Talk:Transgender/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

research on transsexualism section?

there are multiple issues with this section. Firstly, transsexualism is generally an outdated term not used within the trans community to refer to itself, and has medicalising undertones.

secondly, citing blanchard? blanchards theories are near universally viewed as inaccurate by the trans community, and generally aren't mainstream. to put him in a prominent position and list those who do and don't disagree with him as if they were equal sides gives him too much legitimacy and relevance, where honestly i dont think he should be in this article at all.

thirdly, the mortality rate paragraph. there is no clarificiation as to what causes this higher mortality rate, it merely mentions that they studied populations on hormone replacement therapy, but doesnt clarify if the hormone replacement therapy is what contributes to the higher mortality rate. If im going to be a bit conspiratorial, it seems like someone has inserted this section so people will read it, and then associate HRT with higher mortality, because most people won't see that only the correlation has been noted here, and won't visit the link which explicitly says this : The cause-specific mortality risk because of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, HIV-related disease, and suicide gives no indication to a specific effect of hormone treatment.

I think the last section really needs further clarificaiton, and more citations to other sources, because otherwise it just comes off as fearmongering, and may be unnecessarily distressing to trans individuals who read it, who might think that going on hrt is going to be bad for their long term health, where the actual citation claims no direct correlation between the two. Schizotypewriter (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

That's true, transsexualism is the term used in the DSM-III, which was replaced by gender identity disorder (GID) in DSM-IV, and gender dysphoria (GD) in the DSM-5. The use of the term transsexualism should in and of itself be considered a red flag at this point that the material is likely outdated or fringe science.

For Blanchard's theories, we should follow WP:DUE, and since Blanchard's theories are not accepted by mainstream researchers or mainstream medical organizations dealing with trans issues, they should be treated as such, if they are presented at all. In this regard, it may be good to review WP:FRINGE. Hist9600 (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies-17

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 February 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LuciBee123 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sqygkiwi (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The wording in this line is a bit off

i feel that the linethroughout history the gay, lesbian, and bisexual (LGBT) subculture was often the only place where gender-variant people were socially accepted should not have the (LGBT) as it is obvius that the T part of the acronym whould be acpting of gender varuaus and the section is on how non-trans queer people view trans people thus inclding an acronym that has trans popel in it seems off Roma enjoyer (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I'm going to remove the acronym and also pluralise it as there was only a coherent gay subculture in more recent times. Before that it was much more fragmented. I'm still not a great fan of this section but this seems like a small improvement. DanielRigal (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2023

Change

""" The Catholic Church has been involved in the outreach to LGBT community for several years and continues doing so through Franciscan urban outreach centers, for example, the Open Hearts outreach in Hartford, Connecticut.[173] The Vatican holds that transgender people cannot become godparents and compares transitioning to self-harm.[174]

The Church of England passed a motion at the 2017 General Synod, which would ensure Anglican churches accepted transgender people, even suggesting on their website that transgender people could be gifted a Bible with their new name inscribed to support them.[175]

"""

to

"""

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Source is not reachable and is probably primary. – Callmemirela 🍁 01:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Here is the source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 369. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1B.HTM HumanaeVitae (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. -Lemonaka‎ 04:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Catholicism

The Catholic Church's official teaching is that "'Being man' or 'being woman' is a reality which is good and willed by God."[173] In other words, the Church does not support transgender ideology. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church maintains all transgender individuals have human dignity. The outspoken disagreement with transgender ideology is seen as an act of love towards transgender individuals because the Church seeks to counsel them as a spiritual work of mercy. According to the Church, gender transitioning is a form of self-harm and that living as one's preferred gender is an act of public disagreement with Church teaching. Due to such, transgender individuals cannot become godparents. The Catholic Church has been involved in the outreach to LGBT community for several years and continues doing so through Franciscan urban outreach centers, for example, the Open Hearts outreach in Hartford, Connecticut.[174]

Anglicanism

The Church of England passed a motion at the 2017 General Synod, which would ensure Anglican churches accepted transgender people, even suggesting on their website that transgender people could be gifted a Bible with their new name inscribed to support them.[176]

"""

[173] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 369. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1B.HTM

I am suggesting this edit because 1) the former article did not have bold text for each religion, so I added bold text to make the article more readable and distinct, and 2) the section on Catholicism simply compared transitioning to self-harm in an unclear way and used a secondary source instead of a primary source. I have added two new primary sources and removes the secondary source, since the conclusions reached from it necessarily follow from the primary sources, i.e. the Catechism of the Catholic Church and an official Papal Encyclical titled, Laudato Si'. HumanaeVitae (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: First, per WP:RS, secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia over primary sources. Second, your proposed edit would give undue weight to the Catholic Church's position in the context of this article, which is a broader view on transgender people. Indeed, that section already links to Transgender people and religion, and there is a much more sustained discussion of the Catholic Church's views here. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I see; I still think the current state of the article is lacking. Simply stating that 'gender transitioning is comparable to self-harm and transgenders cannot be godparents' is insufficient. It should state clearly the Church's teaching or not state it at all HumanaeVitae (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I have shortened my edit to not place undue weight on it. I will reactivate the request. I would like to expand the article further for short explanations for more religions, but do not have the time. HumanaeVitae (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Your proposed edit still relies on primary sources. Please review WP:RS and WP:NOR. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I am using a reliable source and no original research. The Catechism source is a reliable source of what the Catholic Church teaches since it is published by the Catholic Church. I see I left my second source up still; I did not mean to keep it. I have removed it. HumanaeVitae (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I fixed the issue and reactivated the request. HumanaeVitae (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

When the catholic church says something about the catholic church that's reliable but still a primary source (see WP:PRIMARY). It would be much better to find a secondary source that describes the catholic church's position without being affiliated with it. For example, a book or academic article that reviews and compares the views of different christian denominations or religions on the subject. The author(s) of this text would quote the church's position statement(s) but also interpret and contextualize it. To find such a text you could try and see who is quoting/citing/discussing the catechism, e.g., through searching for "catechism 369" on Google Scholar.--TempusTacet (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The Catechism is not Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition; it is a summary of such. 2600:4040:A194:7000:3428:D633:B4DC:D53D (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

LGBT Community - Purpose of Section?

Noticed the "LGBT Community" section in this article, consisting of 1 paragraph and doesn't seem to have enough significance for its own section. Is there another reason for this section? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I imagine it could be expanded with discussion of trans community spaces, and the history of that. It just needs some enterprising fellow to do the work :P CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that section is intended to explain how the transgender community fits within the wider LGBT community. It doesn't do a great job of that and it could definitely be improved. DanielRigal (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Daniel. Further, I think the section should be replaced by a section entitled, #Transgender community. In the same way that there is a standalone article entitled, "LGBT community", we should have an article on Transgender community, which is unquestionably a notable topic, but we don't. (That blue link simply redirects back here.) So, the way to go, imho, is to create that article first, then once it's done, summarize it down to a couple of paragraphs, and include that summary here as a here, as a section in WP:Summary style, with a {{Main}} link to the new article. In the meantime, I think the current section may be trying to serve that purpose, but whether it is or isn't, it isn't well done (or at least, isn't in the right venue) and I can see an argument for just removing it. As the redirect is still valid, if you want to go this route, I'd start by creating Draft:Transgender community, and then pinging a few editors from the Talk page, if you want any assistance. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Creating a FAQ

The topic of a FAQ for this page came up in the previous discussion. Regarding what questions should be in a FAQ, and how we should decide the answers should be determined by consensus. We can start by just spitballing ideas here, or by simply creating one in a subpage without linking it above until it has buy-in. I think a good starting point for anyone who wishes to help with this, is to get a feeling for what FAQs are out there now, and especially, how they are handled for pages on contentious topics.

