| Revision as of 02:39, 3 July 2008 editMarionTheLibrarian (talk | contribs)1,153 edits →Body Integrity Identity Disorder: re← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:11, 21 December 2024 edit undoRoxySaunders (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions3,006 edits Reverted 1 edit by 77.99.27.143 (talk): Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum. For general knowledge questions, you can consult the WP:REFDESK . See also simple:transgender and wikt:transgender.Tags: Twinkle Undo |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Notaforum}} |
|
{{skip to bottom}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum|transgender people}} |
|
{{LGBTProject |class=start |old-peer-review=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
{{FAOL|German|de:Transgender}} |
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=pa|style=long}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies|old-peer-review=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=top |needs-infobox=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
|
{{Old merge full|otherpage=Transsexual|date=2015-07-08|result=the articles were not merged|talk=Talk:Transsexual/Archive_7#Merger_Proposal_with_Transgender}} |
|
|
{{Old merge full|otherpage=Transsexual|date=2018-01-19|result=the articles were not merged|talk=Talk:Transgender/Archive_7#Merge_Transsexual_into_Transgender}} |
|
|
{{Page views double}} |
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|counter = 11 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Transgender/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Transgender/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{archives}} |
|
|
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2024 == |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit extended-protected|Transgender|answered=yes}} |
|
== Trans time-line or time-map == |
|
|
|
I think it might be a good idea to add a source to the sentence that the word transgenderism was once considered acceptable. I found this article when looking it up: "https://juliaserano.medium.com/the-history-of-the-word-transgenderism-55fd9bbf65cc". ] (]) 20:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 21:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Discussion at ]== |
|
There is a need to present an over-view of the transition process. People who live or work with someone who is transitioning should be able to see what the process comprises, where the transperson is in the process and what is still to come. |
|
|
|
] You are invited to join the discussion at ].  Please join the move discussion for a primary redirect to this article currently in progress. ] (]) 23:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Transgender & Transsexual == |
|
Various aspects would need to be represented in more than one time-map. Aspects aimed at a particular audience or for a particular purpose could be grouped on one time-map. Topics for time-maps could be: Self-discovery and self-acceptance, Coming-out at work, Transitioning with family, etc. Aspects would include: Emotional issues, relationships, hormonal issues, physical and surgical issues, medical issues, legal issues, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This question is not about people, but about terminology. Please don't flame me. I've read both articles and a goodly chunk of the archives. Maybe I missed it, but I can't find RS that really explains the difference between terms "transsexual" and "transgender" or makes a definite statement that they are the same. I find lots of opinions, but no sourcing. As a follow-on, are there particular researchers who have made a study of how use of the terms has changed over time? ] (]) 21:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
Please comment and suggest. |
|
|
] (]) 06:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@]: Flame! Haha, just kidding. :) |
|
: Personally, I'd be interested to read such an overview. The ] article is quite brief and vague at the moment, and might be a good place to start. If you can get objective ranges for timescales that'd be really good. ]<sub>(])</sub> 12:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Are you looking for new sources to add to the article, or sources for your own research? If the latter, I would recommend that you check out the terminology section on this article and see if there are any relevant sources there - I seem to recall finding relevant information to your query a month or two ago when I was checking some sources for this article. If the former, let me know, and perhaps I can help your search. In either case, the sources at the bottom of the article, especially the academic sources (some of the sources in "References" are sorted by type and some are not), may help you in your search. Perhaps you could check out the references in the linked sources themselves. Have a good day! |
