Crossroads (and then un-reverted by Bodney, and then re-reverted by Crossroads again...), so I'm now attempting to gauge consensus on the talk page.

For what it's worth, I find Crossroad's arguments for reverting pretty specious, since they boil down to "there isn't affirmative consensus" (no there isn't, that's what WP:BRD is) along with "some pages don't have images" (true, but many do, including most high quality articles and the pages for Man, Woman, and Transgender). Loki (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles do look more complete with a representative image in the lead. Looking just at the discussions around the lead image for Woman or Man the debates are not whether the should be an image, that seems taken for granted, but simply ~ which image to use. Both pages have clear guidance on the top of their respective talk pages about the most appropriate image to use at the Lead of their articles being a challenging issue with many valid viewpoints, but neither of them question the presumption of having an image. I can not see anywhere the suggestion that the should be no image. I believe the editors here are equally also capable of selecting an image. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we should have an image. I would prefer someone who isn't a beauty queen (but that would be fine for now). What about someone like Savanna Wanzer who isn't too noteworthy, but is an activist who is likely used to getting her picture taken? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Or Holly Goldmann on the right here Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I think a non-beauty queen, public figure is a good idea. I can not see a free image for Savanna Wanzer. The Group shot of the three is a bit out of focus? How about this image of Andrea Jenkins as another option to balance the women on this page? ::: ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Jenkins is too notable. There are many image of Wanzer on Flickr. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I do not think notability is a big problem, after all Laverne Cox is perhaps even more famous below. Being on flickr is one thing, but are they creative commons images? I searched using the creative commons picture search tool thingy....oh I was getting network issues. I mostly believe the ought to be a Lead image and will happily go with the flow. To me a picture humanises the topic. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Danica Roem would be a good choice, except possibly "too pretty". U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health Rachel Levine seems like a pretty good candidate. Mathglot (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Either are good options, the one of Levine is a very good quality portrait photo. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 09:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Both too notable for me, but better than no image. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

That this is being discussed results in a better choice and prevents more debate over the picture down the line. We don't need an RfC; but I think the discussion makes it better. Mathglot's suggestions are good and as Bodney said, the Levine photo is portrait quality, plus she's relatively well-known (which I consider a plus). Crossroads ^-talk- 23:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Instead of a single image, wouldn't it better to do a collage? Like how a lot of city pages have multiple images of different sites in the city at the header using Template:Multiple image? NHCLS (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, no per MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Going by the same consensus, it would probably be better not to have a single image at the head of the page too, right? Since the same issues of contentiousness, not being representative, and no objective criteria for selection apply? NHCLS (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the consensus on people galleries but atm alas that is the firm guidance. Regards a single representative image, well it works okay for Man, Woman, Musician, Human Being (yep the is 2 in the pic), Indigenous peoples, etc. Plus the are several other images in the article that show the reader a variety of trans women. Yes a good Creative Commons compliant picture of a small group of different trans women would be nice but one picture of an out and proud trans woman works perfectly well. Maybe a better image will appear ...i think we should have a similar notice to those on the top of the Man & Woman talk pages (e.g Important Note: The most appropriate image to use at the top of this article has been a highly controversial issue with many valid viewpoints. etc)

However, I agree with Crossroads and Mathglot that the picture of Rachel Levine is a good choice to start with. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

FWIW there are hundreds if not thousands of images of trans women on Commons. (I've probably contributed several dozen myself but will refrain from suggesting my own work...) Funcrunch (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent :) lol why did I not look there. We could create a sub page and have a candidate photos there as in Talk:Man/sandbox & Talk:Woman/sandbox but personally i now think this pic of Lili Elbe is also a great choice. [[File:Lili Elbe 1926.jpg|thumb|Lili Elbe 1926]] that is highlighted on that commons page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodney (talk • contribs) 21:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: File:Lili Elbe 1926.jpg Mathglot (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, my last post was a mess ;)

We might as well display the current 3 main candidate pictures to make things easy, no doubt the will be other photos. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

{{{annotations}}}

1. Savanna Wanzer

• 
  2. Rachel L. Levine
  (HHS ASH)
• 
  3. Lili Elbe 1926

Because we have so many good candidates, I object to photos of notable specific people. I can see maybe an exception for Lili Elbe since she's notable for being trans but still don't prefer it. I'd prefer the images of the Brazilian pageant queen or Savanna Wanzer out of the suggested options, but since we have so many plausible options, a few others that I thought were worth including: Loki (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• 
  A
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D
• 
  E
• 
  F

Who are these people? Do you have a specific statement from them that they actually identifiy as women, or are you assuming they are just because of their looks and outfits? In the internet you have Alex Drummonds, a trans woman with a beard, or Caitlyn Jenner when she was competing in the Olympics, aren´t they valid? Jorgebox4 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

This is the image of Holly Goldmann (on the right) which could be cropped. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Generally, the is already 5 images of younger trans women in the article, a good quality image of a older trans woman would help convey the range of trans women's lives. I think notability is actually a plus, certainly not a minus, but not essential. I do prefer the (cropped) Wanzer (Image 1) or Levine pictures as they are both good quality positive images. (Saying that, to a lesser extent I do like the historical aspect of the Elbe portrait). ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I was just now looking at this article and wondering why the images are so heavily skewed towards notably attractive people.A beauty pageant winner as the lead image? Why? It's not particularly representative of trans-women or, in fact, human beings in general. 2407:7000:9BC3:C800:A0DE:3C57:953C:AD42 (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree we need show a better cross section of trans women, that is why i am arguing for the info box image to be of an older trans person who is not in the arts or modelling etc. However any image we use must be available fee to use under a creative commons licence, so we are limited to what is available. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

An image of an older trans woman like Rachel Levine may show the range of trans women, but I'd argue someone who transitioned much younger like Jazz Jennings would better represent what being a trans woman is. The image of Levine should still be on the page, but in my opinion should not be the main image. Memories of (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Here are some potential images:

• 
  1. Jazz Jennings
• 
  2. Kim Petras
  
• 
  3. Nikkie De Jager

Any of these would help to show a range of trans women by representing those who transitioned before adulthood. Memories of (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is it important to show a trans woman who transitioned before being an adult, in this more accepting age for folks to transition. I do not see how they are more representative of the wide variety trans experience and lives.

Jazz Jennings is a vibrant out and proud young transperson, using all the modern media tools to her advantage, but she is not especially representative. We already have activists and media personalities on the page. Trans lives are far more varied, from every walk of life and age, with most trans women trying to live their lives privately. I think we should continue to show the range of trans folk, _{I once knew a retired older Ex SAS Officer who had served many years in the middle east, as a much older transperson a lot of her youth was spent locked in male wards of Psychiatric hospitals because she was trans (It was a different age, but not that long ago). I met her because I once had a trans landlord who the Daily Mail deadnamed during a legal case against her employer, she transitioned while working in a merchant ships engine room. I met many of their friends trans women and men, many did their bit in campaigns, none of them were public personalities but very private, though I once had 2 of their autobiographies.} Apologies I went off in a personal experience tangent, but these are real people like Jazz and most trans women are not media personalities, and think we should move beyond yet another media personality however positive their role is (its a bit like entertainment stereotyping). ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

This definition is incorrect for intersex woman.

Per Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4#RfC on introduction, definition of trans woman in this article was changed to "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth.". However this definition is not adequate for intersex woman. Categorizing Erik Schinegger as trans man and Lady Colin Campbell as trans woman would be problematic.

Lady Colin Campbell is not trans woman unless she identify as trans woman. Erik Schinegger is not trans man unless he identify as trans man.

Furthermore, this definition may not be neutral for trans woman without transitioning. --Sharouser (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what problem you are seeing here, based on their birth names, it seems that Lady Colin Campbell was AFAB And Erik Schinegger was AMAB, so the definitions seem to apply in a straightforward way. Newimpartial (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

According to the respective articles, Erik was Erika and Lady Colin was assigned male. Sharouser is correct. Per the definition in this article Lady Colin is a trans woman, which is not the case. The definition of trans woman in this article will have to be improved in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9bc3:c800:6135:9fdc:b9c:bf46 (talk • contribs) 2021-08-06T09:24:59 (UTC)

The definition in this article is sourced, regardless, so the IP seems to be offering irrelevant WP:OR. Newimpartial (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The mislabelling of an enormous number of people whose assignments were complicated by DOSDs shouldn't be dismissed as irrelevant. There must be more specific definitions of trans-woman that can be sourced. 2407:7000:9BC3:C800:6135:9FDC:B9C:BF46 (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The statement A trans woman is woman assigned male at birth does not imply the converse that A woman assigned male at birth is a trans woman, which is how Sharouser seems to be interpreting it. The definition here is possibly incomplete, in that it could be worth clarifying that not all intersex women (who may have been assigned male despite having female sex characteristics) are trans women, but it's not incorrect. Based on Talk:Trans woman/Definitions, no sources see fit to tack on this asterisk, and so neither should we. At least not in the first sentence.

The definition given here explains in simple terms what a trans woman is. It does not attempt to define a brightline criterion for classifying exactly who is and is not a trans woman, and other articles do not (and should not—WP:WINARS) use this definition as a basis for describing/categorizing other subjects as transgender. You're correct to say that this would be problematic, so it's a good thing we're not doing that.