There are over five hundred talk pages that have a FAQ; here are the first one hundred of them. Here is a handful of articles on contentious topics that have a FAQ:

• Talk:Trans woman
• Talk:Chelsea Manning
• Talk:Evolution
• Talk:Abortion
• Talk:The Holocaust
• Talk:Holocaust denial
• Talk:Homeopathy
• Talk:Israel
• Talk:Intelligent design
• Talk:Race and intelligence
• Talk:Nazi Party
• Talk:September 11 attacks
• Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine
• Talk:Gamergate

I haven't examined each one of these, so this isn't necessarily an endorsement, but it does show how FAQs have been developed for some other topics which may be contentious as well. See Template:FAQ for further info. Mathglot (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I will start going through those and coming up with questions. I created a subpage for Talk:Transgender/FAQ for the discussion, created a strawman for discussion, and threw a few questions on it to start the discussion. Feel free to undo any or all of that if there's a better methodology. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for creating that. As a matter of style and participation, the subpage should contain your skeleton FAQ on its own, and the discussion should be here in this section. Nobody will go there to comment. (I was in the middle of creating one, too, but it was empty, just the placeholders for Q & A, so let's just go with your version.) Mathglot (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm totally new to the world of FAQs on Wikipedia, so I appreciate the guidance. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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

---

Formal request has been received to merge: Transsexual into Transgender; dated: July 2023 Proposer's Rationale: It is proposed these two terms be merged, with the argument that the term transexual is outdated, inaccurate, and offensive., and furthermore, that the Transsexual page should be a subsection of the Transgender page. Discuss here. GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

We just finished this discussion nine days ago. Apparently, it is within policy to just keep this churn going. In the following, I am using TG and TS to refer to the articles, not to people.

• Strong Oppose just like last time. Bullet summary:

1. TS and TG are distinct terms in the overwhelming majority of WP:RSs.
2. Yes, many of those sources are older than last week. The terms might eventually be considered as identical (in the preponderance of sources), but that requires WP:CRYSTAL
3. There is just no good reason for this change. Neither article is misleading or harmful.
4. There is even less reason to change it right now. We are supposed to follow sources, not lead them. Leave this alone for enough time for the English language to settle, and for the source to catch up. If you are so unshakably confident that your POV will prevail, you won't have a problem waiting until it does to make the change.

Please don't do this. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Last1in Actually this request was meant for the previous discussion but it was in the wrong category...so it is coming up now. Weird. If re-open this discussion in the future, but will be considering all views on this, before proposing a merger. Historyday01 (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for doubting the good faith of the nomination. Please mark it up as simple discussion fatigue. Maybe if we wait a bit to relist it, more sources will agree with the nom and my arguments will be moot. I have a feeling (not fully researched) that there may also be some underlying US/UK-centric bias that could also be eliminated with a little time for the world to catch up with those cultures' developing sensitivities. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll definitely wait a bit for it to be relisted. I've noted on various places that I'd like the discussion closed, but I'm not sure when GenQuest will do so. Historyday01 (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• On the merits of the matter, these should be merged, because as a rule we don't have separate articles for different terms for the same topic (we have just one article on the topic of African Americans to which Black Americans redirects, even though different people strongly prefer one or the other term and, like with transsexual, some older people even prefer the older term Negro Americans, and old organizations still use terms like Colored People, etc—the articles Negro and Colored People only cover the terms, they don't redundantly cover the same topic in two places). Not only do sources state these are words for the same general topic, but even the people claiming the two are separate topics have turned out to be citing references which only mention "transgender" to support statements about "transsexual" in the latter article because even they in practice treat them as interchangeable words for the same topic.
  Procedurally, though, enough SPAs and one-off new accounts opposed the recent move proposal that it was closed as no consensus, so in theory we should perhaps not re-discuss it for a while...? The closer of the other discussion suggested bringing it up in a WP:CENTral place, but people in those central venues object to discussions of trans topics being brought up there, so...rock and a hard place! -sche (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• Suggestion: perhaps the right answer here is to re-examine the close of the last discussion, rather than run this whole thing again. Having looked at the discussion, I'd have closed it as merge. Ignoring blocked and dubious accounts, it was nine to five in favor of merging (rough count) (I didn't participate in the merge discussion, though I am of course quite active on both pages). Plus, the merges seem to have the stronger argument, since we're clearly running up against definitional issues that make it hard to know what each article should cover so as not to be duplicative. Alternatively, perhaps that is the right question to ask and answer: what article should cover what? Transsexual seems to have a long history as a term, perhaps that warrants its own article anyway. Or maybe the articles should be merged, but we need to create a dedicated article for Medical transition (currently a redirect). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Would you suggest withdrawing this request for now, since its my request, or to continue with the discussion? I only made the request because of the PREVIOUS discussion in hopes of getting more eyes on it. But, it was in the wrong place for a month (GenQuest said "Placed unprepped in wrong section; moved back to new merger requests")? Would like some thoughts before I mention anyone else and bring them into the discussion. I didn't even remember I had this request either.Historyday01 (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Historyday01 Ah, I didn't realize that you started this discussion, I thought it was GenQuest. I would suggest withdrawing for the moment, especially given the last discussion just ended, and it looks like the only thing that is going to happen here is to rehash things. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  @CaptainEek Ok, sounds like a good idea. Will do it as soon as I can. Historyday01 (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly, having read the discussion on and off as it was ongoing, I too was going to close it as merge had InvadingInvader not gotten there first. The arguments predicated on POVFORK as a reason for merging were significantly stronger, and not well refuted by those opposing the merge. The only reason I didn't formally challenge it at the time was that I got distracted by other discussions and it slipped my mind until now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge. I would say there is enough evidence to merge the two together, due to the overlap and I also think things are moving toward both topics being merged. I can also see the transexual page as a content fork from Transgender, and would say that any nuances can be covered in a merged article. Such a merger is not an attack on anyone identifying as transsexual. I had a longer comment in the last discussion, but thought I would make my same opinion known again. However, I get what -sche and Captain Eek are saying. I had a similar issue in a recent BLP discussion I was part of (you probably all saw it), which has a LOT of SPAs and one-off accounts, which tilted the results. I have to completely disagree with Last1in.Historyday01 (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge, based on the reason for nomination, actually. Sorry to be picky about it, but the reason being "outdated, inaccurate, and offensive" does not seem to be encyclopedia-worthy. Many of the sources given in the previous discussion do direct to not use transsexual, unless specifically requested to; how the term is often offensive and is tied to past persecution, one source says the transgender community 'rejected' the term. Transsexual predates transgender in any sort of popular useage; this should be enough to keep the Transsexual article. I would not be against that article reflecting more the fact that it is outdated and offensive, but if that's going to be a good enough reason to merge them and get rid of the Transsexual article, then the same reasoning might need to be applied to many of the linked articles on the list of ethnic slurs. I'm pretty sure most, if not all, of those are outdated and offensive terms, too. King keudo (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  @King keudo Ok. As the nominator who is trying to end this faulty restart of the merger, I only had a short description because I was trying to get more eyes on the discussion, and I was summarising what the OP at that time said. I posted the merger request back in June, but it was apparently in the wrong category so it is coming up now. Just trying to be clear here. One day I may re-open this, but will have to look carefully at the last discussion before doing so. Historyday01 (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  100% believe this was in good faith, and there are plenty of good reasons to be sure we treat the community - and the terms - properly. I think RoxySaunders has a good idea down below. King keudo (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Of course, it was in good faith and I agree that the community and terms should be treated properly. Historyday01 (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@GenQuest As the person who made this request, can I please withdrawal it? Thanks. I would like this discussion closed. Historyday01 (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Partial merge, at most. There is enough content specific to this topic (and enough sources discussing it as its own concept) to warrant a standalone article. The mess we're in now is that much of the body just consists of excerpts of other trans-related articles, except sloppily using transsexual in place of transgender, or conflating it with some specific subset of trans people (e.g. those with dysphoria or who have medically/legally transitioned). This (not the article itself) is inaccurate and offensive. Following the guidance of various style guides[1][2][3], Wikipedia should probably not use transsexual to label any group of people except those who specifically identify with the term. Drop non-terminology content and keep Transsexual as an article about the term, and its use as a historical medical term and present-day identity label. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 05:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That actually isn't a bad ides. Historyday01 (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Transmasculine

i sometimes see yhe term transmasculine, dhoild yhat not be added somewhere? 92.40.193.56 (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

