Talk:Transgender

*Sources* section (vandalism?)

Has anyone else noticed that all of the citations and links in the "Sources" section refer or direct to material specifically (and only) about the dog whistle term "trans regret"?

Having a "sources" section on the Transgender page that *only* contains common Anti-Trans rhetoric is misleading at best, and potentially harmful to readers.

I think that if this section is to remain, it should also contain some links to the much higher (or at least a comparison of) rates of surgical regret for surgeries like knee replacement, hip replacement, breast augmentation and it's reversal, patient disappointment with rhinoplasty outcomes, etc.

Otherwise, this entire section is out of place in an ostensibly objective article on "Transgender" concepts, as "detransitioning" isn't part of the topic of gender diversity, but a topic that has been weaponised by Far Right interests.

Just wondering if we can do anything about this, as I would like to link to this article, but can't do so if it will endanger the Queer community.

Thanks. ecoFredericton (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ecofredericton Can you please give some examples of the sources you are referring to? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Below are all of the citations from the "Sources" section of the article. They're not about transgender people, the social constructedness of gender, transgender people throughout history, etc - they're only about the phenomenon of de-transtioning or "not being transgender anymore" (which only refers to about 0.03% of people who've medically/surgically transitioned, not even all trans people). It's like an article on Jewish people only having references to "blood libel", or a hypothetical 3 or 4 Jewish serial killers throughout history, or websites where Jews can convert to Catholicism. The entireity of the "sources" listed:

"Clark-Flory, Tracy (15 June 2015). "Detransitioning: Going From Male To Female To Male Again". Vocativ. Archived from the original on 31 August 2017. Retrieved 1 September 2017.

Danker, Sara; Narayan, Sasha K.; Bluebond-Langner, Rachel; Schechter, Loren S.; Berli, Jens U. (August 2018). "A Survey Study of Surgeons' Experience with Regret and/or Reversal of Gender-Confirmation Surgeries". Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – Global Open. 6 (9 Suppl): 189. doi:10.1097/01.GOX.0000547077.23299.00. ISSN 2169-7574. PMC 6212091.

Dhejne, Cecilia; Öberg, Katarina; Arver, Stefan; Landén, Mikael (November 2014). "An Analysis of All Applications for Sex Reassignment Surgery in Sweden, 1960–2010: Prevalence, Incidence, and Regrets". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 43 (8): 1535–45. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0300-8. PMID 24872188. S2CID 24755434.

James, Sandy E.; Herman, Jody L.; Rankin, Susan; Keisling, Mara; Mottet, Lisa; Anafi, Ma'ayan (2016). "De-Transitioning" (PDF). The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (Report). Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2018-01-21. Retrieved 2019-03-18.

Marchiano, Lisa (6 Oct 2017). "Outbreak: On Transgender Teens and Psychic Epidemics". Psychological Perspectives. 60 (3): 345–366. doi:10.1080/00332925.2017.1350804."

The only "source" in the Source section in the Transgender article that isn't about *not being trans anymore* is the last one in the list, pasted below:

Zucker, Kenneth J. (2019). "Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria: Reflections on Some Contemporary Clinical and Research Issues". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 48 (7): 1983–1992. doi:10.1007/s10508-019-01518-8. PMID 31321594. S2CID 197663705.

Can I get permission, or get someone else, to grab some actual journal articles about transgender people that aren't about us not existing? I can gather them myself, and share them for editorial approval. ecoFredericton (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Those sources are in that section because they're referenced by footnotes in the "References" section. This is a blend of referencing styles, which isn't really supposed to be done. Given how many footnotes contain quotes, it might be a good idea to switch the whole article over to that style. But either way, fear not, this isn't any stealth vandalism, it's just because whoever added that information used one style instead of the other. The rest of the References section is full of the sorts of sources you're talking about. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to echo @Tamzin; the article seems remarkably balanced. However, the sources about detransitioning are made more prominent by being included in a separate, much smaller, list. I totally get your concern about the seeming bias and will look at making the list(s) of citations more uniform.

Have a wonderful day!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I've moved the Sources section to be a subsection of References, titling the reflist Citations, just to make it a bit clearer. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Tamzin,

Could you give me some direction in how to convert the sources list to footnotes? I've done a lot of reading, but it's seemed to get me nowhere.

Thanks so much!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I can show you how, but that would be a change to this page's referencing style (albeit a change from a current Frankensteined mélange), so per MOS:CITEVAR we should wait a day or two to see if anyone objects to that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 05:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good.

What is the general idea?

I initially made some progress converting from sources to references, but could not figure out the best way to specifically handle quotes in the reflist, whether to put the source multiple times, etc. If there is a way to do multiple cites of the same source in a reflist, each w/ separate quotes, I think that that would be best; I could not figure out how to do that.