If you know of a better way of formulating the definition, feel free to propose it. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 17:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders, Sharouser, and Newimpartial: why not A trans woman is a woman who was not assigned female at birth? Seems to check the boxes well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This definition is fine, but it doesn't resolve Sharouser's concern: women like Lady Colin Campbell who were assigned male despite being "biologically female", and now identify as cisgender. I've argued above why the current definition (and by extension, your proposal) does not imply that all woman who weren't assigned female at birth are trans women.

One (bad) option would be to rectify this by using a less inclusive definition, like describing trans women as being born biologically male... of the male sex... etc. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 00:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, some women who were assigned female despite being "biologically male", and now "identify as cisgender female" are not usually trans woman unless they have non-ambiguous male genitalia until adolescent. Sharouser (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Photo

@Daveout: How is a grainy, unfocused, and blurry image somehow better than a professionally taken headshot? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference for that photo in particular. It's just that I don't think it's a good idea to use the image of someone who is actively involved in politics-related matters in such a high visibility place. It could be interpreted as an attempt to promote that person's political career\campaing or party affiliation. It's like putting Sarah Pailing's or Jen Psaki's photo as the front image of the 'Woman' article. - Daveout(talk) 22:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Daveout, the above discussion didn't seem to mention that at all. I think Levine is not a particularly controversial or political figure, and her job is mostly that of a technocrat, not a politician. I think for a lead image of an article, it should be the highest quality one we can find. Our images are meant to illustrate the subject, and the quality of the image in terms of its clarity is a key part of that. A blurry, grainy image does not do that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorta behind Daveout here. It's more important that the image is representative of the topic than that the image quality is as high as possible, and IMO pictures of specific well-known examples of a class of people don't illustrate the class itself well. I don't even like the Wanzer image on this ground but it's still better than a picture of Rachel Levine, who's notable enough for her own article on Wikipedia. I prefer the image of the woman at a Brazilian pride parade we have below the Terminology section since the woman in that image is completely anonymous, and the image itself is also higher quality, but the recent discussion didn't seem to support it. Loki (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, okay, then can we at least find a higher quality image of Wanzer? Flickr free use images of her. Also, I don't think the above discussion came to a consensus. I suggest we find some better taken images and then hold an RfC. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. If you wanna grab a better image feel free, and I agree we really should hold an actual RfC about the image. Loki (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry i failed to see this before adding Levine to the body of the article. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine to have Levine in the body. - Daveout(talk) 00:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

"Discrimination" section wording

I have no reason to doubt that those stats are roughly in-line with reality (the Trans life seems to be the true Strenuous life), but I am not a fan of how it's displayed. The way it's listed, in bullets, makes it easy to think these are data from a third-party, rather than being self-reported. It may be worth it to restate, at every bullet point, that these claims are self-reported. It's imperative that this article avoid appearing primed to mislead readers. 2600:1012:B02F:F99B:4476:F577:17B8:8289 (talk) 08:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

'Trans': terminology, grammar, linguistics

"trans" is, linguistically, a prefix. Until it is prepended to another word its meaning is undefined. E.g. it could refer to trans-sexual, trans-Siberian railway, trans-continental, etc.

In the context of this article the terminology should be trans-sexual woman, otherwise it might be referring to a trans-continental woman, etc.

Perhaps the article could be renamed in the interest of suitability for encyclopaedic inclusion, with a note added that "trans woman" is a commonly used abbreviation / slang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.14.212 (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, we often use the common name, and not perhaps the most technically correct term. I don't think trans woman is very confusing, especially if one simply reads the lead. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not actually confusing, but the use of slang / incorrect language makes Wikipedia more akin to a comic than an actual reference work. If that's the limit of Wikipedia's aspirations, so be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.14.212 (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"Trans" is not slang. It is a perfectly good adjective with a well-defined meaning as an adjective, and if you're not familiar with it, well, you're at the right place to learn. Loki (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I like your courage in claiming that Wikipedia is 'the right place to learn', whereas it is a constantly changing amalgam of non-specialist, non-expert ideas curated by would-be editors, who need to possess no qualifications as editor or expert to impose their biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.248.14 (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2021

Change 'assigned' into 'observed'. 77.98.164.52 (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The act being performed is one of observation, not of action that affects the subject of the observation (which could correctly be called assignation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.14.212 (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree too. 'Assign' would imply that something is done to the subject at birth which sets their sex (or 'gender' to misuse a frequently misunderstood and misused word) to be male of female, whereas all that is done is that an observation is recorded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.248.14 (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

But do any sources use that language? The general terminology at the moment is the "assigned" CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Section on differences between trans women and non-trans women

Trans women and non trans women differ in important ways. It might be worth having a section that explores these differences. For example, trans women have advantages over non trans women in some sports. Also, trans women have patterns of offending that more closely resemble those of non trans men than non trans women.. What do other editors think? Nero Calatrava (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Patterns of offending? What the fuck are you talking about Nero, you're citing an article on mortality rates not offensiveness... Either I misunderstand the citation and apologize or I have reason to increase my concern over your pov on trans individuals. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

"Transsexual individuals were at increased risk of being convicted for any crime or violent crime after sex reassignment (Table 2); this was, however, only significant in the group who underwent sex reassignment before 1989." - and perhaps we should actually take the trouble to actually read articles before asking people what the fuck they are talking about. Tewdar (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

My deep apologies then, Nero. However, if it is only significant for those who underwent GRS before 1989 (over 30 years ago) thats a big caveat. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

This section would need to be written extremely carefully. There is a lot of unscientific misinformation in the popular press about trans athletes, but in reality it is debatable if trans women have advantages in sport. There have been no studies carried out on adolescent trans athletes. The are so many variables ~ which contributes to success in elite sport, what set of physical and mental athletic attributes are necessary for each kind of sport or athletics:

Strength (Power & Endurance) “Studies of testosterone levels in athletes do not show any clear, consistent relationship between testosterone and athletic performance. Sometimes testosterone is associated with better performance, but other studies show weak links or no links. And yet others show testosterone is associated with worse performance.”

The "normal" healthy range for cis women is between 0.3 and 2 nmol/L, according to Mayo Clinic estimates — though they vary among labs. Women with polycystic ovarian syndrome tend to have higher testosterone levels, which can reach 5.2 nmol/L. "Healthy" male testosterone ranges from 8.3 mnol/L to 32.9 nmol/L. ... An estimated 10 percent of women have polycystic ovarian syndrome, which results in elevated testosterone levels. They are not banned from female sports. The number of trans people are a far lower percentage. Further research shows that testosterone suppressants reduced haemoglobin levels (which is the most important physiological factor when it comes to endurance sports) in trans women to that of cisgender women, thus eliminating the advantage. (Plus the World Athletics (IAAF) since 2019 has ruled that testosterone levels to be below 5 nmol/L continuously for at least 12 months, so it is controlled.)

Beyond this the are so many other physical and mental attributes that are significant factors that lead to success in each individual sport, including Agility, Balance, Coordination, Flexibility and Speed. Before Hormones an average runner who goes through male puberty is on average 25% faster, after just 2 years on hormones it drops to a 12% advantage in run times. " But to be in the top 10% of female runners, you have to be 29% faster than the average woman. And to be an elite runner, you've got to be 59% faster than the average cis woman,". Plus the are so many other factors relating to the individual, including mental attitude and skill ~ for trans athletes the deck stacked against them in nearly every other way imaginable including access to training and financial support throughout their athletic career. External pressures ... It is not the first time that misinformation has been used to discredit a group of athletes There is a long history of similarly painting Black athletes as “genetically superior” in an attempt to downplay the effects of their hard work and training.

[Trans Girls Belong on Girls’ Sports Teams. There is no scientific case for excluding them https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belong-on-girls-sports-teams/], [Fact check: Do trans athletes have an advantage in elite sport? https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-do-trans-athletes-have-an-advantage-in-elite-sport/a-58583988], [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-world-sport-lgbt-trfn-idUSKBN2BG34Q, [Sport and Transgender People: A Systematic Review of the Literature Relating to Sport Participation and Competitive Sport Policies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357259/]. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing something here, but how does your first quote beginning with "Studies of testosterone levels..." relate to the heading Strength (Power & Endurance)? In any case, testosterone levels in males are shown to be positively related to muscle synthesis, mass, and strength in numerous studies. Testosterone levels are far from being the only factor involved, however. Tewdar (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but here's what would be simplest: Controversial stuff like trans people in sports stays only in the article dedicated to that rather than bringing it here, where we then have two instances of needing to cover it on Wikipedia and double the work of needing to hash it out and watch over it. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I largely agree with keeping specialist stuff to their own articles, but I think we should have a stub paragraph with a See Also link, like the sexual orientation section for it here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with Crossroads controversial,complex and specialised topic like trans people in sports is best explained in an article dedicated to the specific topic rather than duplicating it here, where it might not be adequately covered. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Similarly to the sports-related content, any info about criminality is better suited to an article like Sex differences in crime and doesn't have much business being here. Equivamp - talk 19:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RouBa1998.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Terminology Section

@Tewdar: and I have been discussing the terminology section. While it started over use of a specific source, we've both come to the conclusion that the terminology section as a whole is in somewhat of a poor state. I'm copying over the relevant comments from Twedar's talk page below to facilitate discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Comments copied below Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty. I've read through the section that Levitt wrote. I feel as though both the original version is SYNTHy. Where the previous editor has erred is that they took the generalised "the sex of those who transition" bit which Levitt applied to both trans women and trans men, and applied it only to trans women. However I also understand why they did this. The use of "transwomen" versus "trans woman" (or "transman" versus "trans man") is a hot button topic at the moment within trans discourse. While I cannot attest to how the words were used circa 2008 when the source was published, in 2022 the use of "transwomen" is almost exclusively done so by transphobes, whereas "trans woman" is the preferred term for trans individuals.