"transmasculine" is already defined in the article's "Terminology" section.--TempusTacet (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Misleading wording at the end of the first paragraph

The definition ends with this?wording "...the sex they were assigned at birth." While actually it should state something like "biological sex" or "chromosomal sex". The current phrasing can suggest that a. someone is assigning a sex to each new born and b. That being a transgender depends in some way on this (third party's) assignment. 2A00:A041:E080:1665:2154:FF81:5EA9:EC8 (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Not done. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, the article defines transgender in terms of assigned sex at birth, as this is the phraseology preferred by reliable sources, including the three we cite. The AP Stylebook recommends using assigned over biological sex, birth gender, was identified at birth as, born a girl and the like. "Biological sex" is an empty and redundant term (sex is necessarily biological); see intersex to learn more about why "chromosomal sex" would be similarly problematic. Cheers, –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

So why not just "sex"? If anything it would stress the difference between gender and sex. For someone who is not an expert on this topic, using the recommended phrasing that includes the a verb can suggest that the action of assigning the sex includes choosing which one it should be (and not just documenting an observation). 2A00:A041:E080:1665:2154:FF81:5EA9:EC8 (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@2A00, there are a number of reasons. RoxySaunders gave you just the most important one: The preponderance of sources use some version of 'sex assigned at birth', so that is the wording the we use in Wikivoice. Those authorities probably choose the phrase because more of them can agree upon it than anything else. Some consider 'sex' to be observable and changeable (hence the obsolete term, sex reassignment surgery). Others believe it is innate and 'medical' (e.g., endocrinological) and relatively permanent. What everyone agrees is that -- right or wrong, for good or evil -- someone makes a decision about the sex of the person at the time the baby is born in nearly all current cultures. Using 'sex assigned at birth' gives everyone a specific and agreed starting point (literally and figuratively) for conversations about sex and gender, whereas 'sex' simply invites yet another flaming row in the faculty lounge before the discussion even starts. Hope that helps. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Ambiguity, for one. Sex can refer to a variety of traits, some of which aren't strictly binary or static. For various legal, medical, and practical purposes, a transgender or intersex person's 'sex' (in cases were it is insisted that we have a single binary sex) may be different from the one we were assigned at birth. Also some lay English speakers (and thus, some sources) are used to using sex and gender (identity) interchangeably, which certainly will not help them if they are encountering this subject for the first time.

Readers who are turned around or offended by the phrase sex they were assigned at birth can follow the link through to Sex assignment. In general, confusing or ASTONISHing terms on Wikipedia are clarified through notes or more prose, rather than futzing with the terminology that one would expect to find in other references on the same subject. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 01:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems like this is a perennial question here; the Talk page (and regular editors here) might benefit from creation of a FAQ that we can link or point to. Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

A FAQ proposal came up on another Talk that I'm on. I volunteered to help there and will do so here as well. However, I've never worked with FAQs in WP so could use some guidance. Specifically, how do we determine the questions and negotiate the answers? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This is worth its own section; see below. Mathglot (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

certainly. Even after reading the replies I am still cunfused. On one hand "sex is always biological" but on the other hand "Sex can refer to a variety of traits, some of which aren't strictly binary or static.".

I think the important point is that the moment in time when assigning the sex of a newborn is an agreed starting point. In other words the term "sex assignment at birth" meaning that point in time rather the action of sex assignment. 2A00:A041:E080:1665:2154:FF81:5EA9:EC8 (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

As RoxySaunders suggested, you might want to read sex assignment and if that article does not answer all your questions, please state them on the talk page there so that the article can be improved.--TempusTacet (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if my phrasing was unclear. Sex is necessarily biological, in that all sexual characteristics (hormones, gonads, chromosomes, etc.) are physical, biological traits. Hormonal and gonadal sex, and secondary characteristics like breast and hair growth, can of course contrast and change throughout one's life, so it is not accurate (or elucidating) to say that a trans person belongs to any single "biological sex" for their entire life or at any point therein. "Biological" sometimes appears in this context to distinguish from legal sex, or from gender, so maybe calling it "redundant" was too harsh. But the term is charged and ambiguous in ways that AGAB isn't, and should not be used here. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

you're right. Some may use "genetic sex" but usually one doesn't really check that.

Looking at the sources already supplied in this article I see that the American Psychological Association do use the term "sex assigned at birth".

But in: [4]https://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/transgender.htm the definition is "Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity or expression (masculine, feminine, other) is different from their sex (male, female) at birth."

[5]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721642/GEO-LGBT-factsheet.pdf "Trans is a general term for people whose gender is different from the gender assigned to them at birth." Which is a bit better than the current definition.

[6]https://www.britannica.com/topic/transgender "transgender, term self-applied by persons whose gender identity varies from that traditionally associated with their apparent biological sex at birth." Which seems to me the most accurate.

[7]https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/transgender-population-by-state "Transgender is a term used to describe people whose gender or sense of personal identity does not match the sex they were born with. In other words, a transgender person may have been born as a male but identifies as a female or vice versa."

[8]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780721 "Transgender is an umbrella term used to describe people whose gender identity or expression does not conform to that typically associated with the sex they were born as or assigned to at birth."

All the above sources are from this wikipedia page andcall these definitions are more accurate and agreed basing on the sources they were published in. 2A00:A041:E080:1665:2154:FF81:5EA9:EC8 (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I still think more sources use 'sex assigned at birth' or the (less-ideal) 'gender assigned at birth' than any of the others, but it would take a lot of research to make a definitive statement -- I was wrong to do so above as there are 279 sources cited and I've read only a fraction of them. And there are good cases for each of the phrases that you chose. I am a grammar Nazi by nature, so I definitely see your linguistic points.

There is an easy tiebreaker: Does the existing wording confuse or mislead the average reader? The average person from the UK or US comprehends written English at the level expected of a nine- to twelve-year-old. Can you honestly say 'sex assigned at birth' is harder for a pre-teen to understand than 'apparent biological sex at birth'? I just don't see it. I also think it's important to consider that you quoted six emmenantly respected sources and no two agreed on a phrase. That fact alone should warn us off the dangerous shoals of a debate that has been going on for decades in academia. This feels like a perfectly valid point that is also a needless distraction. Without a clear, unequivocal choice of one 'best' phrase amongst the preponderance of sources, I think the status quo should stay. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Starting to get off-topic for this page; see WP:NOTFORUM.

