| Revision as of 04:27, 24 November 2020 editFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 edits Reply.← Previous edit |
Revision as of 04:32, 24 November 2020 edit undoSangdeboeuf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,308 edits →Requested move 23 November 2020: Fix order of comments – newer replies go below older onesTag: RevertedNext edit → |
| Line 44: |
Line 44: |
|
*::Dictionaries, such as ] source, list ''transsexual'' as a noun and as an adjective. They also regarding the term ''transgender.'' In fact, they tell us that it's usually offensive to use the term ''transgender'' as a noun. They state that "Use of ''transgender'' as a noun is declining and is usually taken as offensive. And people object to the adjectival variant transgendered because the –ed suffix could imply that something happened to make the person transgender." I wonder why you aren't suggesting that we move the Transgender article. And no need to bring up ]. As it notes, such arguments can be valid or invalid. And, in this case, you have brought up what is done for other articles, as if we never have any exceptions regarding article titles. I will state that we commonly/usually do not copy what other encyclopedias do. That is what makes Misplaced Pages different. As for what is confusing or not in this case? I'm only interested in what academic sources state on the matter. We already have the Transgender article, which is about the transgender topic in general. Considering that the term ''transsexuality'' is used to refer to the transgender topic in general, renaming this article that confuses what this article is about. We do not need two articles on the transgender topic in general. The Transsexual article is supposed to be about being transsexual specifically. And we know that enough transgender people consider themselves transsexual, with some dissociating themselves from the larger transgender community. ] (]) 02:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
*::Dictionaries, such as ] source, list ''transsexual'' as a noun and as an adjective. They also regarding the term ''transgender.'' In fact, they tell us that it's usually offensive to use the term ''transgender'' as a noun. They state that "Use of ''transgender'' as a noun is declining and is usually taken as offensive. And people object to the adjectival variant transgendered because the –ed suffix could imply that something happened to make the person transgender." I wonder why you aren't suggesting that we move the Transgender article. And no need to bring up ]. As it notes, such arguments can be valid or invalid. And, in this case, you have brought up what is done for other articles, as if we never have any exceptions regarding article titles. I will state that we commonly/usually do not copy what other encyclopedias do. That is what makes Misplaced Pages different. As for what is confusing or not in this case? I'm only interested in what academic sources state on the matter. We already have the Transgender article, which is about the transgender topic in general. Considering that the term ''transsexuality'' is used to refer to the transgender topic in general, renaming this article that confuses what this article is about. We do not need two articles on the transgender topic in general. The Transsexual article is supposed to be about being transsexual specifically. And we know that enough transgender people consider themselves transsexual, with some dissociating themselves from the larger transgender community. ] (]) 02:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
*:::OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument in this case. I haven't mentioned ''any'' other articles for comparison, but in fact I would support a move of {{xt|]}} to a less outdated or demeaning term. Right now we're discussing ''this'' article. ] is policy, which means it represents established consensus. If we want to ] in this case, then we would need a convincing argument for why doing so is an improvement, not just vague hand-waving about "exceptions". Specifically, I'm not aware of any blanket ban on copying other encyclopedias. Avoiding doing so just to be "different" frankly seems bizarre. —] (]) 03:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
*:::OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument in this case. I haven't mentioned ''any'' other articles for comparison, but in fact I would support a move of {{xt|]}} to a less outdated or demeaning term. Right now we're discussing ''this'' article. ] is policy, which means it represents established consensus. If we want to ] in this case, then we would need a convincing argument for why doing so is an improvement, not just vague hand-waving about "exceptions". Specifically, I'm not aware of any blanket ban on copying other encyclopedias. Avoiding doing so just to be "different" frankly seems bizarre. —] (]) 03:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
| ⚫ |
:::::You stated that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in this case. And you stated that presumably because you argue that you "haven't mentioned ''any'' other articles for comparison." You brought up WP:NOUN in terms of what we do with other articles. That is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. You need not specifically mention other articles for that to be the case. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is valid for what I've argued. No one stated anything about a blanket ban on copying other encyclopedias. No one stated anything about avoiding doing so just to be different. The point on other encyclopedias is that we usually do not do things just because they have done it. And my point about renaming this article? I do not see how I can be any clearer. "We do not need two articles on the transgender topic in general. The Transsexual article is supposed to be about being transsexual specifically. And we know that enough transgender people consider themselves transsexual, with some dissociating themselves from the larger transgender community." No to a ]. When it comes to the Transgender and Transsexual articles, a case can be made that if any of the two should be titled "Transsexuality"...then it's the Transgender article. But I wouldn't support changing the title of that article either. If the Transgender article was about the term ''transgender'', then your case for renaming this one would be strong. This one would then be the one about the transgender topic in general. But it's not. ] (]) 04:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::Less outdated or demeaning term? And what would that be? If the point is that is what is being done here, I see no evidence that "transsexuality" is better than "transsexual". <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 03:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