Given the age of the source, and that there isn't a newer edition of it, perhaps we could omit Levitt's definition entirely as it doesn't represent the modern usage of the term?

Also feel free to copy this reply, and any subsequent ones you make to the talk page if you'd prefer to discuss this there instead of here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Trash the whole synthin' lot. It's mainly just repeating what's already said somewhere else in the unstructured mess that is the terminology section, and it's old, and uses outdated and, as you point out, possibly offensive terminology like 'transwomen'. That entire section is total random rubbish.  Tewdar  18:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The entire terminology section is dreadful. It's just loads of bits all stuck together!  Tewdar  18:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking at that section as a whole now, and yeah. It reads very disjointed, as just a collection of various trans terminological factoids strung together without care for how the section as a whole reads. Who was the student editor for this section? Just so we can see what the state of it was before their edits, to see if that's any better. Or whether we need to redraft that section entirely. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Racheljsmall is the editor responsible for the Heidi M Levitt additions, according to the magnificent WikiBlame tool. Not sure about the rest. I mean, come on, none of the definitions in that section even match that given in the lede!  Tewdar  19:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty. I dug through the history, this diff is the state of the article immediately before that editor greatly expanded the terminology section. Unfortunately, due to both the age (these edits were 5 years ago) and the shortness of the section at that time, this doesn't really help us much. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think the stuff about trans women being called freaks can be left out of this section. Ditto the part about the ability to pass (which should certainly be defined in this section, however)  Tewdar  19:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• I mean, the only thing that this section should have (a few modern definitions/perspectives of the relevant terminology) is almost completely absent. Why not move/copy some of the definitions used in the umpteen sources in the lede to this section? 🤔  Tewdar  19:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  So for the terminology section as a whole, I think it is important that we keep Feinberg's first use of it, as well as that the elaboration on it often having a negative connotation, as that is still true today. I agree we could leave out the "freaks" quote, but we may want to keep later half of that sentence, that Feinberg's gender expression has made her a target, as that is also still true today (cross-ref transphobia). Historically Feinberg's definition is important, as the first recorded use of the term.

  More generally for this discussion, we should have a subsection for the draft of the replacement terminology section. We should also have a subsection for a structural overview of what should be in that, before we start drafting, so that we don't repeat the same mistakes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Alright. I've made those subsections now. Give me a short while to add some content to the structure section. It's going to be formatted something like: "Paragraph 1: X. Paragraph 2: Y, etc". Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done. This is to give us a plan on what will go into this section, so that the section as a whole reads coherently, and not as a collection of random factoids, which will assist us when it comes to actually drafting. I'd suggest we nail this down first, before we start drafting. And then we can re-evaluate it as we go along if we need to add additional in-between paragraphs for example, or decide to cut stuff entirely. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Looks good, Swipe. Perhaps define other terms eg passing, etc, in para 4... Tewdar  19:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, encase I wasn't clear, those sections can be edited by anyone. So feel free to add there as required. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed structure of Terminology Section

First Paragraph

Should be similar to the current first paragraph. Include the latin prefix info, as well as an edited version of Feinberg's definition from 1996.

We could also include some other contemporary definitions from this period (say 1996-2005), if there are any of relevance?

Second Paragraph

Evolution of the term, since Fineberg's definition?

Third Paragraph

Current usage of the term?

Fourth Paragraph

Content on why/when some trans women go "stealth", and stop referring to themselves as "trans women" and just "women"?

Fifth Paragraph and beyond

Content on use of "trans women" in non-English speaking cultural context? Eg, Latin American use of travesti?

Mandatory signature to not set off SineBot Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed draft of Terminology section

To be expanded upon shortly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2022

Synchise (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Libido section : I think you should point out that the study compared trans women after sex-reassignment surgery and on hormone-replacement therapy with ovulating women. I think that the current wording can be extremely misleading.

p Synchise (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

"Assigned"

This is obviously going nowhere. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

"Assigned male"? The article https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Male seems to contradict this and defines male in no uncertain, biological, terms. "Male (symbol: ♂) is the sex of an organism that produces the gamete (sex cell) known as sperm, which fuses with the larger female gamete,[1][2][3] or ovum, in the process of fertilization." Indeed, the word "assigned" does not appear a single time there. Why this contradiction? It would seem plain as day that this article is not NPOV. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Please do not make personal attacks, as you did in your edit summary here. I'm confident you wouldn't have said that cis people were unable to achieve NPOV when writing articles on cis people, or white people on white people, amirite? Newimpartial (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC) "Please" do not remove talks simply because they hurt your feelings and I won't have to point it out. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Oh, I didn't do any such thing. I removed a comment that is off-topic and cannot possibly contribute to improving the article. But you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS again. Try to be CIVIL. Newimpartial (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC) I'd be more civil if you were. But removing talks because you dislike them is not. Pointing out a contradiction (and in a statement that is unsourced) is not forum.. But you seem intent on turning this into one though, all while saying it shouldn't be? I'm not the one who started arguing with you and engaging in editing wars, that's you. :D 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC) How can your opening comment here contribute to the improvement of this article? I am at a loss. Your first full sentence is false - The article https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Male seems to contradict this and defines male in no uncertain, biological, terms - showing you didn't even read the entire lead of the article you are citing. What is more, your quotation, "assigned male", doesn't kink to Male; rather it is part of the phrase "assigned male at birth" which is wikilinked to Sex assignment. Not only is there no contradiction: your (possibly rhetorical) questions are actually answered directly in the wikilink that you have presumably declined to read. So how is any editor supposed to use your comment as a means to improve this article? This article is, as it should be, based on reliable sources (reals) and not on POV (your feelz). You have not pointed out any contradictions or unsourced statements whatsoever - all you have done is vent your spleen on a topic you apparently don't understand, and that isn't what Talk pages are for. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC) So your argument is based on a single part of the article which also happens to be about the only unsourced part. :D Provide a source for that part of the male article then as it doesn't have any. Without that, there's no reason to take that claim seriously. You should probably also add a good motivation for why human sex should be treated differently from that of any other animal. I'm sure you have one, right? 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Well, I prefer not to be killed and eaten by humans - or owned by humans, for that matter - so I would certainly rather be treated differently from ... any other animal, in many respects. There are lots of concepts - like nationality - that don't apply to non-human animals, and it just happens that gender identity and sexuality are two of these. As far as the unsourced nonsense goes, the source is at the place in Male where it is supposed to be. WP:CIR, baby. Newimpartial (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC) So you're saying saying that human biology is inherently different? Do you have some sort of fact to back that up? Something that would justify such ideas influencing wikipedia articles? Your emotional beliefs or rants about being eaten do not really count. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Nobody is saying that human biology is inherently different; we are saying that humans have dimensions other animals don't. You can't "raise a filly as a boy", for example, but you can certainly socialize humans based on their sex assignment (and most cultures do). Newimpartial (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

When did Wiki become political?

To state "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth." is to make a highly controversial decision affirming a particular side of a debate

What is this based on? Why have Wiki editors chose to side with one side of a debate?

Montalban (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki editors don't take sides in a debate, or at least, shouldn't. You are not the first to ask this question, and you can be sure that the wording in this article and the lead in particular has been discussed numerous times, one could even say ad nauseam. The article didn't end up this way by accident, but through thousands of edits by hundreds of editors over a period of eighteen years. Which isn't to say the article can't be improved, and if you wish to improve it, I urge you to read the discussions above and the Talk page archives first, where this very question has been discussed many times, at length, and then come back with your suggestions for improvements, where other editors can discuss it with you. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the many archived discussions on the phrasing of the lede, see Talk:Trans woman/Definitions for an examination of how RS’s define this term. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 12:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I see there has been an RfC before. I say we have the discussion to change this sentence to A trans woman is a person who was assigned male at birth but identifies as a woman. This sentence was one of the 2 options the community accepted at some capacity and the closer of the RfC said there is no prejudice against having an RfC for this phrasing. This sentence is most consistent with what RS regards a trans woman to be. Lets take a look at what Talk:Trans woman/Definitions provided by RoxySaunders above. I do not believe it is appropriate to use definitions 4 (biased LGBT advocacy group), 12 (Newsweek post-2013, unreliable at WP:RSP), 16 (a book by someone who does not appear to be an expert who is merely supporting "reproductive rights"), and 30 (biased LGBT advocacy group). So with that, lets see if the literature likes to describe a trans woman as a woman who was assigned male at birth or a person who was assigned male at birth but identifies as a woman.. RS supporting person who was assigned male but identifies as a woman in the Talk:Tran woman\Definitions count to be 28. Many of these RS are among the most credible, including the Lancet, American Psychological Association, American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, Centers for Disease Control, Cornell University, American Academy of Pediatrics, John Hopkins Medical School, Princeton University, and the National Health Service. Just to count the sourcing that supports the current revision, I count 6. Of these the most credible is the ones from Harvard Medical School and the BC Centers for Disease Control. 3 RS are not particularly credible, with one being a standard dictionary, one from the American Society for Engineering Education (they certainly don't have expertise on this issue), and one from a government website. I'm really not seeing an abundance in literature to use the phrasing we have now. We should do what RS says and change this sentence. An RfC may be warranted. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

As has been noted before, the problem with "idenfifies as" language is that in contemporary discourse it tends to imply "... but is not". Sources that use "has a female gender identity" or "has a gender identity as a woman", for example, cannot be read as supporting "identify as" without severely distorting their meaning, and few recent sources use "identify as". But other options could certainly be considered - I would suggest that multiple editors propose and try to whittle down options before any future RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

How about this: A trans woman is a person assigned male at birth whose gender identity is female. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The ratio of WP:MEDRS's using one phrasing over the other is a valid concern, but not a brand new one. To paraphrase L235's closure of the Archive 4 RfC, some said the lack of sources which explicitly say "is a women" supports the more neutral "is a person". Others said the sources' use of the phrase trans women at all implies that the authors do still believe we are women (otherwise they would say MtF trans person or some-such alternative).