I am also a bit of a gramner-nazi myself, but not a native English speaker... I did ask native english speakers (UK) and they also understood "assigned" as an action. My difficulty with "sex assigned at birth" is that it ties the definition to some beurocratic action, which seems very wrong to me (one of the sources here even stated that a transgender is a person who's gender differs from what is written in his birth certificate). Returning back to your question: Can you honestly say 'sex assigned at birth' is harder for a pre-teen to understand than 'apparent biological sex at birth'? It is not about how hard it is to understand but that the first wording can be incorrectly understoid. In my opinion the best option is to just use the word "sex" as the sex is not apperent only in very rare conditions (CAIS, xxy etc.). 2.54.178.108 (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC) That is actually the logic some scholars use for not just saying 'sex', and for including reference to the assignment that occurs at birth. A fallible human makes a decision based on what they perceive. In most cultures, people with ambiguous genitalia immediately after birth (tumtum in Hebrew) were, and often still are, assigned either male or female based on whatever seems 'most likely' to the human making the assignment. The child is then forced to live that gender role. Hence, someone chromosomally XY and endocrinologically male who is now living as a man could be transgender and seen as such by society: He was incorrectly assigned female at birth and raised as a girl due to anomalous genital formation, a fact only recognised around the time of puberty. This was rare but really not that unlikely before genetic testing. Last1in (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Following this example, would you call someone with xy chromosomes, who was erroneously assigned as female, a transgender if he transitioned to male at some point? What if he was assigned "male" correctly but his parents raised him as a girl and later on she transitioned into a male, so in this case after transitioning the sex assigned at birth fits the gender of this person and he is no longer a transgender? In the examples above, biology and transitiining occured at tha same time/order yet in the first examole the person begins his life as cisgender and later on becomes a transgender, while in the seconed exampme it's the other way around. 2A00:A041:E080:1665:2154:FF81:5EA9:EC8 (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Chromosomes don't determine biological sex, there are cis women who have XY chromosomes but due to androgen insensitivity are female. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Also FYI, "a transgender" isn't grammatically correct, as transgender is an adjective. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC) @2A00, you are getting into the very edges of the definition of TG {Note: I use TG as shorthand for the term, not the people}, and one on which sources disagree. The vast majority agree that 'sex assigned at birth' refers to a choice a human makes to label a newborn as belonging to a biological sex. It is an action and a choice, usually based entirely on observable, external genital formation. If, later in life, that person expresses a gender different than what was chosen, that person generally falls into the definition of TG. For most sources, the discovery that the original choice was simply wrong (usually noted around puberty) still fits within TG if the person chooses to express the gender for their 'new' (actual) sex. Conversely, for many sources, if the person chooses to retain the gender role/expression in which they were raised, they remain cisgendered. A Socialist Trans Girl's example above could be an example of that, depending on whether a given source considers genetic or endocrinological factors (or one of a variety of other options or combinations) as ‘The’ marker of biological sex. Please note that I said ‘depending’ and that this is the ragged edge of the TG definition. The article for sex assignment has more info, you’ll want to read and consider individual sources cited there for something this specific and 'edgy'. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Thanks, the part about what happens when the original assignment was wrong is new to me. Transgender is considered a noun in some sources but I understand it is considered offensive nowadays (I was not aware of that). 2A00:A041:E080:1665:2154:FF81:5EA9:EC8 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Just adding a source for "transgender" is also a noun. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transgender 2A00:A041:E080:1665:2154:FF81:5EA9:EC8 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC) 2 things, 1, please do not use Wiktionary as a source, and 2, it says dated and often offensive. A Socialist Trans Girl 01:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Just FYI: let's get this conversation back on track, which is to say, about how to improve supposed problems in the first paragraph of the lead. The discussion started out fine, but then started to diverge, roughly here, into general thoughts about the transgender topic, which is o/t for this page per WP:NOTFORUM. If you want to ask general questions about the transgender topic, you can try the Reference desk, or possibly one of the WikiProjects might be willing to host it, if it fits their goals. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

false info in first paragraph

having a different gender expression doesn't make you trans. if a man is feminine, he isn't trans. and if a trans woman is masculine, she's still a woman. your gender identity determines whether or not your trans, not your gender expression. Kutgut (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a proposed change you want to meet to the article? The lead doesn’t currently say that having a different gender expression makes you trans, so I’m not sure what you’re saying here. I see no false information in the first paragraph; you’ll have to be more specific. Mathglot (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I think maybe it does, although I doubt that this is the intention. Currently it says "A transgender person (often abbreviated to trans person) is someone whose gender identity or gender expression does not correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth." I don't want to put words into the OP's mouth but I think they would like us to remove "or gender expression". If so, I think that this is a valid request. There is nothing in the article body to support it and it seems incorrect. I'm sure that gender non-conforming people often get mistaken as trans and hence suffer some of the same discrimination as people who are recognisably trans but they are not actually trans. DanielRigal (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree as the existence of cis GNC people disproves said definition. A Socialist Trans Girl 09:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Cis people can vary their gender expressions too. Funcrunch (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, probably longest at [9]. It seems that this language reflects what sources have to say on the matter. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The new WPATH 8th edition standards for care, which was released early fall 2022 defines transgender as:

TRANSGENDER or trans are umbrella terms used to de- scribe people whose gender identities and/or gender ex- pressions are not what is typically expected for the sex to which they were assigned at birth. These words should always be used as adjectives (as in “trans people”) and never as nouns (as in “transgenders”) and never as verbs (as in “transgendered”).Source

Perhaps we could alter the wiki definition to better fit this more up to date language? 71.247.61.216 (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainEek What reliable sources say that cis GNC people do not exist? A Socialist Trans Girl 09:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@A Socialist Trans Girl I didn't imply that? Obviously, cis folks can be GNC. I think we're in a bit of an odd spot due to what the sources have to say. This is a categorization problem. Trans folks are GNC, but not all GNC are trans. I agree that we could probably do a better job clarifying that. My first stab at it was to match the WPATH language better, which uses "and/or", not just or. Wikipedia of course does not use and/or WP:ANDOR, preferring "or both", so I've added an "or both". CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainEek Well the sentence "A transgender person is someone whose gender identity or gender expression or both do not conform to that typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth." has the explicit meaning that someone who's gender expression does not match the AGAB but their GI does, is trans, which would mean there are no cis GNC people, which is not the case. I'd say should remove the gender expression from the definition, as there are reliable sources of the existence of cis GNC people, and we could also add "Transgender people are also all GNC, though not all GNC people are transgender." to the lede. The addition of and/or doesn't really removed the issue with the current wording suggesting that there are no cis GNC people, so while some sources may include cis GNC people in their definitions, we should do a WP:IAR and remove it from the definition because doing so improves Wikipedia. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• I am sorry that I will sound strident, but I'm seeing this same sort of linguistic shenanigans across a huge swath of articles right now. This entire conversation is WP:OR and so semantically convoluted as to lose all meaning. I use the first descriptor because there is not one single source cited that supports this change, much less a preponderance of reliable sources. As for 'so semantically convoluted as to lose all meaning'...

In the English language, there are two disjoint and collectively exhaustive terms: You have/express/live a gender corresponding to your sex assigned at birth (cisgender), or you do not (transgender). Terms like cisgender and transgender are also called complementary antonyms. The 'cis' and 'trans' prefixes are a Latin complementary antonymic pair for the concept of "on this side" and "on that side". The natural usage of both English terms conforms to that Latin root. There is no, there literally can be no "on both sides at the same time".

Now to address the argument I see coming of "well, maybe not both; but how about neither?" Rejecting the binary shackles of male/female sex and gender is important. Rejecting the actual rules of logic and linguistics is not. There is no "it's not on any side at all" concept in a disjoint and collectively exhaustive pair. Cis and trans are not simple opposites or a contrasting pair of terms (like left : right, or up : down) that are mutually exclusive but not exhaustive. Something can be 'even with' or 'parallel to', and 'in front of' or 'behind'; thus neither left nor right, up nor down. By the very definition and nature of the terms in question here, however, a person cannot be neither cis nor trans. Like the terms odd and even for non-zero numbers, there isn't another option on the linguistic menu unless we're making [redacted] up. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Last1in So what are you suggesting as the action item here? The status quo? Or? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Not precisely; there is a lot that needs improvement in both the lede and the article body. I 100% believe, however, that gender expression (or, more precisely, nonconformity in gender expression) is a vital part of the definition of transgender. I have been trying to compose a lede with better flow (and less source contradiction) for consideration on this Talk, but have not completed that. Pending a rewrite, I think the status quo is far, far stronger than any option that removes gender expression from the lese sentence. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean gender expression non-conformity is a vital part in the definition? A cis femboy isn't trans, nor is a trans tomboy cis, we can still have "Transgender people are also all GNC, though not all GNC people are transgender." in the lede, but gender expression is not a part of the definition at all. A Socialist Trans Girl 03:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Excellent info! Please post your WP:RS for "A cis femboy isn't trans, nor is a trans tomboy cis." Oh, wait... sorry; you don't have any sources for that. Not only are femboy and tomboy vague terms at best without a standard sociological definition, the (admitted horrible) articles on each term contradict at least part of each statement. Please return when you have sources that can be cited. Until then, I'll stand by the statement, "This entire conversation is WP:OR and so semantically convoluted as to lose all meaning." The article as written needs help, but the burden of proof here is with people trying to redact valid, sourced information (that's you). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Last1in Transgender: An umbrella term encompassing those whose gender identities differ from that typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth.