|
|
:] (]) | :) | he/him | 22:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::https://glaad.org/reference/trans-terms |
|
|
::Scroll down to "Transsexual" |
|
|
::] (]) | :) | he/him | 22:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::more academic sources, found with google scholar: |
|
|
:::https://quadernsdepsicologia.cat/article/view/v20-n3-aguirre |
|
|
:::(spanish website but english pdf) |
|
|
:::https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ST2XEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=transgender+transsexual+terminology&ots=bO_jhuXH4Y&sig=Ks_R3H1MT8KLWTXce-YqrLaNZZY#v=onepage&q=transgender%20transsexual%20terminology&f=false |
|
|
:::https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=A1emBgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA173&dq=transgender+transsexual+terminology&ots=qyJWq9B-6F&sig=BJSEGZjO2N6TwInE42rhWHlEFec#v=onepage&q=transgender%20transsexual%20terminology&f=false |
|
|
:::https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-29093-1_4 ] (]) | :) | he/him | 22:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You're right, there doesn't seem to be an exhaustive etymological analysis of the differing word uses, at least based on my cursory search. That's unfortunate. |
|
|
::::] (]) | :) | he/him | 22:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Thanks for the sources. At least it's someplace to start. And to answer the early q, it's for personal research but I'd hoped to improve the article when/if I found something that really talked to the terminology. ] (]) 22:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Transgender vs. Transsexual == |
|
== LatAm section == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This phrase "They are framed as something entirely separate from transgender women, who possess the same gender identity of people assigned female at birth" does not make sense, and I wonder that's really what the author even hinted at saying that. I guess it could be reworded. But does this mean they are framed as cis women or trans men? Because "the same gender identity of people assigned female at birth" is not clear. Or did this try to explain what is a trans woman? Then you can just replace female with male, but would this contextualization be necessary? ] (]) 01:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
I am not an expert in this field and came to the article seeking only a clear explanation of the difference between 'transgender' and 'transsexual.' With all due respect, I did not find it here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@] hi can you take a look? ] (]) 01:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
In fact, this is perhaps one of the most opaque pieces of writing I've yet encountered in the Misplaced Pages (blessed be its name); it would appear that the authors are furthering some argument the general reader would be unfamiliar with. No doubt there is a place for this subtle & nuanced discussion, but I would suggest that this is not it. Could someone knowledgeable in the field of transgender '''please''' distinguish the two terms in plain English? It would be greatly appreciated. --] (]) 02:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::"who possess the same gender identity as people assigned female at birth" is the confusing part - how does my reword look? I just removed the confusing clause, as anything else would have required unsourced generalizations ] (]) | :) | he/him | 06:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2024 == |
|
''Transsexual'' is the more precisely defined term that researchers and clinicians use to describe people who undergo or want to undergo sex reassignment. ''Transgender'' has not precise definition; it is used by people who are persuing social and civil rights to refer broadly to people who do not conform to simple-male and simple-female. In some circumstances, these purposes align with each other, in some circumstances they do not, causing friction between researchers (who use precise terms) and activists (who sometimes find medical terms pathologizing). I hope that is a help.<br/> |
|
|
—] (]) 02:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit extended-protected|Transgender|answered=yes}} |
|
:I substantially rewrote the section based on a lot of personal knowledge about the subject. I transitioned many years ago and mentor young transsexuals. I'm not sure if the citations or my attempts at NPOV are adequate, but I tried to accurately recapitulate some of the issues I've seen crop up over and over again. (I think make some of those links could be reformatted to be proper citations?) I re-used some phrasing and citations from the (confusing) text that was originally there and MarionTheLibrarian's summary. Hopefully someone with more knowledge of wikipedia's standards can edit this into something that retains some of the facts and gist but is more consistent with wikipedia's general tone and "encyclopedic bias" (like cutting out text for ultra-minority positions). |