There are lots of valid points either way, and I'm not violently opposed to either version. I do, however, empathize with the concern that any variant of "person who identifies as female" implicitly casts doubt on trans womanhood, so I favor the status quo.

Regardless, this is a perennial discussion, and it seems as if every possible angle has been argued ad nauseum, to no conclusive result. I'm careful not to improperly invoke the WP:Snowball clause, but unless there's a new and highly persuasive argument in favor of Option 2, or a clear change in the consensus of sources or editors, I really don't think rehashing the RfC would produce any useful result. Sincerely, RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 03:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

There's going to have to be another RfC at some point.

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, you may be interested in the discussion above: #A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth. As the question there shows, it's a confusing sentence if one is not already familiar with the discourse in this area. The current definition does a poor job of educating readers on what the topic actually is. Sources usually use another family of definitions which emphasize the crucial concept of gender identity. The current wording is reminiscent of a political slogan, rather than being educational, and is in clear violation of WP:DUE based on the abundant evidence of the subpage.

Newimpartial above alludes to sources that say "has a gender identity as a woman", and while they say that this doesn't support "identifies as" for our text, I would argue that regardless, the reverse is true - that definitions mentioning gender identity as "identifies as" support it. So perhaps a viable proposal - still requiring passing an RfC, but this is just brainstorming - would be:

A trans woman was assigned male at birth but has a gender identity as a woman. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Agree with referencing Gender identity for the sake of a complete and useful definition, but not exactly sure of the best way to do so. I see the merit in sidestepping the woman vs. person debate (doomed to continue for eternity), but I don't love starting the article with "A trans woman was/has ...", as it reads more like a general factual statement than an actual definition (MOS:FIRST). The phrase "... has a gender identity as a woman" seems a bit clunky (not sure whether Newimpartial was actually quoting any particular source), but some addition along these lines (e.g. "... but has a female gender identity" ... "... but identifies as a woman" etc.) seems due and well-established by sources.

My preferred option (proposed in the linked discussion, and evoked generally favorable reactions from Newimpartial and Bodney) is still just to extend the current sentence with such a clause, i.e. "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth but whose gender identity is female." What do you think of this? RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 05:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said then, I really think this reads poorly due to redundancy - "is a woman...but whose gender identity is female". It jumps back and forth with gendered terms and probably satisfies no one. It has a similar potential for confusion with unfamiliar readers by immediately using the term "woman" which carries a lot of baggage and assumption of female sex/sex-assignment. I wrote A trans woman was assigned..., yes, largely because it cuts the Gordian knot of "is a woman" vs. "is a person", but I do think it still works as a definition. Personally I have no issue with the latter anyway, and it outnumbers the former handily in the subpage. Perhaps I am overestimating the opposition to it. Another thing is that we shouldn't expect all of us here to come to full agreement - that is why an RfC was necessary in the past and will be in the future. All the same, testing the waters is still worthwhile. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders: why is it beneficial to say A trans woman is a woman...? It's redundant and clunky phrasing. To support this awkward phrasing, you need to provide abundant RS support. I think saying A trans woman is person... or a A trans woman is an individual... is obviously more readable and consistent with how nearly every source is saying. I don't see the argument or in saying woman twice together like that. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this phrasing is fairly common, no? E.g. international airport: An international airport is an airport with customs and border control facilities enabling passengers to travel between countries. Loki (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The main issue is this is not what the majority of RS are saying a trans woman is. However, I contend that the wording isn't great, same is true for international airport. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that "A trans woman is a woman..." is redundant. If you mean that the definition repeats a portion of the headword, then yes—obviously it does; but this is not a bad thing, and is not "redundant" with respect to a definition of a compound expression like "trans woman". While one might make assumptions about the meaning of a compound expression based on its elements, language is not logical and assumptions may be incorrect and should not be left to the imagination of the reader. A definition should define, even if it means repeating a core element, and not leave the reader guessing. A flying boat is not a boat, and a silent butler is not a butler. What is an electric car? It's not a car with a battery that starts the car, runs the on-board computer, adjusts the fuel mix automatically, and operates the signaling system, the entertainment center, and the heater electrically. If reliable sources support "a trans woman is a woman...", then that is exactly what it should say; anything less, *especially* in such a fraught topic, would be a gross disservice to the reader. As far as "a trans woman is an individual...", see elongated yellow fruit. Mathglot (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

A transwoman is biologically male, not "assigned male". What our own article says: "Male (symbol: ♂) is the sex of an organism that produces the gamete (sex cell) known as sperm". Do trans women do this or not? If yes then they are clearly biological males with a female identity. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC) According to WP policy. the editing of this article is to be based on the reliable sources on this topic, not by your feelz. Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Are you sure it is my "feelz" that are the issue here? Also "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth." does not appear to have any RS so your argument about it does not seem to have any merit. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC) You don't seem very good at finding and reading sources. Pro tip: they are normally found in the article body. Newimpartial (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Assigned by whom (sounds like weasel wording overall) and by what criteria? Biology is not mere "assignement" and the article for "male" here defines male biologically. Not as some kind of mere arbitrary "assigment" by an unknown party. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC) What part of In humans, the word male can also be used to refer to gender do you not understand? Also, the answers to your first questions are readily found in Sex assignment, which is wikilinked from this article. You want to argue against the reliable sources on this topic, but that isn't what Talk pages are for. Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC) "can". But is that what "assigned male" means? Maybe people who are clearly POV (your being genderqeueer and your editing history speaks volumes) on an issue and so emotionally engaged in it, should stay out of it? Also, if trans women are simply women, what are they transitioning from? 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Also, that claim has no RS and so should be removed. :) 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC) IP, I take it from your criticisms that you have no gender, and are therefore, supremely neutral. I am fascinated by this and would love to know more. Do you offer a pamphlet or some such? Dumuzid (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC) If your belief is that one simply cannot be neutral/factual, that's all on you, but I would have to ask then, why are you here? 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC) My point is that criticizing someone else's objectivity for their gender positioning is like accusing them of being biased because they breathe oxygen. Also, with regard to neutrality, I would urge you to do some reading in the philosophical domain of epistemology. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Again, if you cannot comprehend that someone could be neutral/factual, that's on you. "Through yourself, you get to know others." But why are you here if you cannot be NPOV? 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Well, first of all, perhaps you should re-read WP:NPOV, because it's really more about fidelity to reliable sources than neutrality. I don't care for the nomenclature, but it's a bit late for that now. I am not saying neutrality is impossible (though I do think it requires one to analyze one's own implicit biases). You have said (I paraphrase) "given your beliefs on gender, you cannot be neutral." And I am saying you also have beliefs about gender. Thus your criticism can be aimed just as much at you as anyone else. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC) "You have said (I paraphrase) "given your beliefs on gender, you cannot be neutral." And I am saying you also have beliefs about gender." So you're saying that biology is a mere belief? Fascinating. What else is mere belief? 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Again, this is where epistemology would serve you well. It's a bit dense, but Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a classic starting place for such an inquiry. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC) I'm not asking Kant, I'm asking you. You know, the pseudointellectual one. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC) And I think we're done here. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Kibbitzing here, but the terms we use for people who refuse to read the reliable sources on a topic don't normally include neutral/factual. Just saying. Newimpartial (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Again, you're clearly very emotionally engaged (as these "creative" ways of saying "you're mean and stupid" demonstrate) so should probably stay away from articles where you cannot be NPOV. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC) IP, if you read the article Male - as I have repeatedly suggested you do - you will see that it provides a reliable source. As far as your earlier comments are concerned, of course "assigned male" refers to Sex assignment. Is the article text not clear to you? Newimpartial (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC) "In humans, the word male can also be used to refer to gender." That's it. No [source] there. Again, is this "assignment" some arbitrary opinion or is it based on biology? :D Anyways, I didn't come here to argue with you, it is clear that facts will not sway you, and you are entitled to your beliefs - but you are not entitled to censoring the talk page. That is all really. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC) The source, which I have given above for your convenience, is in the body of Male, exactly where it is supposed to be. You know that most Wikipedia articles have a lead section that summarizes the body, and the references are generally in the body, yes? And I don't know why you keep asking questions about "assignment" that are answered in sex assignment, which is wikilinked from the lead text you were complaining about questioning. At some point, a degree of competence is required for any collaborative project. Newimpartial (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Speaking of the "sex assignment" article, the sources there likely need serious review. Take source 23 for example, is https://books.google.se/books?id=IfcuCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA301&redir_esc=y "Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive" ..Are such really to be regarded as reliable source? :D What is the criteria applied for reliable source there? Was there any at all? 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Please read WP:RS for that information. An article Talk page is not a tutorial. Also, sticking out your tongue after each question doesn't really radiate civility. Newimpartial (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Besides what has been said it is a true statment backed up with extensive reaserch. And wikipedia is not a place to bring a debate on people's self as this talk page edit by you seems to be attempting to say. RJS001 (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC) References