Cisgender: Used to describe an individual whose gender identity aligns with the sex assigned at birth. Transgender and Cisgender are mutually exclusive antonyms, and is in relation to gender identity. Now you provide a WP:RS for your claim. The reason femboy and tomboy have no academic sociological definitions is because they are informal non-academic terms, but, Cisgender and Gender Non-Conforming ARE used in academia, and are the academic equivalent, and there is an explicit differentiation between being cis GNC being transgender. (Note, we are talking about cisgender GNC people and GE GNC trans people. Tomboy and femboy are merely types of GNC, used as examples.) A Socialist Trans Girl 06:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• User:A Socialist Trans Girl, I am deeply confused. The sources you cite are literally the one I linked above, and they specifically say that what I wrote. I chose to link terms that you would obviously already recognise so that you could get to those sources. Did you read either of them? If so, and you still think that they refute my statement, I need to better understand before I can explain. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Last1in I don’t understand what you’re saying here, can you explain? A Socialist Trans Girl 06:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm having trouble keeping separate this conversation and the one on TS (scrapping that article and lumping it in here). Again, we might be saying the same thing! The definitions used above and below (thank you, @King keudo), show that gender expression should be used in the lede where we introduce this subject. I 100% believe that GNC deserves a better article that the current dismb to Gender variance (or at least a major rework on that page), just as I think that TS requires a separate article at this point in the evolution of sex/gender terminology. But I think both of those articles are directly and inextricably within the umbrella-term, transgender, and both should be in the lede of this article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Last1in did you put this on the wrong talk page? A Socialist Trans Girl 11:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You got it in one! As I say above, I am getting very confused between the two pages. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I want to point out, from your own offered source that you did leave out part of the definition of Cisgender and Transgender - which is important to the conversation of "gender expression" in the opening of this article. The definition for Cisgender and Transgender read, in full:

Cisgender: Used to describe an individual whose gender identity and gender expression align with the sex assigned at birth. (emphasis mine)

Transgender: An umbrella term encompassing those whose gender identities or gender roles differ from those typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth. (emphasis mine)

Additionally, the definitions offered by the APA source that you provided also use definitions of Gender Identity and Gender Expression that rely on each other:

Gender expression: Clothing, physical appearance and other external presentations and behaviors that express aspects of gender identity or role. (emphasis mine)

Gender identity: An internal sense of being male, female or something else, which may or may not correspond to an individual's sex assigned at birth or sex characteristics. (emphasis mine)

I agree with your position; GNC isn't exclusive to transgender individuals. However, we are presenting this terminology the same way reliable sources do. To change it, we need reliable sources that reflect this change. A quick search online gives a couple of resources that also support the opening using the term gender expression. Sorry, I don't know how to put a ref list in a talk page yet, and for the wall of text. King keudo (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@King keudo Yes, although the APA definitions still distinguish between transgender and GNC.

Additionally, there are reliable sources which I provided saying that being transgender and GNC are different things, and I have not seen any reliable sources stating they are the same as the current text implies, and additionally the APA definition states GI or gender roles differing from typical associated AGAB, and that definition I am fine with, AND is also at a source more reliable than the currently cited sources (APA terminology takes presidence over current) and the additional ones you listed* (*NCTE doesn’t actually include GE in their definition just GI), so RS supports not having GE in the definition. FYI you just do it the same way as in an article, and I’ve already added a reflist at the bottom of this talkpage section. A Socialist Trans Girl 06:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add one thing to your statement, @King keudo. "To change it, we need a preponderance of reliable sources [to] reflect this change." Just because a couple of academics have embraced this does not make it a consensus. I can find (and actually have) sources from peer-reviewed journals that posit the most preposterous things. It's part of the scientific journey for academics to "prove" a point, only to have it rejected or revised by the broader community. It's why we have to trail sources, not lead them. The preponderance of sources already in the article that address the split in terms acknowledge that they are overlapping but distinct concepts at this time. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

i agree 👍 88.109.191.212 (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Last1in @King keudo @CaptainEek Could it be said we have consensus? The APA terminology definition is more reliable than the current cited sources, and the implication that there are no cisgender GNC people also has reliable sources disproving it. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@A Socialist Trans Girl Consensus for which wording? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainEek "... whose gender identity or gender roles differ from those typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth.", The APA terminology definition. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I admittedly don't love the current version, but my issue with the APA is that differing gender roles doesn't feel super accurate either. A stay at home father is breaking the gender roles of his society, but it could hardly be said that makes him trans. Perhaps the lesson of the APA and WPATH is that both agree on gender identity, but they also point out that there is clearly something else going on, and on that point they don't agree. So the solution could just be to limit the definition to gender identity? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainEek Sure, shall we implement it now? A Socialist Trans Girl

Works for me :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Nice, I've gone ahead and implemented the changes! (◕ᴗ◕✿) A Socialist Trans Girl 05:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the ping, apologies; I'm not against this change, thank you. King keudo (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

THAT is what I call perfect consensus building! Great edit, and thank you, A Socialist Trans Girl. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Last1in thanks! (=^ ◡ ^=) A Socialist Trans Girl 03:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Two-Spirit

@Willbb234 The article sourced is pretty easy to read. The very first paragraph does, in fact, say:

Activist Albert McLeod developed the term in 1990 to broadly reference Indigenous peoples in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community. Two-spirit is used by some Indigenous peoples to describe their gender, sexual and spiritual identity.

That's pretty straightforward, and supports the sentence "Some two-spirit people may also identify as transgender." Could you explain why you think it doesn't? King keudo (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It's complicated. Some do feel that way. Others feel another. From Two-spirit:

For early adopters, the term "Two Spirit" was a deliberate act to differentiate and distance themselves from non-Native gays and lesbians, as well as from non-Native terminology such as "gay", "lesbian", and "transgender","

Right now we're at a point where the RS sources document a variety of viewpoints. As for OR... um, it varies. My experience is that it was developed to be something to say to non-Natives as an English-language umbrella term instead of the traditional terms for ceremonial roles, and to replace offensive anthro terms. The ceremonial roles were based on gender-nonconformity, and existed before modern ideas of transgender. Some Elders say 2S is now a term for modern LGBT Natives, others say it's only for those who've been chosen from birth for a ceremonial role. We don't have great sources for this stuff because it's not generally written about. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Complicated is right, and you clearly are more knowledgeable about the subject than I, so I defer to you overall. That being said, the edit in question is to remove both a statement and a source, simply with the claim that the statement is not supported by the source. I am not arguing that it merits singular inclusion in the lead over the other information included in the Native American and First Nations section, but the source provided does indicate that some indigenous people who are two-spirit may also identify as trangender. From the article you linked, Two-Spirit;

While initially focused on ceremonial and social roles within Indigenous community, as a pan-Indian, English-language umbrella term, for some it has come to have similar use as the terms "queer" (modern, reclaimed usage) or "LGBTQ" in encompassing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Native peoples in North America.