Thanks!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd support a change of citation style. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This is great, y'all! Thanks!

What about potentially putting the problematic citations in a "Controversy" section? And potentially pointing out that the controversy is based on religious beliefs opposed to transgender people and transitioning? The use of such a section at least presents it as a matter of debate or disagreement, rather than links on "detransitioning" being made to look like a normal/typical part of medically transitioning. I'll check back in the aforementioned couple of days to get your takes.

Again, thanks! ecoFredericton (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Ecofredericton

Not sure what others have to say on that, but I think we should pursue the option of moving the detransition citations to the list of references - that is what I am talking about with @Tamzin.

Generally, citations on Wikipedia are listed as such at the end of the article, and are not separated by the section of the article that they are in. That is why the way that this article is laid out is so weird.

Have a nice day!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. These sources aren't problematic (at least, that I can tell at a glance); it's just that they're clustered in an unusual way. If you look at the statements they're being used to support in § Citations, they are not pushing anything unscientific: Clark-Flory 2015 says "Detransitioning after surgical interventions ... is exceedingly rare." Danker et al. 2018 and Zucker 2019 say there isn't much formal research into detransition. Dhejne et al. 2014 is also cited to support low regret rates. Just because the sources are about detransition doesn't mean they're spreading misinformation about detransition.

It's important to understand, @Ecofredericton, that sources need to be read in the context they're used in in an article. For instance, I once wrote an article that cited an Onion article. If one were looking only at the citations to that article, one might think I was endorsing the Onion article as factually true; but in the prose of the article it's clear that The Onion is only cited because a different source referenced it. A collection of sources doesn't have any inherent bias. It's just potential. What matters is the, if you will, kinetic application of those sources. Here, I'm not seeing anything amiss. But if there's some source misuse I'm missing, please, let me/us know. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Tamzin,

Can you give me some pointers on how to take the detransition sources and add them to the reflist?

Thanks so much!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a good way to take footnotes that use quotes from multiple sources and convert them into footnotes that contain the full citation themselves. Which is why I'm suggesting we switch this in the opposite direction. But again, we need to wait a few days to see if anyone objects to that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Since I think you're not getting comments because everyone agrees, I want to say, "Yes, Please!" Cheers, Last1in (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I've gotten us started. @JuxtaposedJacob: See the page history for a brief tutorial of how to do this. If you run into any trouble, let me know. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 06:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Tamzin,

I tried converting a regular old cite web tag to the AMAB/AFAB section I just added under Terminology->Transgender. I could not figure out the tags so I had to revert to the regular template.

I need to do more research on how to do this effectively and take a second look at your tutorial.

The quote I was trying to add, FWIW, follows:

"In cases when it’s important to discuss somebody’s anatomy, the terms AFAB and AMAB are more gender-affirming than, for example, ‘born female’ or ‘biologically male,’"

Thanks,

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 03:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin, I agree that the sources themselves aren't inherently problematic. Some people do "de-transition" just as some people have their breast implants taken out, or get their tattoos covered or lasered off. It's just that they were clustered/structured by themselves in such a way that if looking at a collapsed/mobile version of the page, or not scrolling all the way down to the References section, where you'd normally see those kinds of citations or, literally, references, it looks like these links and materials are of special impornace or weight.

It's actually the "context" that stood out to me - that the links didn't fit the "flow" of the otherwise solid and logical (in wikipedia article style) layout. The article kind of read like 1. "what is a tattoo", 2. "how to choose the right tattoo for you", 3. "cultural styles of tattoos", 4. "after 2 years, you'll need to have your tattoo removed", 5. "here is a list of further information on tattoos", instead of finding that incongruent handful of links on tattoo removal amongst the 270+ links of the further info section.

It just makes me think of how news media will "hear both sides of the climate change debate", like a 99.9:0.1 ratio is a "debate".

(For context, I live in New Brunswick, Canada, and there's currently an election going on in which our Premier, Blaine Higgs, is manipulating voters on the basis of his own anti-trans views, and an article formatted like this, with "de-transitioning" in such a position of prominence, could actively harm trans-kids in my area.) ecoFredericton (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Cross-dressers and drag performers

@DarknessGoth777 and JuxtaposedJacob: in the past, they were included in definitions of transness. Maybe in some regions of the world, they are still seen this way. So how can we handle that paragraph? --MikutoH ^talk! 01:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s transphobic to conflate cross dressing with being transgender. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Conflating cross dressing with being transgender undermines the gender identities of transgender people and reduces their genders to clothing choices. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I would support changing it to whatever the sources say - I agree that in my region of the world and the current time period, transgender means one thing, but it may have had a more expansive meaning in the past.