Images perputrate steryotypes

Im concered with the images in this artcile as they seem to be based around finding a steryotype of trans women to show here and I dont think that is helpful. It would be like having someone dressed in a sterytypicic clothes for an ethnicities page. some people do look and dress like that but everyone at all. RJS001 (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The people in the photos are trans women. I don't know what else we could do. RJS001 are you saying you want some pictures where they are dressed less flamboyantly? Even if that is your concern, I wouldn't say the images of Rachel Levine and the one with Andrea James and Calpernia Addams are dressed in the stereotypical way I believe your implying. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

eh its not the dress so much as i feel sorta like the way they looked thye tried to find trna women that met steryotypes on trans women more than anything RJS001 (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

We are limited by the images available in commons. If the images are flamboyant not much we can do. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 08:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I know because I'm the one that's added the majority of the images in the lead of the article and spent many hours on that. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 09:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

are you saying this because you think they look trans or is it because they pass as cis? — Tazuco 23:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Some of the pictures seem out of place in their sections; for example, I'm not sure what the connection is between Rachel Levine and terminology, or between Laverne Cox and sexual orientation. Also, I think there's too much of a focus on entertainers and beauty pageant winners; I suggest swapping in some pictures of people who work in other fields, like Clara Barker (engineer) or Sophie Wilson (computer scientist). Cheers, gnu57 01:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I like the suggestion of spreading the focus of the images of trans women. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think thats a good idea, but perhaps its best to add the pictures rather than swap them, at least regarding the existing pictures of trans women from under-represented racial backgrounds. I'd hate for the page to be overwhelmingly white trans women for a number of reasons. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 08:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

BTW I'm not entirely sure what images we could use for sections like sexual orientation. To my knowledge there's no images of trans women's weddings or other stuff like that. Same with terminology, as adding an image to an abstract linguistic section will always be hard. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 08:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if you meant trans women's weddings literally or rhetorically as an example, but there are CC-licensed photos from Ruby Corado's wedding. Politanvm ^talk 01:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

What about adding a picture of Liniker? She is gender non-conforming, black, and trans woman.— Tazuco 21:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we have good images of her. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

definitly agree on that. racial diveristy in the images needs to be made sure its there. RJS001 (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2022

Re: 'Trans women have a female gender identity', this is incorrect. Trans women have a gender identity that is that of a woman (social construct) not female (biologically based) 81.174.151.54 (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

OUP/Lexico has changed the dictionary definition of trans woman used on this page to remove the phrase 'transitioned from male to female'. The updated definition is: 'A person whose birth sex was male but who lives and identifies as a woman; a transgender woman.' (see https://www.lexico.com/definition/trans_woman) 81.174.151.54 (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The words 'male' and 'female' are also used to describe genders. Look it up. -Daveout(talk) 14:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

"Discrimination against trans women" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Discrimination against trans women and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 25#Discrimination against trans women until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Tazuco 17:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth.

What does that exactly mean? she was assigned male although she was female? she was male and after transition became female? is she still male? If a baby born with vulva is assigned male by a bureaucratic error and identifies as female later in life, will she be a trans woman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgebox4 (talk • contribs)

As I have tried to explain before and your comment gets at, the current definition does a poor job of educating readers on what the topic actually is. Sources usually use another family of definitions which emphasize the crucial concept of gender identity. See them at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions and feel free to add sources to that list for future discussions. Most do however use the "assigned male..." terminology; I get why this could confuse, but calling it "assignment" is more the 'fault' of the sources than of us, so there's not much we could do. At least we have the wikilink there to explain it. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's one possibility I've thought of: A trans woman was assigned male at birth and identifies as a woman. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Jorgebox4 honestly maybe a better definition would be preferable in the lead. Or maybe we could add more definitions.

But, anyway I can understand why you have issues with the definition. We just live in those times.CycoMa (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the current first sentence A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth it is brief, clear and unambiguous. Transwomen not only identify as a women, but they are recognised as women in many other ways, such as equality and civil rights laws and other ways. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Why not add more definitions? Maybe we can give more of an explanation to readers.CycoMa (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:MOSLEAD tells us that a lead section is a concise overview of the article's topic, it needs to be simple and straightforward to grab the wide range of readership. MOS:FIRST states that The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information can be placed elsewhere. The are a number of definitions at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions, but essentially they are all fairly similar as to not warrant unnecessarily confusing the reader with slight variations of the same wording. However looking again at the definitions on that page, it does appear that identity/identifies is included in about 3/4s of the explanations/clarifications and thus Crossroads (talk · contribs)' suggested wording change certainly does have merit. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

And I am going to say that "identifies as X" does not, in this context, carry the same connotations as "has X as a gender identity", so it is misleading to add up sources formulated in those two different ways as though they were saying the same thing. In particular, "identifies as" offers subtle support for the "unverifiable and unfalsifiable" characterization discussed at Gender identity, which is not at all the mainstream position presented by the best sources. Newimpartial (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the phrasing "identifies as a woman" is problematic, but I don't think it's conceptually distinct from "has a female gender identity". All the sources say something along the lines of "[male sex assignment] BUT [female gender identity]", so a similar construction seems due here, as long as it doesn't tacitly cast doubt on the validity of trans identities. I think some variant of Option 2 from the 2018 RFC is worth revisiting. How about the obvious choice, A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth but has a female gender identity. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 21:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

See below; as first disclosed last year, I now favor a slightly different construction, for reasons that are related to a recent convo on Talk:Transgender. Female gender includes more than female gender identity, and I have come to see that as a good thing. Newimpartial (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm also not really sold on "is a person of the female gender who..." as the first sentence. It strikes me as a slightly unusual synonym for woman, while still tacitly categorizing trans women as something other than women. None of the sourced definitions use that particular phrasing, so I'm not sure it's due here. If possible please link me to that prior discussion. Right now I still prefer either the status quo, or some formulation of "is a woman who ____ but ____." RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 22:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Last year's discussion is also linked below. While yes, person of the female gender is a synonym for woman, it is a more specific synonym - which has certain advantages in this instance. Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia - the only encyclopedia that cannot come up with a reasonable definition of a transgender woman that anyone can edit... Tewdar (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

How about "blah blah blah with a female gender identity whose sex at birth was discerned/determined to be male" or something like that? Tewdar (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I still prefer people of the female gender who were assigned male at birth, for the reasons I provided near the conclusion of last year's inconclusive discussion. Also, we don't have sources for discerned/determined, as far as I know. Newimpartial (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Just expand the definition of "sex assignment" using some RS then. "Male sex whatevered at birth, female gender" seems fine. Tewdar (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The term assignment is used by nearly all the 30 odd definitions gathered at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions, the is one registered and one designated. Lucky the is an article Sex assignment so a wiki link might be helpful, though article is only C rated atm. I still also prefer the simplicity of people of the female gender who were assigned male at birth ^{I meant to quote the current lead first sentence A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth. but a person of the female gender has merit} other things can be expanded in the article. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC) ^{corrected ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)}

"People of the female gender" sounds a bit ridiculous to me...I guess it's "assigned" or "designated" then. Tewdar (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe try gender if you are confused? The term can refer to gender identity, or gender expression, or other things in other contexts. Newimpartial (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

What makes you think I'm confused? "People of the female gender" sounds affected and pompous. There's no problem with "female gender" at my end, though. Thank you for assuming that I don't know that female can refer to gender, FFS... Tewdar (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I was responding to I guess it's "assigned" or "designated" then. (I was trying to AGF.) What was that intended to express, if not confusion? Newimpartial (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I meant the lede is probably going to be restricted to a choice between "assigned male at birth" or "designated male at birth". Why do you sound so disproportionately hostile and needlessly aggressive all the time, FFS? Tewdar (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

FFS. Newimpartial (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what Noam Chomsky wrote when he replied to my email the other day. He must be an academic, too... Tewdar (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Facial Feminization Surgery is indeed relevant to some trans women but not the lead sentence. Heh. Anyway, above "is a woman who was assigned male at birth but has a female gender identity" was suggested, but this is redundant by repeating the point of "woman/female". I knew that anything with "is a person" would face pushback by some saying it implicitly excludes trans women as women, which I why my suggestion avoided it, but I note that almost all of the 3/4 of the definitions that emphasize gender identity say something just like it, because they go on to explain in the rest of the sentence. I also don't agree that "identifies as" implies anything bad; another way is "has the gender identity of a woman", but that seems awkward.