My point is only that the statement is supported by the source being used. The statement and source should not have been removed, and should be restored. King keudo (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

My 2p: The statement should never have been removed. The source is clear, and it corresponds to the source. There is neither WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH. IMO, to reinterpret the source in a way that supports removal would in itself constitute both OR and SYNTH. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

As long as it is qualified that only "some" use the term, it is technically correct to say that some individuals use both terms for themselves. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how one can come to the conclusion that the statement "Two-spirit is used by some Indigenous peoples to describe their gender, sexual and spiritual identity" is the same as saying "Some two-spirit people may also identify as transgender". The word 'transgender' isn't even mentioned in the first sentence. Willbb234 09:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, the source isn't exactly "clear". In fact, it's quite the opposite. The statement "Two-spirit is used by some Indigenous peoples to describe their gender, sexual and spiritual identity" is vague in the sense that we don't have any figures and the source mentions "indigenous peoples" which seems like a bit of a generalisation. The source expands on this, but offers various definitions for different peoples: Two-spirit commonly referred to gender identity, dress and traditional roles. The Cree terms napêw iskwêwisêhot and iskwêw ka napêwayat respectively reference men who dress like women and women who dress like men. The Siksika (Blackfoot) term aakíí’skassi described men who performed roles typically associated with women, such as basket weaving and pottery-making. Similarly, the Ktunaxa (Kootenay) term titqattek described females who took on roles traditionally characterized as masculine, including healing, hunting and warfare. One of the most well-known two-spirit people who identified as female was We’wha (1846–96) of New Mexico. She was referred to as lhaman or “mixed gender” in the Zuni language. In various Indigenous cultures, temperament, work roles, dress and lifestyle distinguished two-spirited individuals from men and women. I find it hard to believe that this is all "clear". Willbb234 09:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I would not use the Canadian Encyclopedia as a source for Two-spirit issues. They cite a pretendian who has invented terms and misrepresented history, among other problems. For instance they imply that the Ojibwe term niizh manidoowag came first; it did not. "Two Spirit" was the chosen term, then it was translated into niizh manidoowag to honor the people whose land the conference was taking place on. They also misspell and mistranslate Lhamana, and, in my opinion, are over-simplifying We'wha's complex identity. I would instead recommend DeVries and Pember, both cited repeatedly in the Two Spirit article. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

References

SYNTH regarding § Ancient cultures

@DanielRigal: You restored the part of the Ancient cultures section that @Willbb234 cut, and I'm sure you did so in good faith upon seeing cited content removed, but I think you must have not looked closely enough at the sources. It's not only the part that Will cut, in fact: Unless I'm missing something, there is not a single reliable source in that section that refers to any of the mentioned people/groups as transgender. (This does not appear to be an RS.) So the current state of the section is 100% WP:SYNTH. If no RS can be provided to call any of these people/group trans—and I'm skeptical that they can, given that "transgender" is a label dating to the 1960s—the section should be removed. Some of the content would probably be suitable at gender variance, which is more a descriptive term than a label. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Elagabalus being transgender is a WP:FRINGE view. That's the impression I got in college from historians. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the section as a whole, the weirdest thing is that is under "Population figures and prevalence". I think it belongs in the history section, merged in with what we already have there. Merely moving it would recontextualise the content as we would then be presenting these facts as historic precedents for some of the elements which would later come to be called transgender rather than applying the label transgender to them. That said, if any parts which are not well enough referenced to justify keeping at all, and no better references can be found, then by all means let's remove those. I don't think that it is right to call including Elagabalus fringe. We certainly shouldn't present it as a universally accepted view either but saying "Some historians consider" seems OK to me. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Are there some good citations we can use of historians who believe that? The cited source does not actually use the term. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This has already been discussed more thoroughly at the Elagabalus talk page. I would invite a user to add more sources to support claims about what historians think about him, of course correctly attributing this view to only "some" historians as Daniel has said. The section should avoid being an indiscriminate list of historical figures which some historians at various times have considered to have been transgender. It certainly doesn't seem like the current text has any kind of flow to it.

As for the sentence Also, in Fa'asamoa traditions, the Samoan culture allows a specific role for male to female transgender individuals as Fa'afafine. a source needs to be added for this to remain in the article. Willbb234 00:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of third-gender groups like the Fa'afafine doesn't belong in a history section regardless. (Hijra are discussed in § Law, not sure the best way here.) This section is one of several (see my recent removals) that reads more like someone's pet project, perhaps for college credit, that got tacked on deep in the article by someone who didn't bother to read what's already there. They all wind up with this strange grab-bag of facts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Somewhat unrelated, but in response to Tamzin's request at ANI, I reorganised the previously-chaotic section layout; I hope people approve. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Revert

@Raladic: tell me how this edit is "non-constructive". Willbb234 14:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The consensus is that it was a hate crime, which led to the day of remembrance to commemorate hate crimes committed against transgender people.

The fact that police misgendered her and did not call for an ambulance for a hour showed they were not really interested in solving the crime [10], so the consensus on the article and the linked Transgender Day of Remembrance have established this as the consensus. You can also find more sources such as this one quoting the mayor of Boston that called it a anti-trans crime “Rita Hester was a Black trans woman and beloved Allston community member who lost her life as a result of transphobia and anti-trans violence" [11], which support the consensus on the article. Raladic (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Please point me towards where this 'consensus' was reached. We also can't look at ambulance arrival times and police activity to determine a motive for this attack. In fact, the two are unrelated. Also, the mayor calling it an anti trans crime doesn't mean we can. Again, I ask you to tell me how my edit was "non-constructive" and why you reverted it instead of coming to the talk page. Willbb234 14:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

From this source:

• Rita may have been killed because she was a man who lived as a woman. emphasis mine.
• A few weeks before her death, Hester went on vacation to Greece. Right before she left, she punched someone in the face at the Model Cafe, another Allston bar she frequented, according to the friend from the neighborhood who spoke anonymously. Evidence for another motive.
• Both the friend and Wynne have another suspicion: A man (or men) who couldn't face his attraction to a trans woman came home with Hester and killed her in a fit of shame. Pure speculation.
• Diana Hester said that for the first several years, she called the Boston Police Department all the time for updates on the case. In 2006, it announced that it was reopening the case. She never heard much after that, she said. appears there has been no progress in the case from at least 2006 to 2020.

Clear pattern of evidence that suggests that we cannot determine a motive.

From the boston.com source that you point towards [12]:

• Her murder remains unsolved.

Willbb234 14:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I think there's enough sourcing for an attributed ... which some believe was an anti-transgender hate crime, as that is the necessary context for why her murder inspired TDOR. Edge Network: Some in the trans community believe Hester's murder was a hate crime, evidenced by the brutality of the assault and the fact that the assailant did not appear to have stolen anything from her apartment. [13] –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't see that there is "enough sourcing" here; you've only provided one source. It is also unclear as to whether this is a view held by "some" people. As far as I'm aware Some in the trans community would mean that this is a small minority view (the trans community is relatively small and 'some' would mean that the group who hold this view is even smaller). I don't see how this is due. It appears that the TDOR was more inspired by the nature of the murder or the attention it received, which might be a better line of approach. Willbb234 19:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You are ignoring the other source in the mayor of Boston I have cited above, which also supports this. It is important context that was the reason for the inception of the TDOR.

Again, multiple editors have given reason on why the current wording on the article is th established WP:CONSENSUS and have shown sources backing it.

Why do you seem to have such a vested interest in trying to remove this context? Raladic (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, multiple editors have given reason on why the current wording on the article is th established WP:CONSENSUS and have shown sources backing it. I'm really struggling to find out how you have come to this conclusion so links to other discussion would be appreciated. Please don't question my motives here. I have a right to oppose the content and tacit bad-faith accusations will get you nowhere. The boston.com source doesn't really support this as it only explains the view of the Mayor's Office as opposed to some general view by a group of people. Please explain how my edit was "non-constructive". Willbb234 20:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that RoxySaunders' suggestions using the word "some" are the very furthest we can go to accommodate these objections. In fact, while I don't object to it, I think that it is probably a greater compromise than is really justified. To just reject that out of hand makes me wonder whether there is anything other than total acquiescence to your demands that will placate you. I think that consensus is against you here and that this is in danger of becoming a WP:1AM situation.

We can't let this discussion continue to repeat indefinitely so what I propose you do, if you really do not feel that there is a consensus yet, is to start an RfC. That is a defined process, which ensures fairness, with an uninvolved arbiter determining the outcome. We can notify relevant WikiProjects to bring more people in to get more opinions. If you, or anybody else, chooses to do this then I'd recommend making it an RfC with three options: The status quo text, the text you want and the text that RoxySaunders suggested. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we couldn’t use the wording from the Boston.com article? Something along the lines of “She was killed in an act of transphobia and anti-trans violence” Hy Brasil (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That comment was made by the mayor's office and so can't be stated as fact. Willbb234 15:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It would have to be attributed to the mayor (e.g. according to the mayor….), and not in wikivoice. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but then it would be a question of whether this was due as it doesn't appear to be the reason presented in sources why the TDOR was established (the comments were made a full 24 years after the murder). Willbb234 15:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I see your point. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the material under discussion as, per WP:ONUS, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The material should therefore be removed until some consensus on exact wording is reached, which I am more than happy to discuss further. I am going to comment here beforehand so that I'm not blocked for edit warring Thanks. Willbb234 12:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Please don't. That would be seen as deliberately restarting the edit war which you were blocked for. The fact that you commented your intentions here will not count in your favour. If anything, it might be seen as proof that you are aware that you are edit warring and thus make things worse.