*::::Less outdated or demeaning term? And what would that be? If the point is that is what is being done here, I see no evidence that "transsexuality" is better than "transsexual". <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 03:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
*:::::The {{xt|]}} article can wait; I would prefer to stay on the topic of ''this'' article. The fact that ''transsexuality'' is unambiguously a noun (as in {{xt|]}}) should be all the "evidence" we need that it's a better title for this article. —] (]) 03:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
*:::::The {{xt|]}} article can wait; I would prefer to stay on the topic of ''this'' article. The fact that ''transsexuality'' is unambiguously a noun (as in {{xt|]}}) should be all the "evidence" we need that it's a better title for this article. —] (]) 03:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
*::: "Being transsexual specifically" is exactly what ''transsexuality'' means, not "the transgender topic in general": ] (my bolding). —] (]) 03:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
*::: "Being transsexual specifically" is exactly what ''transsexuality'' means, not "the transgender topic in general": ] (my bolding). —] (]) 03:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
⚫ |
*::::You stated that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in this case. And you stated that presumably because you argue that you "haven't mentioned ''any'' other articles for comparison." You brought up WP:NOUN in terms of what we do with other articles. That is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. You need not specifically mention other articles for that to be the case. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is valid for what I've argued. No one stated anything about a blanket ban on copying other encyclopedias. No one stated anything about avoiding doing so just to be different. The point on other encyclopedias is that we usually do not do things just because they have done it. And my point about renaming this article? I do not see how I can be any clearer. "We do not need two articles on the transgender topic in general. The Transsexual article is supposed to be about being transsexual specifically. And we know that enough transgender people consider themselves transsexual, with some dissociating themselves from the larger transgender community." No to a ]. When it comes to the Transgender and Transsexual articles, a case can be made that if any of the two should be titled "Transsexuality"...then it's the Transgender article. But I wouldn't support changing the title of that article either. If the Transgender article was about the term ''transgender'', then your case for renaming this one would be strong. This one would then be the one about the transgender topic in general. But it's not. ] (]) 04:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
:::::If you are going to argue that the term ''transgender'' -- a well-accepted umbrella term -- is demeaning and offensive, then you should provide reliable sources, especially reliable academic sources, backing you up on that. Since you want to mention ''Britannica'' as support of what we should do here at Misplaced Pages, I note now that has a Transgender article. Well, it's titled "Transgender (gender identity)" when viewed from the outside of the article. But it's still there -- "transgender" right in the title. The difference is that Misplaced Pages would not disambiguate like that since ] exists and all. You argued, "'Being transsexual specifically' is exactly what ''transsexuality'' means, not 'the transgender topic in general'." I don't feel like sitting here and listing sources that clearly show that ''transsexuality'' doesn't only refer to those who have undergone hormone replacement and/or surgery. By contrast, ''transsexual'' does. The reason that the Causes of transsexuality article has "transsexuality" in the title is because ] ] (]) 04:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
:::::If you are going to argue that the term ''transgender'' -- a well-accepted umbrella term -- is demeaning and offensive, then you should provide reliable sources, especially reliable academic sources, backing you up on that. Since you want to mention ''Britannica'' as support of what we should do here at Misplaced Pages, I note now that has a Transgender article. Well, it's titled "Transgender (gender identity)" when viewed from the outside of the article. But it's still there -- "transgender" right in the title. The difference is that Misplaced Pages would not disambiguate like that since ] exists and all. You argued, "'Being transsexual specifically' is exactly what ''transsexuality'' means, not 'the transgender topic in general'." I don't feel like sitting here and listing sources that clearly show that ''transsexuality'' doesn't only refer to those who have undergone hormone replacement and/or surgery. By contrast, ''transsexual'' does. The reason that the Causes of transsexuality article has "transsexuality" in the title is because ] ] (]) 04:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
*'''Oppose'''. Flyer22 Frozen covered it well. The proposer's comparison to the term "blacks" has nothing to do with this situation, and the claim of "outdated" has to do with how "transgender" is the common umbrella term nowadays; in no way is "transsexuality" to be preferred on that basis. ] weighs ''against'' "transsexuality", as readers will tend far more to think it has to do with ]. "Transsexual" is a noun; see and the . There are plenty of sources that use "transsexual" too. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 03:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
*'''Oppose'''. Flyer22 Frozen covered it well. The proposer's comparison to the term "blacks" has nothing to do with this situation, and the claim of "outdated" has to do with how "transgender" is the common umbrella term nowadays; in no way is "transsexuality" to be preferred on that basis. ] weighs ''against'' "transsexuality", as readers will tend far more to think it has to do with ]. "Transsexual" is a noun; see and the . There are plenty of sources that use "transsexual" too. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 03:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
The article doesn't really address or explain the fact that some transgender people find the term "transsexual" offensive. Needs a revamp I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.14.115 (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I was hoping to find out something about the biology. Is it always XY chromosomes? What kinds of sexual organs develop? Are they fully matured? Does it happen in other species? This article is full of anything and everything other than what I imagine most people like myself would like to know.
77.8.41.177 (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