What are the thoughts on this: A trans woman has a female gender identity but was assigned male at birth. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds alright I suppose. The problem is, "assigned" to non-initiated readers sounds like it might have been a mistake as seen in OP. Perhaps we can find a way of paraphrasing "assigned male at birth" in the lede? Also, it fails to include the slogan "a trans woman is a woman" so, for the sake of facial feminization surgery, it might not be acceptable. But it's better than the current lede IMO. Tewdar (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of slogans, they don't help people understand the topic; slogans by design are for political action, not education. I don't think getting rid of "assigned" is feasible since very many of the definitions use that term and it is fairly common at present for transgender topics. Even if it were possible, that would be too much of an ask for one RfC to change that also.

Newimpartial, what are your thoughts on this proposal? It's close to what you had accepted last time this was debated. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

That was two iterations ago; last year I moved to female gender-based formulations and there I remain, for reasons I have explained recently (and repetitively). Newimpartial (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

But "gender" can be an ambiguous term. The crucial sense here is gender identity, as laid out by very many of the definitions. It isn't mere gender expression alone or anything else. Bodney, since you earlier expressed some tentative support for a formulation that mentions gender identity, what do you think of this exact formulation I gave a short bit ago A trans woman has a female gender identity but was assigned male at birth.

And as far as Aquillion's comment below me: I wasn't expecting to change it without an RfC. I just had some new ideas and wanted to get a feel for how they could be received. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

My view is a bit fluid atm I like current lede sentence because of its unquestioning simplicity, but I can see merit in both yours and Newimpartial (talk · contribs)'s, a person of the female gender who were assigned male at birth and RoxySaunders (talk · contribs)'s A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth but has a female gender identity. But i need rush away in rl. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Statistics Canada is far from being the only source to invoke gender expression as well as gender identity in this context. I prefer to take the longer view, here. Newimpartial (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Not seeing a problem with the current lead, and since the relevant part of it was the result of an RFC with really massive attendance I think we'd probably need another RFC if it was going to be changed. The terminology is fairly standard and I'm not convinced from the discussions that it's causing any serious confusion; obviously it is not possible to condense every possible aspect of gender-identity and the issues surrounding it into a single well-formed sentence, but this phrasing is quite standard by now and summarizes it adequately. --Aquillion (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Well, let's compare Britannica's entry for 'transgender': "term self-applied by persons whose gender identity varies from that traditionally associated with their apparent biological sex at birth." Okay, it might not be the most bleeding-edge or hyper-inoffensive definition available, but it does succeed in doing what an encyclopedia should be doing - giving me a basic outline of what the bleddy article is about. Tewdar (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Or The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies entry for trans men: "Trans men are people who were designated female at birth but who identify and often live their lives as men" (the *trans women* entry is much less clear, however) Tewdar (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Notice "designated", not "assigned" Tewdar (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Why not add more entries to the sub-page? Newimpartial (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Because those entries are not, strictly speaking, definitions of "trans women". Tewdar (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Strictly speaking I fail to see how your chosen definitions are any more than minor wording differences in comparison to existing collected list of definitions. To state that the two you have personally chosen are the true definitions and the many slightly different variations collected by other editors are not definations, is to (put it extremely mildly) highly questionable. While sex designation is not bad, assignment is a far more universally recognised term and because of this the is an article on Sex assignment, the is not one on Sex designation. As respectfully recommended, the 2 definitions you found should be simply added to the list at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions, nothing more. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  I think Tewdar was saying that the two definitions he wrote here are not definitions of “trans woman”, but are rather for “transgender” and “trans men”. The subpage says This page is only for listing definitions of trans woman., so he did not add them. POLITANVM ^talk 13:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed, that is exactly what I am saying. I have no idea how any other interpretation is possible. "The two you have personally chosen are the true definitions" - where was this stated? They probably do a better job defining their respective topics than we manage on this article, however. Tewdar (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, perhaps the phrase "those entries" may have been a little ambiguous... Tewdar (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely sparkling crystal clear, many of the definitions on the Trans woman/Definitions page are perfectly acceptable and are an improvement on the current lede, IMHO. Tewdar (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Tewdar, how exactly does the SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies define trans woman? Do you have a link to it for the subpage? Google Books is being uncooperative. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, hang on a mo... I have the book, I'll type it out soon... Tewdar (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It's actually rather fuzzy; so I suppose it's "individuals assigned male at birth who took on traditionally female roles and dress", but they say that "a universally accepted definition of trans woman is not possible"... do you want me to paste the whole entry? It really leans towards a description, rather than a definition... Tewdar (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

"The identity trans women emerged in 20th-century Europe and North America, but traditions and identities in European and non-European societies anticipated the emergence of contemporary trans identities. While a universally accepted definition of trans woman is not possible, trans women are becoming more visible and gaining greater acceptance in the United States and other countries, even as they continue to experience pervasive discrimination, harassment, and violence [...lots of text skipped ...] people who anticipated contemporary trans women date back centuries. In fact, evidence suggests that individuals assigned male at birth who took on traditionally female roles and dress existed in many premodern cultures and were often connected with indigenous shamanic traditions." Tewdar (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking more of what the first sentence in their encyclopedia entry is. Maybe you said it already but I'm not sure. I don't expect you to copy the whole entry, which is probably not allowed copyright-wise anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it actually starts with the bit above, "The identity trans women emerged in 20th-century Europe and North America..." so it really takes a historical / descriptive approach, rather than trying to provide a copper-bottomed definition, which it later states is not possible. It really doesn't define the term... Tewdar (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.

Even a literal encyclopedia of trans studies won't offer a clear definition. I'm sure that bodes well for us. /s Crossroads ^-talk- 19:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Better to state that 'A universally accepted definition of trans woman is not possible' than to leave the lede as it is. For the the statement a 'A trans woman is a woman...' to be true, the defining characteristic of a woman must be the mind. Are there any widely accepted definitions of 'woman' that describe it as a function of the mind? Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

A universally accepted definition of anything is not possible, yet you’ll be surprised to find that very few Wikipedia articles begin that way. Respectfully, your or my personal opinions on what is “required” to be a woman are not especially relevant. If there is no suitable encyclopedic definition for this term, or there is not any consensus among reliable sources, then the burden is on you to demonstrate that this is the case, rather than simply moving the goalposts.RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 03:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I have put the case that there is no consensus by pointing to Tewdar's passage from the SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies - "a universally accepted definition of trans woman is not possible". Did you mean suitable encyclopedic definition for woman, or for trans woman?

Let me see if I have this straight:

1. A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth. (Source: this article.)

2. A woman is an adult female human. (Source: linked article on "Woman".)

3. Female is the sex of an organism that produces ova. (Source: article on "Female" linked from "Woman.)

4. Male is the sex of an organism that produces sperm. (Source: article on "Male".)

So a trans woman is a human who produces ova as an adult, but produced sperm at birth. Excellent! Amazing what you can learn from Wikipedia. 24.20.43.198 (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Also from Female: "Female can refer to either sex or gender..." I see some good proposals above that attempt to emphasize the "female gender" aspect of the definition. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the linked articles, which has been noted before, is the predominance of ova over gender at Female combined with the wikilink to Female in the lede of Woman. The WP:OWNers of these articles have resisted proposals to solve them, so the issues remain. Newimpartial (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

No, the problem is the people who won't read past the first sentence of an article and expect it to explain every detail. Those definitions are in accord with WP:DUE, and even if sources on one topic did contradict sources on another, that's society's problem, not ours. It really doesn't help, though, that many of the editors at this article insist on keeping a sloganesque wording that represents a small minority of definitions (documented at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions) in clear violation of WP:DUE, when we could easily rewrite it to mention the crucial concept of gender identity, as by far the majority of definitions do. Unfortunately not many of us are in the mood for the assumptions of bad faith that will get slung our way and general drama that an RFC to change it will bring. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm certain that ova will remain predominant in the 'Female' article, given that it's not an article specific to female humans and humans make up a tiny proportion of the variety living organisms on Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisha'o'Mine (talk • contribs)

I am well aware of this, but the consequence of Female being overwhelmingly a biological article, which is then linked from articles that are not primarily about biology (e.g., Woman), is that "gotcha" points are then scored by those inclined to do so: a process that generates more heat than light.