You need to understand that nobody has supported your position here, at least, not so far. An RfC, which would bring in new people, is the only way that you can possibly hope to get anywhere with this. My primary recommendation is that you accept that your position is not persuading anybody and just drop the stick but, if you do not accept that, then you can legitimately put that to the test by starting an RfC. (Instructions are here: WP:RfC.) Edit warring against the status quo version is not a legitimate way forward. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is quite clear on who is responsible for gaining this consensus. My intention is not to start some kind of edit war but instead to enforce the policy set out at WP:ONUS. Participation in this discussion has been low so far so I don't understand why you are trying to discount my views based on the fact that people disagree with me. Please assume good faith, something you have consistently failed to do. Willbb234 13:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I would note that instead of using this talk page to talk about the content under scrutiny, all you have done is used it to make bad-faith accusations against me and demands that I should be doing certain things like starting an RfC and what not. Comment on the content, not on the editor, or leave the conversation. Your contributions here have been the least bit helpful. Willbb234 13:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Coming here because Daniel Rigal asked for more eyes on this at ANI. If there is a consensus that the death was a hate crime, then surely there must be better sources than just a remark by a mayor? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Raladic: please don't add a source which appears to support the statement under discussion. It's quite clear that the source doesn't support the current wording. Willbb234 16:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I have added the source, and the attribution as was suggested by editors here and the mention that the murder remains unsolved, but has been described as an anti-transgender hate crime, which is supported by the sources with attribution.

I believe this both satisfies the fact that it is questioned, as well as maintaining the existence of the content, which is important context since it was the cause for the inception of TDOR to commemorate hate crimes committed against transgender people.

If you are still unsatisfied and want to seek more input from editors, then please follow DanielRigal's guidance and raise an RfC. Raladic (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it is fine as it is now. A single citation to an LGBT advocacy organization is not enough to describe something as a hate crime in WP:WIKIVOICE when the murder is unsolved, no motive has been determined, and not all sources call it that. Willbb234, I disagree with just about everything else you have done to the article this month. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Having looked at a few of the sources, I agree with @Scorpions1325 that the current wording is a fair reflection. WaggersTALK 09:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Office of the Mayor of Boston is for someone important. "some members of the Transgender community" are assuredly less important, and the sourcing on that is poorer also. I've removed the latter. The former is adequate. starship.paint (RUN) 09:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not the way I would phrase it; talking about whether someone is "important" or not is dangerous language to use. Every human being is important, but their opinions aren't necessarily notable or suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia.

I agree with the sentiment though - "some" unquantified, unidentified, uncorroborated outside of this one source "members of the transgender community" doesn't really cut the mustard. If it was an official statement from a notable campaign group or something similar, then there would be a more clear cut case for including it.

So I think your edit is fine but, given the controversy this section has stoked up, I think it would have been wiser to discuss the change here before you made it on the article. WaggersTALK 10:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The Trans Day of Remembrance was created to honor those lost to anti-trans violence. This is a fact stated in reliable sources (here are a few: NBC News, USA Today, American Psychological Association, U.S. Department of State). This is a fact regardless of whether the killing of Rita Hester or any other specific trans person has been proven in a court of law to be motivated by transphobia. I am concerned that edits focusing on what has been specifically said or proven about Hester's death are minimizing and distracting from the main point of the section under discussion.

I suggest rephrasing the relevant section to more closely match what is written on the Trans Day of Remembrance page, and leaving out the quoted statement from the mayor of Boston entirely. Funcrunch (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

leaving out the quoted statement from the mayor of Boston entirely. there were some editors who were very, very keen on including this, so there may be objections to this. I agree with the rest of what you say, although I would note that the section should be kept small seeing as this isn't the subject of the article and there already exists a dedicated article on the topic. Willbb234 22:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Willbb234, please remember that the WP:1RR you earned at ANI earlier this year does not give you permission to remove the information you disagree with once a day. Your block log is already long, and escalating block lengths are standard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

RE: Two-Spirit

Rather than re-visit an older discussion that hasn't seen activity in a month, I'm opening a new topic to suggest re-adding a phrase similar to what was removed. "Some two-spirit people may also identify as transgender." The source originally used can still be discarded; better sources appear to exist, including a source cited in, and obtained from, the Two-Spirit page, a document from the Tribal Law and Policy Institute, and the Indian Health Service. An additional source can also be found the National Domestic Violence Hotline website.

Input is welcome. King keudo (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

how can vatican's guidelines be dated in the future?

> Dated October 31, 2024

is this supposed to be 2023? 86.127.80.188 (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly that. I've fixed it. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Ga 174.103.242.116 (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"Transgenderism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Transgenderism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 9 § Transgenderism until a consensus is reached. Raladic (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The word transgenderism

This falls foul of WP:NOTFORUM as it has nothing to do with improving the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Okay... this bothers me so much that I just have to have to make a thread about it. I wrote the article ICD-11, which includes a section about Gender incongruence. In it, I used the term transgenderism. It was removed by User:Raladic, because it was supposedly an insult!! They even nominated the transgenderism redirect (see above), pointing out that some idiots used that word to claim that transgenderism is an ideology, instead of an inborn condition. And that's why no one should use that word. What kind of nonsense is this?! So just because a few alt-right bozos are unable to understand gender, we should not use this word, because *they* said so?? Transgenderism is an -ism. Isms don't just refer to ideologies, but to phenomena in general (journalism, realism, recidivism), including scientific phenomena (magnetism, Darwinism, atavism). From an etymological viewpoint, there is nothing inherently insulting about the word transgenderism. In itself, it is a neutral, general-purpose term for all things related to being transgender. You can throw in all the sources that say otherwise, but those people are WRONG! Thus, User:Raladic is also wrong for calling it a slur, because it's not. Thanks for reading. - Manifestation (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Like I mentioned in the RfD discussion, this is a descriptivism vs prescriptivism argument-- you cannot control how other people use and perceive language. No, it does not matter how wrong the usage is. No, it does not matter if it doesn't make sense from an etymological perspective. No, it does not matter how wrong it feels that this is an insult, to you. You don't get to make executive decisions on how all English-speakers who care one way or the other about transgender people, use or perceive a word. Also... frankly, trying to reclaim a word being used as a slur against a group you're not a part of is uh. I'll put it as, really bad form? (Which is why it frankly doubly doesn't matter that you don't think it sounds like an insult, because... you're not part of the group being insulted.) And if I might add? The -ism part is WHY it's a slur. It's painting being transgender as this political position or strange phenomenon, something that can be fought against and opposed, instead of a state of being. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC) "You cannot control how people perceive stuff." – Irrelevant argument. "You may not speak, because you're not part of the group." – Bad argument; ever heard of allies? "An -ism implies a political position or strange phenomenon." – No it doesn't; e.g. magnetism, dichroism. - Manifestation (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC) I fail to see how pointing out that you're being a prescriptivist, and that in most scenarios prescriptivism is wrong (and why it's wrong), is irrelevant. Slurs are made and die on the back of connotation, not denotation-- which is where slurs like fruitcake, fairy, negro, and trap come from. Denotatively, none of those words have ANYTHING to do with the minorities that they are slurs for-- they denote a dessert, a magical creature, the Spanish word for the color black, and a device used to ensnare, respectively. Connotatively, however, they are all slurs against minorities, all of them having different origins, from referring to gay men as soft and feminine, to alluding to African-American slavery, to accusations that crossdressing gay men and/or trans women predate on clueless straight men. This, is no different. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC) @Manifestation: I see from your profile that you are from the Netherlands. Is it possible the word transgenderism is used or viewed differently there than in other countries? Speaking as a trans person who is a US-American and native English speaker, I agree with @Lunamann's take on this issue. Funcrunch (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC) It is not supposedly, but objectively so. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health renamed the International Journal of Transgender Health because the term is not appropriately used nowadays. Just because you are trying to use descriptivist language doesn’t make a word any less offensive if it has been claimed as a slur, just like many other slurs, they are at face value, words, but when they get the connotation of being used in a way to slur a group, we stop using the terms, or in some cases they may or may not be reclaimed at a later time in history, such as the word queer which has been largely reclaimed. I would also personally like to point out that you can not tell an affected group that a term used against them is not a slur if they have perceived said term being used as a slur against them. Especially not when you then try to claim to be an ally as you have above, an ally supports people, which in this case would be to support us in having the term appropriately tagged as a non-neutral term and largely avoided unless it discusses the context of the word, such as being done in Transgender#Terminology. Raladic (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Language is fluid, and the meaning of words changes over time. While it is true that at one point in time transgenderism was a neutral term, in the past five to ten years it has become a non-neutral term. Julia Serano wrote about the history of the term a little over a year ago, how it was formerly used in a neutral manner, and how since then its definition has been warped to mean something different. In contemporary usage the term is almost universally used by members of the anti-gender movement and those sympathetic to their view to try and cast trans people as an ideological movement. This is why you'll often see statements from groups like CPAC saying things like how "for the good of society ... transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely". Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC) @Funcrunch: Not that I know of. @Raladic: Just because I'm an ally doesn't mean I agree with everything you write. @Everyone: Context is everything. Slurs can also be used in a friendly context, or they can be reclaimed. I used the word transgenderism in a neutral, non-hostile context in the ICD-11 article (since removed). There's nothing wrong with that, and there's nothing wrong with the word itself. All these irrational jerks trying to bend definitions, like they did to woke, socialism, and globalism. And now they're doing the same to transgenderism. Why would we accept this? - Manifestation (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2024