|
|
|
Add this to ]: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{tq| |
|
:It's probably too long, but I was hoping to help clarify what I know is a really complicated issue... The edit I left behind is . --03:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The term "trans*" (with an ]) emerged in the 1990s as an ] term used to encompass a wide range of non-cisgender identities. The asterisk serves as a ], indicating the inclusion of various identities beyond just transgender and transsexual, such as ] or ]. The use of the asterisk in "trans*" has been debated, either arguing that it adds unnecessary complexity or that enhances inclusivity by explicitly recognizing non-normative gender identities. |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
== Re: Question Concerning Third Genders and Transgender == |
|
|
|
|
|
This may be a question that's best posted elsewhere, but here goes. |
|
|
|
|
|
Is it really appropriate to describe third genders that exist in non-Western cultures as instances of transgender? If, for example, Indian culture contains three genders (male, female, and hjira), then a hjira is living in her culturally ascribed gender, one which doesn't map cleanly onto Western conceptions of "male" or "female". It would seem that, logically, to live in a culturally established third gender is basically the antithesis of transgender, as the behaviour is no transgression of gender roles within the relevant cultural context, but rather a full enactment of them. |
|
|
|
|
|
I guess what I'm wondering is whether labelling non-Western cultures' third genders as "transgender" represents an inappropriate imposition of Western frames of reference on a cultural phenomenon that can only be correctly understood within a frame of reference derived from the relevant cultural context. If so, then to describe third genders as expressions of transgender may darken understanding of both the third gender under consideration and third genders in general, and may be as much a gross and simplistic distortion as to describe third genders (or for that matter transgender) as expressions of homosexuality. And it would seem to me that darkening and distortion of understanding would be something an encyclopedia would like to avoid. |
|
|
|
|
|
Don't want no OR here; I'm certain that there is good, sourceable writing out there around this subject. It just seems to me a question worth raising. --] (]) 16:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Anne Lawrence == |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Anne Lawrence, a physician and ] who is openly transsexual...". |
|
|
|
|
|
:Why is this relevant? Any relevance is not explained, only implied. ] 20:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, this isn't something I'd go down to the mat for, but it's pretty typical to give basic identifying information about a person that is relevant to a topic. There exist people who say some hateful things about transgendered folks, and the statement that Lawrence makes can be mistaken as one when it's reduced to a single-sentence summary. Indicating that Lawrence is openly trans (in my mind, anyway) keeps the reader from getting the wrong idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
As I said, I wouldn't go to the mat for this, so if you revert it, I'll leave it alone, but I do think that the page is better when it includes her trans status as part of her ID.<br/> |
|
|
—] (]) 20:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Criticism Section == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is it appropriate to have a criticism section included in an article about an identity category? I've just visited a number of other pages that concern themselves with various identity categories and found no criticism sections on those. The closest I found was a section on homophobia in the homosexuality article--which I feel has entirely different implications than a criticism section. Likewise, a section on transphobia seems appropriate to me. As it stands, my opinion is that the criticism section actually constitutes transphobia... |
|
|
|
|
|
I apologize if this issue has already been discussed--I tried perusing the archives on the talk page and did not find anything about this. ] (]) 18:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I would think I think the section is appropriate. There's a substantial amount of thinking in the popular consciousness and even in academia that's considered unfair and biased by transgendered people. Look at the "Anne Lawrence" thing for a trivially accessible example. Anne Lawrence is a published sexologist and transsexual who draws a substantial amount of antipathy from nearly all the transsexuals I know who are aware of her. She's widely shunned for her "research". If there wasn't a criticism section then where would this content go? Perhaps the section could be prefaced by an NPOV comment along the lines of "The framing of the following criticisms is itself subject to controversy, some contending that these are factually relevant problems with the concept or the people the concept applies to. An alternative view is that these criticisms are largely based in ]." -07:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Body Integrity Identity Disorder == |