As far as Crossroads' point on gender identity is concerned, I still hold that "identifies as" definitions and "gender identity" definitions should not be considered identical when it comes to point scoring assessing DUE and BALANCE. Newimpartial (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no basis to assert it's a "woman" in first place. When someone is "assigned" male at birth, at least this is supported by a physical examination performed by a professional. If in doubt they also can conduct other studies. But there's absolutely no evidence that someone claiming to be a woman, actually is. An encyclopaedia should be based on facts.--Charrua85 (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There is clearly contention regarding the statement "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth". Wikipedia is meant to be unbiased, and yet this statement is clearly not neutral. It should read "A trans woman is a person who was assigned male at birth who now identifies as being a woman." Colevasquez (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

There is contention, but the current sentence does match some of the definitions gathered as Talk:Trans woman/Definitions, so it isn’t right to say it doesn’t follow WP:NPOV. Some of those definitions are more closely aligned to your rewrite. So the questions are: which sources do we trust most, and how to we paraphrase them without editorializing? I don’t know what the answer is, but I know the answer isn’t that the current definition is biased and non-neutral. Politanvm ^talk 18:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the Oxford dictionary definition: "A trans woman is a transgender person who has transitioned from male to female." or an adaptation of LGBT authority GLAAD and Stonewall's definitions would suffice?: "A trans woman is a person who was assigned male at birth, but whose gender identity is female." I think the key to a neutral definition is to highlight that it is the gender identity and not the sex that has changed, and "A trans women is a woman" does not get across this nuance and reads like a trans woman is a biological female who was mistakenly designated as a male by medical negligence. Colevasquez (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Colevasquez that the definition currently reads like reads like it could apply to people like Lady Colin Campbell, who never identified as male, and never felt as if they underwent any kind of transition. Nero Calatrava (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Lady Colin Campbell is an example of our current definition being imperfect. I am not sure there's a first-sentence definition that won't have imperfections, and I think the current version is less imperfect than some other proposals above. Firefangledfeathers 19:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

While I recognize that there is a tension between "subjective" definitions (where a trans person is a person who identifies as trans) and "objective" definitions (where a trans person is a person who has transitioned, or is transitioning, or who was assigned one status but now occupied another). That said, I don't see why editors think the Lady Campbell case is problematic in the objective sense: there was an attempt to assign sex - legally and physically - based on a decision made in infancy, and Campbell made her own decisions as an adult to change both legal sex and anatomical presentation. I don't see why it would be inappropriate for that scenario to fit the "objective" definition of "trans woman" though her subjective experience is undoubtedly different than most. Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

(OP) I don't even know what "assigned at birth" means. You're either born male or female (or rarely both). -- GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The term is Intersex, not hermaphrodite. I am quite confident the term hermaphrodite is considered offensive nowadays and wrong to use in medical/scientific settings in reference to human anatomy. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

In this politically correct era, it's difficult to know what is or isn't offensive. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Well now you know. Not exactly secret info. GoodDay, if you read the article you can easily learn about Sex_assignment at birth. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

In terms of efficiency, GoodDay, you might benefit most from reading this section, which relates to the Lady Campbell discussion. (Some other editors might benefit, as well). Newimpartial (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial's observation that ″there is a tension between "subjective" definitions (where a trans person is a person who identifies as trans) and "objective" definitions (where a trans person is a person who has transitioned, or is transitioning, or who was assigned one status but now occupied another)″ is important. I suggest that this point be included in the lead part of the article, perhaps in the very first sentence, which could state up front that there are two ways of defining a trans women and they have different extensions. Nero Calatrava (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

References

How can a "trans woman" be a "woman" when the definition (according to Wikipedia) of "woman" is "adult human female" and a female (according to Wikipedia) produces ova? Can so-called "trans women" produce ova? Are their gametes larger than a males? Do they have XX chromosomes? No? Then they're not female. So they can't be an adult human female. They cannot be a woman. Perhaps Wikipedia should change its name to Wokepedia to reflect its ideological bias. Garis (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say. You can see the discussions on this page, and the subpage with an extensive list of definitions for “trans woman”, which has a wide breadth of definitions, some of which support the way the article is currently written. Feel free to suggest better ways to summarize reliable sources, but try to avoid original research/logic types of arguments, and certainly don’t cite Wikipedia, since it’s not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. On a side note, your signature should make it easy to identify your username. Politanvm ^talk 18:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sendtoanthony If you read past the first sentence of Woman and Female you will see that both articles address that issue. As with many articles, the first line provides a general purpose definition, and then the rest of the article clarifies that definition. Thus Female refers to both sex and gender, and a woman may be trans or intersex. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If you have have an issue with other people you need to take up with someone else rather than spreading misinformation as you have done on wikipedia. I persume infertile women are also not women? RJS001 (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Article Conflict

Right now Wikipedia is contradicting itself with mutually contradictory claims, including this one:

• This claim is that a trans woman is a woman (without citations).
• The page for woman says that a woman is, in part, female (with citations).
• The page for female says that females produce ova (with citations), which trans women do not; furthermore, the same with-citations sentence defines female as a sex, not a gender identity.

There are multiple possible solutions here, including modifying the page for female, modifying the page for woman, and modifying the page for trans woman. I am going to do the latter, as its claim is the only one made without citations. I not going to modify the sentence directly, per the embedded comment saying not to do so without an RfC, but I think it should be changed from "is a woman" to "is someone who identifies as a woman", in order to match other Wikipedia articles, but I should add that the page for female does not match the modern common usage of the term, which is based on identity, not objectively verifiable attributes; furthermore, the current page for female includes no discussion of how different cultures may define the word differently. For now, I am going to add a citation needed claim to the trans woman page sentence this is about, as the sentence is contradicting two other sentences on Wikipedia that both have multiple citations.Quindraco (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The references-as with most statements of fact in the lead-are in the article body, where they should be.

Also, have you read any of the 17 or so discussions of this topic on this Talk page? Newimpartial (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Not that I necessarily want to question the lede sentence here, but exactly which reference is being used to support this statement? The article body does not provide such a definition, unless I am mistaken.

Obviously, definitions identical to this can be found on the famous definitions subpage which I can't be bothered to link to right now. But they don't seem to be used in the article. So, either add one of these to the body (better option), or add an inline citation to the first sentence (worse option). 😁👍  Tewdar  13:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The key phrase is in the McKinnon source cited in the terminology section. Which isn't to imply an objection to improvements to be made to that section, in clarity and sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Section on the cotton ceiling

Hi all,

I’d like to add a section on the cotton ceiling. What kinds of sources can I use? Thanks Quiefe (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Quiefe:, Several issues to consider here. First, to answer your question: you can use independent, reliable, secondary sources to support added content. You will find that there are plenty of opinions about the cotton ceiling in self-published sources like WP:BLOGs, or on YouTube, but these are generally inadmissible at Wikipedia. If in doubt, check the reliable sources noticeboard.

However, reliable sourcing is not the only requirement for new content; there is also the issue of WP:DUEWEIGHT: considering the voluminous amount of information available on the topic of "trans women" in dozens of published books, hundreds of scholarly articles, and thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of web pages, does the relatively limited topic of the cotton ceiling have enough support in reliable sources to be worth a mention here at all? It's basically a question of proportion: we can't cover every possible issue about trans women; this is an encyclopedia article, so it's a summary, so it covers just the more important things. You might have a better chance at an article with narrower scope, such as Transmisogyny, but even there the issue of WP:DUEWEIGHT would arise.

Another approach, where WP:DUE WEIGHT would not be an issue, is to write an entire article about it. But then, other requirements would come into play, such as WP:Notability. I've considered this topic before, and imho it's not notable; it was a flash in the pan for a while when it first came out, with opinions flying all over, but not much serious coverage; since then, it has had little staying power, and most of what's available is inadmissible opinion articles and first-person accounts. But that's just my opinion. If you'd like to consider that option, you could try starting a WP:DRAFT such as Draft:Cotton ceiling. Fair warning: writing a new article is more difficult than just adding content to an existing one, and in the end, if the topic is judged to be not notable, your new article will never get past the draft stage, so that's a risk. You could try asking at the WP:LGBT Studies WikiProject or at Wikipedia talk:Notability whether folks there would consider this a notable topic or not. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

it has an entry at wiktionary. Quiefe (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Quiefe Well what are you looking to say about it? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary is hardly a standard of notability for an encyclopedia article. Equivamp - talk 21:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary also has definitions for abibliophobia, honorificabilitudinitatibus, and clbuttic, but these would not necessarily be notable encyclopedia topics. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 22:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders:, clbuttic is my new fave word. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Clbuttic is actually covered under Scunthorpe problem (and is even a redirect there.) In theory I think "Clbuttic mistake" or the like could be a valid title for it based on a quick search, it's just not the one we went with. --Aquillion (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Nonsensical Article