The part of some identifying as transexual is depreciated and redundant. Transsexual was replaced by transgender to remove sexual annotation that Gender Identity relates to sexual orientation. It has been depreciated as a derogatory term: similar to Asperger's being replaced with ASD in the DSM5 because if the negative history for it as well. StonyPonyAmy (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

A reliable source would be needed for such a change (also, edit requests should include an exact change). Its true that broadly describing trans people, transness, or medical transition as transsexual(s/ism) has largely fallen out of favor, but this sentence is about the minority of trans people (mostly older people, or subscribers to transmedicalism) who identify with the term as an individual identity label. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 01:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Counterpoint: Buck Angel EvergreenFir (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2024

Change the visual anchor for the transfeminine to not include the transmasculine anchor.

Change the transmasculine definition to include a visual anchor.

---

This can be seen in the diff-like below:

< ''{{visanc|Transfeminine|Transmasculine}}'' is a term for any person, binary...
---
> ''{{visanc|Transfeminine}}'' is a term for any person, binary or non-binary...

< ''Transmasculine'' refers to a person, binary or non-binary...
---
> ''{{visanc|Transmasculine}}'' refers to a person, binary or non-binary...

Serxka (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Raladic (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Dead link

The "main article" link in #Pride symbols doesn't work. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the LGBT symbols page doesn't sort based on identity but based on type of symbols (gender symbols, flags, plants & animals, etc.). I imagine the best fix may be to put LGBT symbols as a see also, without a section tag? Or just call it a main page even though it discusses other pride symbols?

--Malvoliox (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

International Journal of Transgender Health

Maybe it's just me, but the content about the International Journal of Transgender Health changing its name feels slightly out of place no matter how I rearrange it. I think it's because the terminology section is otherwise focused. Highlighting this specific example feels like it breaks the flow but I don't want to remove it without further feedback. One possible alternative would be listing other journals that have changed with the times so it isn't the only example. Alternatively, a general statement that LGBT+ journals/organizations have changed their names to reflect modern use, if that can be cited to a good source. Thoughts? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't find a citable RS for an example other than the one used. I would suggest either striking it (which would make me sad) or specifying it as an example. For instance, As an example, the International Journal of Transgenderism changed its name to the International Journal of Transgender Health in 2020 "to reflect a change toward more appropriate and acceptable use of language in our field." I just don't have a better idea. The flow is still a bit stilted no matter what. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This is the Transgender article and the quote about the Journal of Transgender Health having changed its name is importantly in this terminology section as the journal is considered the core of research on transgender health and highlighting the change from the now outdated term of Transgenderism.

It’s specifically about the terminology as the first sentence of that section explains since the now outdated term is nowadays often used pejoratively. Raladic (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I know that this is the transgender article and that this section is about terminology. My point is that this example stands out and doesn't easily fit with the rest of what's written in the section. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We could move it up closer to the start of the section that explains why the outdated term is no longer used, so it will stand closer to the context for which it is in the section to begin with. Raladic (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I just moved it up now and I think in that paragraph now it reads more contextual, which was the point of it’s inclusion. Raladic (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think this solves the problem at all. It breaks up the chronological history about terminology to put undue emphasis on a specific example. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You know what? I've changed my mind. Somehow reading it a third time sounds better. The next section is about the transgender community more broadly so I suppose it doesn't break the flow. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Discrimination Section.

I noticed that the source on the opening paragraph of the Discrimination and Support section dates back to 2011, 13 years ago. I feel as though this may not be up to date enough for users who are looking for rough figures of transgender discrimination. It states that 26% of trans people have been fired on the grounds that they were transgender, however I feel as though this is no longer accurate

I am not trying to compromise the neutrality of the article - by updating the paragraph to include statistics above or below the current ones in the article, but I am wondering if anybody has an up-to-date source to better the article's accuracy? I'm sure there is one out there. ChillyDude153198 (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Your concern is valid, but I am unable to find a newer source with real statistics. However, I don't have access to deeper, academic sources (better said as 'I don't have the money to pay for them'). Until a better source is found, I am rephrasing the statement to highlight the stale data. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Last1in Plenty of scholarly sources on WP:TWL for free (t · c) buidhe 02:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

If I get my hands on a British Library card any time soon, and remember, I'll give you some more up-to-date sources for the section. ChillyDude153198 (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Text about Thomasine Hall

Currently the article states that One of the earliest recorded transgender people in America was Thomas(ine) Hall, a seventeenth century colonial servant. I cannot verify the source this is cited to as I do not have access to it. However, our article on Thomasine Hall does not describe them as a transgender person. I'd suggest either removing the reference to Hall or rephrasing. Maybe to "one of the earliest recorded gender nonconforming individuals in America"? Or some other sort of phrasing indicating that Hall was intersex? I'm not sure what the best solution is here. Other people's perspectives are welcome. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I think Thomasine Hall warrants a mention in the article, but did not identify as transgender, so the wording likely needs to be changed. Perhaps begin with description of their abnormal gender expression, then add that some have drawn connections to modern trans identities? Love, Cassie. (Talk to me!) 01:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the text to read "gender nonconforming" for now. [14] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Since the point is to highlight the historical fact of "a trans person existing", it seems important that the person actually be trans? ViolanteMD (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@ViolanteMD: We have to go with what the sources say, though. We can't make our own interpretations. If you can find a published source where a scholar speculates about whether Hall might have been transgender, you can add content about that. The current inclusion of text in the article has more to do with the historical legal precedents involved as they were someone who did not follow expected social norms surrounding their gender expression. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't Dr. John Money be mentioned when discussing transgender and transsex

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/John_Money Money advanced the use of more accurate terminology in sex research, coining the terms gender role and sexual orientation. 2600:6C67:247F:AEAE:C4A8:457A:89AF:7D43 (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this article is more focused on Transgender people as with history, law, culture, etc. John Money is mentioned in Gender identity. if you have good stuff written for the psych research side of the topic, definitely put in an edit request. ~Puella Mortua~ Signed from the grave. (séance me!) 13:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)