Also, although the current wording may not include this change in definition over time, the section is not factually false and is supported by sources and I feel that it would be fine as it stands.

Going to go look now for sources on the term.

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Transgender is not a fluid word. The definition of what it is is someone not identifying as their biological sex (trans men, trans women, and non binary people) that definition hasn’t changed. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey @DarknessGoth777,

Trying to avoid WP:3RR here, so I won't revert your recent edit immediately until I can address your concerns.

However, transgender is a fluid word. The "Terminology" section does a good job, I feel, of going through the history of the word.

Looking at adding another source, possibly Williams, C. (2014). Transgender. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1(1-2), 232–234. doi:10.1215/23289252-2400136, that will allow us to tie together both claims.

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey @DarknessGoth777,

I think that the best solution is to re-acknowledge the modern usage of the term, which is located in the first sentence, and keep the rest of the text as is.

Thanks,

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I've reworded the relevant bit of the lede to put somewhat less weight on the occasional inclusion of cross-dressers as transgender. It's undeniably something that some sources say, so we can't ignore it, but also it's not how the term is used for most of this article, so limiting it to part of one sentence seems proportional. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 05:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin,

That looks really good.

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2024

Add New Zealand 2023 Census results:

https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/2023-census-shows-1-in-20-adults-belong-to-aotearoa-new-zealands-lgbtiq-population/

Transgender population ‘Gender’ refers to a person’s social and personal identity as male, female, another gender, or genders that may be non-binary. ‘Transgender’ refers to a person whose gender is different from the sex recorded at their birth.

In 2023, 26,097 people were transgender (0.7 percent of the census usually resident population aged 15 years and over who provided the information to derive cisgender and transgender status). This included:

transgender male – 5,013 transgender female – 5,736 transgender person of another gender – 15,348. 2001:8003:9531:8B00:AD22:DB65:CA42:3A4A (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

Could you check the page to see how it looks? I tried to add as much info as I could without getting bogged down in the details.

Respond to this message to let me or others know if you need further help! You can alert me by adding an @ symbol at the front of my username, like this: @JuxtaposedJacob.

Thanks for the suggestion!

:)

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2024 (2)

"LGBT" or "LGBTQ" mentions to be changed to "LGBTQ+" Supersonicbadger (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: see Talk:LGBTQ. Without the primary article being renamed there's no reason to make these blanket changes Cannolis (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I saw a diff earlier today of someone changing LGBT to LGBTQ and did a surface-level search of the MOS to see if there was any relevant guidance on the preferred alternative. Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be. Definitely support your decision, but I do wish there was some more concrete guidance. Perhaps I just haven't found it yet lol. (Forgot to tag @Cannolis)

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | 00:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy diff: Special:Diff/1250996485.

The article LGBT was recently moved to LGBTQ (see Talk:LGBTQ#Requested move 14 August 2024), per WP:COMMONTERM (LGBTQ appears to have surpassed LGBT in Google Ngrams results). The community is showing an informal consensus to reflect this in other article titles, templates, categories, and article text. That decision is still being gradually implemented. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 00:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, interesting, thanks for letting me know. @RoxySaunders

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | 01:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The rename of various sub-articles under LGBTQ is following WP:CONSUB, which is an explanatory essay guide under the WP:AT policy.

Various sub articles have been moved to follow suit of the move from LGBT -> LGBTQ, dome with RM discussions and more uncontroversial ones with bold moves.

I've been doing a lot of the WP:WIKIGNOMEing behind the scenes over the past two months to go through relevant articles with the manual cleanups required to ensure the changed prose is correct.

Note that following the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBTQ+_studies#Requested_move_6_September_2024 discussion at the WikiProject WP:LGBTQ+, that one was moved to LGBTQ+ since it's a community project, so we don't have to follow article title policies as closely and the community felt the + is worth adding, but as explained in the original move of LGBTQ - the title including the + has not overtaken the term without it, so LGBTQ is the best we can do right now based on the data. Raladic (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

incorrect survey numbers

In the sexual orientation section its said "The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey reported that of the 27,715 transgender and non-binary respondents, 21% said queer best described their sexual orientation, 18% said pansexual, 16% said gay, lesbian, or same-gender-loving, 15% said straight, 14% said bisexual, and 10% said asexual."

Firstly the survey this is mentioning also included 758 cross dressers. Secondly a lot of the percentages are just incorrect Asexuals had 11%, Bisexual has 15% and 12% said straight. Sorry if I'm just misunderstanding something or if this is the wrong place to mention this.

https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf Page 250 Q2.8 206.57.251.52 (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Also to clarify the included cross dressers are in the total 27715 Pg 249 Q2.1 & Q2.3. Gender categories used for analysis. 206.57.251.52 (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)