We’ve all had fun you must agree but obvious Wikipedia:SEALION is obvious and this is clearly going nowhere. Dronebogus (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth." Can anyone explain this sentence because it appears to be nonsensical? The Wiki article on 'woman' that is linked in the sentence states that a woman is an adult female and that female is the sex that produces eggs. To be assigned male at birth is to be of the sex that produces sperm, not eggs. What am I missing? Mr Miles (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC) This article in 2017 had an intro that was coherent: "A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a person who was assigned male at birth but who identifies as a woman.". And in 2004 it had an even more coherent intro: "Transwomen are transsexual or transgendered people who were assigned male sex at birth (or, in some rare cases of intersexuality, later) and who feel that this is not an accurate or complete description of themselves, and therefore strive to present in a more female gender role." What happened?! Mr Miles (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC) This article has caught up to reality, and its sourcing. The daisy chain of references from here to Woman and from Woman to Female has not. Newimpartial (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC) ...or rather: this article has trans rights activists as gatekeepers, whereas Woman and Female has feminists as gatekeepers. Seems you're implying that Woman should be changed to 'person with a woman's gender identity' - and what do you propose for Female, the same? Mr Miles (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Please don't employ WP:STRAWMAN argumentation; I wouldn't support either of the changes you mention here. Also, I am a feminist. (And you ought to be aware that "trans rights activists" is sometimes employed as a dog whistle, though that is more true of the initialism.) Concerning your POV on these matters, are you still under the impression that the Singular they represents "Critical theory" and will be dropped once the detransitioners class-action lawsuits start? That's a fairly, err, "robust" POV for editing in a discretionary sanctions area. Newimpartial (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Ok, so provide me with a steelman, what is the 'reality' of woman if not female human? Mr Miles (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC) The reliable sources demonstrate conclusively that "female" has multiple, differing and overlapping, meanings depending on context. For human beings, many/most of those meanings concern Gender. So I deny the premise of your implied syllogism. Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Female is not a synonym for gender, as you must know. Mr Miles (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Let’s WikiWalk this: this article: trans women are women who were assigned male at birth woman: a woman is an adult female human female: in humans female can refer to gender, and don’t pretend like you don’t know what that’s supposed to mean in this context this isn’t hard Dronebogus (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC) It isn't? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female EvergreenFir (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC) You're referring to this: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/merriam-webster-changes-the-definition-of-female/ Mr Miles (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Mr Miles, if you have reliable sources that you would like us to consider -- or even better, proposals for concrete changes backed by reliable sources, that would be a helpful way forward. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC) The Intro is currently incoherent. For one thing, intros should reflect the content of the article which, eg, states: "trans women... identify as a woman.", whereas the unsourced intro states 'are women'. And the point I've already made, that the linked article woman states their identifying characteristic is being female, so trans women are not women but are males who identify as women. Mr Miles (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Mr Miles - Sure, but these arguments are not particularly persuasive from a WP:NOTSOURCE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sort of perspective. It would be more helpful if you could provide reliable secondary sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Please refute or accept my first point. Mr Miles (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC) "Debate me bro" is similarly not a persuasive argument. Dumuzid (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC) That's not my argument. As it stands, the article intro is unsourced and doesn't match the content as I've indicated. Mr Miles (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Perhaps one of the relevant sources from Talk:Trans woman/Definitions should be added, then. Newimpartial (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC) That's not how this works. You are disrupting this page to make a WP:POINT by demanding others debate with you. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC) "disrupting" - I'm giving an opinion on an article on its talk page :) Is this a cult? Mr Miles (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC) What even is your first point? Dronebogus (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Intros should reflect the content of the article which, eg, states: "trans women... identify as a woman.", whereas the unsourced intro states 'are women'. Mr Miles (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC) They identify as and are women. Latter is shorter and explains the gist well enough in context. The end. Dronebogus (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC) The source doesn't say and are women it says identify as Mr Miles (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Okay now you’re just being petty Dronebogus (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC) You don't think there is a distinction between being something and believing yourself to be something?! Mr Miles (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC) What reliable source on this topic uses "believing themselves to me a woman" rather than "identifying as a woman"? (I swear that goal post was right over there.) Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Perhaps one of the relevant sources from Talk:Trans woman/Definitions should be added, then. Newimpartial (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Sure, many of them are (unlike the current intro) coherent. Eg, from the BBC, "those assigned male at birth but living as a woman" Mr Miles (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC) No editor is obliged to WP:SATISFY you, Mr. Miles. However, I will point out that there is no consensus within the RS that (anatomical or chromosomal) "femaleness" is the uniquely defining characteristic of Women. Also, your statement that trans women are not women but are males who identify as women is a WP:POV statement full of whistling dogs, and us not supported by RS. Please don't do that, because dog whistles are distracting and potentially disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC) There is far more RS consensus that anatomy and chromosomes define female than there is that gender idenity does. As for 'whistling dogs', adjust your outfit because your bias is showing. Mr Miles (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Maybe proofread before arguing about gender “idenity”? Dronebogus (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Bad faith. Mr Miles (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Like your whole point of Wikipedia:SEALIONing this article isn’t? Dronebogus (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC) As far as I can tell, Mr Miles has never produced a source for his POV that is usable in this article. But he as produced greatest hits like this 2020 gem: classic Mr Miles Yes, the condition that leads a man to feel he is a woman is biological. But obviously, that doesn't mean that his feeling about himself is literally true in the face of his male biology. And anyway, many trans women don't believe themselves to be literally female; they just believe(/hope) their dysphorial will diminish if they can try to be female. Actually, that's a good point, many trans women don't believe themselves to actually be women, but still 'identify'/live as women. Mr Miles (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Now that's at least a cognizable Wikipedia argument. But to this point, you have only backed up your argument with ipse dixit. Again, not terribly persuasive. Dumuzid (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC) There is no such consensus that anatomy and chromosomes define Woman, which is the term linked from this article ("female", in this context is a red herring). And I'm afraid that my ears are not very sensitive; I have frequently seen editors banned from GENSEX for using dogwhistles I could scarcely hear. Yours are more prominent - perhaps more a bobby whistle than a dog whistle. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Yes, that's why this article and others on the subject are nonsensical, because gatekeepers will attempt to get banned anyone who doesn't conform to a very narrow ideological position. That you're bragging about it is incredible Mr Miles (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Claiming that I (or any other editor) will attempt to get banned anyone who doesn't conform to a very narrow ideological position is a clear and unsubstantiated personal attack. If you can conduct WP:CIVIL discussion within the topic area then you are welcome, regardless of your views. However, many of those who use dogwhistle language - especially when they do not realize they are doing so - are likely to become disruptive and to be banned from the topic. Claiming that I (or any other editor) will attempt to get banned anyone who doesn't conform to a very narrow ideological position is a clear and unsubstantiated personal attack. If you can conduct WP:CIVIL discussion within the topic area then you are welcome, regardless of your views. However, many of those who use dogwhistle language - especially when they do not realize they are doing so - are likely to become disruptive and to be banned from the topic. (For the record, the only filing I made against such an editor, to the best of my recollection, was this one, and the editor in question was indeed found to be disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of Gallery of images at the top

Hello all -- recently QueenofBithynia removed the gallery from the top, citing MOS:ETHNICGALLERY. I then subsequently reverted. I tend to think she has a persuasive argument, but thought consensus should be achieved before the change was made. She opened a discussion at the Images page on the Manual of Style and I would ask anyone interested to share an opinion there. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

In archive 8 there was a rough consensus for the Wanzer image which had been added back on October 4, 2021.[1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's the discussion from June-September 2021 on what representative image(s) to include on this page. FWIW I doubt any single image or gallery of images will make everyone happy... Funcrunch (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to this discussion. I will ping them for the MoS discussion for further comment - this is something that needs sitewide consensus, not just on the talk page of this article, considering that (as it stands) this seems to violate MoS. QueenofBithynia (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

What needs sitewide consensus? Images of single individuals (or pair) as lead images for groups of people? We've had discussions at Woman, Human, etc. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The guideline at MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY does seem to discourage such treatment, and pretty much for the reason Funcrunch mentions (among others). Mathglot (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

article description.

hello. I think the article description is less than optimal because it describes a Trans Woman as a Transgender woman. not everybody knows what this is so we should probably make it more obvious on the description. Matteow101 (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it’s a little circular, but my rationale here is that Short descriptions are intended to disambiguate the subject area being discussed, not to define it. In the event that trans is an unfamiliar/ambiguous term to the searcher, I think there’s value in expanding it to make clear this article is about transgender, not transhumanist, transportation, transracial, or another such (theoretical) categorization of woman. We should avoid jargon, but if someone reading the SDESC is unaware of non-specialist vocabulary like AMAB or transgender (I wouldn’t call either niche), the article should help with that, not the short description. If nothing else, our theoretical lay reader can look at it and go “Oh, so it’s a gender thing.” –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 13:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2022

A trans woman is a person who identifies as a woman but was assigned male at birth. 2A00:79E1:ABC:1208:E64E:33F2:D3C0:9C3F (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure the article says that? Dronebogus (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Why add this line??

“Trans women may identify as heterosexual (or straight), bisexual, homosexual (or lesbian), asexual, or none of the above.“ So can everyone else? And outlining three sexualities just to say ‘or none of the above’ seems counterproductive. 68.175.6.43 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree it’s fairly useless, just make sure trans man and maybe Non-binary gender is consistent if you remove it. Dronebogus (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It may not be worded the best, but it shouldn't be removed entirely per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Equivamp - talk 09:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

“none of the above” probably refers to other, less common sexual orientations like pansexual or demisexual; maybe change to “or other orientations”? Dronebogus (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless we're hankering for links to the other LGBT articles, I think any sexual orientation would be the best way of saying this in the lede. I made this edit, which replaces that sentence with text corresponding to Trans man, reading Like cisgender women, trans women may have any sexual orientation. Acceptable? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 14:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Levivich 16:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Good Dronebogus (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2022

Change reference to 'woman' wrt definition of trans woman to 'person' Paul.A.Enger (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus supporting the status quo, so why does there have to be one to change it? And how would this consensus be established? There will always be some who think Wikipedia, or at least this article, should be an annex to Twitter/Reddit, and to hell with NPOV. 24.20.73.137 (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean unanimity. Please see WP:CONSENSUS. This is just how Wikipedia works. It can certainly be frustrating. For my money, it's the worst system we could possibly have--except for all of the alternatives. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that the current phrasing is the result of an RfC (specifically Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4 § RfC on introduction) which had a WP:NOCONSENSUS result, and as such, would require a followup RfC to alter. Given the affirmative rumblings in the above section, it is very likely that another RfC on this matter will be conducted very soon.

Once that discussion in motion, Paul and the IP editor are more than welcome to offer policy-based arguments in support of changing the existing text. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)