|
|
|
|
|
This similarity between ] and ] (or ] as BIID might also be understood as) has been inserted into the main text of transexuality twice now without an edit comment. The second time it was given a citation... exactly the same citation it already had in the criticism section. I understand that BIID people might see the similarity but most people don't even know that BIID even exists, even aside from some people thinking it's related to transsexuality. It's controversial. Hence, if it's even in the article it should be covered in the criticism secion and be treated with an eye towards NPOV. It ''shouldn't'' be the first thing mentioned in the transsexuality section about surgical issues, without even mentioning the controversial nature of claim that BIID is relevant. 02:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I am one of the two editors who felt that the Lawrence reference is relevant. I still believe it is relevant, although I certainly acknowledge that it will be disliked by many people who feel that such comparisons might delay the recognition of their civil rights. |
|
|
*It's inaccurate to imply that only "BIID people might see the similarity..."; Lawrence is herself openly transsexual, and is an expert on the psychology of transsexualism. Moreover, what who might say about what is not relevant to whether to include the idea in WP. |
|
|
*I do not believe that it is appropriate to relegate the statement to the controvery section. (I don't think it's even appropriate for that section to have 'sexual obsession' in the title: No RS has ever used such a term.) It's merely an opinion of a qualified professional author, and it should be conveyed to readers just like any other opinion from a qualified professional author, despite that some (or you or I) don't like its implications. |
|
|
*Finally, a note about usage: apotemnophilia is to autogynephilia as BIID is to GID. These terms are often used improperly. |
|
|
—] (]) 02:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::You're pushing your point of view on this Marion. Most, and by most, I mean the vast vast majority of sexologists dealing with transsexualism do not see a relation to BIID. Specifically, while Lawrence is noted to be an open transsexual, she is also an open "autogynephile", and as such, her representation of transsexualism does not have enough coverage to be considered "mainstream", and she herself has placed herself in the "fringe" portion of transsexual sexology by her own comments, and her insistence upon pushing "autogynephilia" onto other transwomen. Her references in the area of transsexual sexology are by nature controversial. There is also much to point out that Lawrence didn't pursue this sort of BIID-connection until she was essentially shut out of mainstream trans sexology. Her position is that BIID want something removed from their body, or something amputated, and so do transsexuals, completely disregarding the matter of why this action wants to be taken. Transsexuals tend to either be primarily interested in being socially accepted as a female, or being visually acceptable as a female. The members of the first don't have anything close to BIID, except that they want surgery to correct various facets of their physical form... do women who want breast augmentation have BIID? Does my friend have BIID because her large breasts cause her enormous pain, and inconvenience, and thus she wants to get a breast reduction? No, neither is the case. Conflating GID and BIID incorrect, because just even linking them together is a stretch. Take an arbitrary MTF, stop her natural puberty, then let her experience the puberty that she anticipates... she'll be invariably indistinguishable from a natal female. If she gets surgery, yeah, she'll be amputating something, but typically that is the lesser important part. There is notably and understandably grave concern among trans sexologists when someone expresses the idea that surgery will correct all their problems, meanwhile, that's almost the ''definition'' of what would be the most effective treatment for BIID. This isn't a case (usually) where someone simply wants to remove their penis and get a vagina, and not change anything else about their life. This contrasts with BIID, where that is the focus of all of their concern... removing that body part, and not changing anything else in their life. --] (]) 01:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sources to use (since they are many, only use the most reliable and highly reputable ones): |
