This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2015.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
I think the second statement of the third paragraph in the blurb ("Transsexual people were once classified as mentally ill and subject to extensive gatekeeping by the medical establishment, and remain so in much of the developing world") should probably be changed to "remain so in much of the world", as this is a irrelevant distinction that is seriously unnecessary, many "developing" nations such as Brazil, Colombia and Argentina offer significantly more protection and rights to their trans citizens compared to "developed" countries such as Poland, China and most of the USA. The current phrasing feels biased and needlessly political, in an already controversial topic. (Besides offering no sources to this specific point.) 8pregos (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WPATH.org[1] site contains a link to the Standards of Care version 8 [2], where Chapter 2: Global Applicability, starting on page S15, it appears (17 using the page counter on the document itself) covers changes in health care views around the world, and does include some small focus on "developing" parts of the world. While I do show one source backing up the statement, on its face I agree with changing this part of the paragraph some. I don't think the phrase is biased or political, but it does appear to be undue. King keudo (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there reason to think that those page numbers aren't all from Valentine? I haven't found a full copy, but I found page 8, and it has "While they and others are gathered here under the category 'transgender,' they have different attitudes toward it. Cherry likes the term, though she uses it interchangeably with 'transexual,' while Cindy dismisses it as 'tranny crap.'" -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dehumanizing term is outdated according to reputable sources
My hunch was right. "Trans***ual" is from the 20th-century. It dehumanizes and objectifies people into sex things. I researched this. It isn't used by civil rights groups like Human Rights Campaign. The APA style tells people that it is outdated. GLAAD says it is old and don't use it. You couldn't tout yourself to get elected dogcatcher. Arbeiten8 (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trans editor here. You are misstating your own cited sources, which say that while the term transsexual is largely outdated, some trans people do still identify with it. Regardless, please recognize that any significant changes to an article on a highly controversial topic such as this one need to have consensus. Funcrunch (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Jenna Talackova, the 23-year-old woman who forced Donald Trump and his Miss Universe Canada pageant to end its ban on transgender contestants"
The use if the phrase "forced" here is unprofessional and incredibly vague, this event happened through a legal proceeding that challenged pageant organizers and owners, including but not limited to Donald Trump. The office of Donald Trump released a statement allowing Jenna Talackova to compete before any court mandated decision took place and therefore no "force" was used. Language used should reflect that. 107.2.83.124 (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2025
(UTC)
Hi 107.2.83.124! The text was literally copied from the source. I changed the text, and in that copy edit, exchanged the word "forced" for "successfully challenged". About the part "including but not limited to Donald Trump", please provide a source for this. Lova Falk (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't directly oppose the change, but I do oppose the reason for it. Saying that the fact a judge did not finally rule on the case means that the organisation was not "forced" is akin to saying you handed your wallet to the mugger voluntarily cuz he didn't actually shiv you. The organisation was, indeed, forced by the threat (and actuality) of legal action they could not successfully overcome. The 'challenge' wording would be reasonable if this were a government body where a coequal branch of government made the decision, but 'forced' is far more accurate, professional, and specific in this context. The incessant revisionism surrounding that particular politician's misogynistic and anti-trans history is exhausting. Ta, Bitten Peach (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bitten Peach. I cannot understand you are not happy by my reason to change the text. It is not because I am some kind of revisionist, it is in order to remove WP:copyvio. Please give me a good alternative to the word forced, and I put it in. Lova Falk (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, your edit is fine, and the wording you chose is fine. I was objecting to the original comment and the IP's reasons it needed to be changed at all. Sorry that was unclear. Ta, 17:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC) Bitten Peach (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the content of this article is redundant with transgender. It would make more sense if this article focused specifically on the term "transsexual" (rather than the broader concept) and how use of that term differs from "transgender". Nosferattus (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
Lova Falk (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)