|
:Oh, by the way, "(I don't think it's even appropriate for that section to have 'sexual obsession' in the title: No RS has ever used such a term.)" Lawrence herself defines autogynephilia as a sexual obsession of a man to obtain a female body... so, um... I don't know where you're getting your support for this... Lawrence, I think herself, would openly state that she believes that autogynephilia is a "sexual obsession". --] (]) 01:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
#{{cite web |last=Steinmetz |first=Katy |date=2018-04-03 |title=The OED Just Added the Word 'Trans*.' Here's What It Means |url=https://time.com/5211799/what-does-trans-asterisk-star-mean-dictionary/ |access-date=2024-12-05 |website=TIME |language=en}} |
|
|
#{{cite web |title=Why We Used Trans* and Why We Don't Anymore - |url=https://transstudent.org/issues/asterisk/ |access-date=2024-12-05 |website=transstudent.org |language=en-US}} |
|
|
#{{cite web |title=Why do you include an asterisk in Trans*? » The Safe Zone Project |url=https://thesafezoneproject.com/faq/why-do-you-include-an-asterisk-in-trans/ |access-date=2024-12-05 |website=The Safe Zone Project |language=en-US}} |
|
|
#{{cite web |last=Middleton |first=Josh |date=2014-07-16 |title=QUEERSTIONS: What Does it Mean When There is an Asterisk After the Word "Trans?" |url=https://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/07/16/queerstions-mean-asterisk-word-trans/ |access-date=2024-12-05 |website=Philadelphia Magazine |language=en-US}} |
|
|
#{{cite web |title=What does the asterisk in “trans*” stand for? - ❤ It's Pronounced Metrosexual |url=https://www.itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/05/what-does-the-asterisk-in-trans-stand-for/ |access-date=2024-12-05 |website=It's Pronounced Metrosexual |language=en-us}} |
|
|
#{{cite web |last=Levenson |first=Claire |date=2018-10-15 |title=Transition des jeunes trans*, quand science et militants divergent |url=https://www.slate.fr/story/167366/sciences-recherche-etudes-jeunes-trans-militantisme |access-date=2024-12-05 |website=Slate.fr |language=fr-FR}} |
|
|
#{{cite journal |last=Prieur |first=Cha |date=2019-12-16 |title=Les violences envers les personnes trans* à l'université. Des conséquences sur la santé mentale aux pistes pour s’en sortir |url=https://journals.openedition.org/gss/5726 |journal=Genre, sexualité & société |language=fr |issue=22 |doi=10.4000/gss.5726 |issn=2104-3736}} |
|
|
#{{cite journal |last=Delage |first=Pauline |last2=Lieber |first2=Marylène |last3=Chetcuti-Osorovitz |first3=Natacha |date=2019-07-18 |title=Lutter contre les violences de genre. Des mouvements féministes à leur institutionnalisation:Introduction |url=https://shs.cairn.info/revue-cahiers-du-genre-2019-1-page-5?lang=fr |journal=Cahiers du Genre |language=fr |volume=66 |issue=1 |pages=5–16 |doi=10.3917/cdge.066.0005 |issn=1298-6046}} |
|
|
#{{cite journal |last=Iazzetti |first=Brume Dezembro |date=2022-01-01 |title=Políticas institucionais voltadas à população trans* no ensino superior brasileiro e alguns de seus limites e desafios |url=https://www.academia.edu/95784280/Pol%C3%ADticas_institucionais_voltadas_%C3%A0_popula%C3%A7%C3%A3o_trans_no_ensino_superior_brasileiro_e_alguns_de_seus_limites_e_desafios |journal=Cultura, Política, Sexualidade e Gênero na América Latina}} |
|
|
#{{cite journal |last=Guerrero McManus |first=Siobhan |date=2024 |title=Los estudios trans en México |url=https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S2448-57052024000100011&script=sci_arttext |journal=Inter disciplina |language=es |volume=12 |issue=32 |pages=11–24 |doi=10.22201/ceiich.24485705e.2024.32.86915 |issn=2448-5705}} |
|
|
#{{cite book |last=Radi |first=Blas |url=https://ri.conicet.gov.ar/handle/11336/143541?show=full |title=Epistemología del asterisco: una introducción sinuosa a la epistemología trans |date=2020 |publisher=Universidad Nacional de Rosario |isbn=978-987-702-385-5}} |
|
|
#JONES, Nash. Bridging the gap-trans*: What does the asterisk mean and why is it used. '''PDX Q Center''', 2013. |
|
|
#Garvin, P. (2019). What’s the asterisk in “trans*” mean and why do some find it offensive?”. ''The LGBTQ+ Experiment'', ''18''. |
|
|
#{{cite journal |last=Lewis |first=Nancy M. |date=2019-01-01 |title=Open to Possibilities: Gender Variability and the Importance of the Asterisk. |url=https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA611260115&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=25760750&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Eecb3b175&aty=open-web-entry |journal=Resources for Gender and Women's Studies: A Feminist Review |language=English |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=7–8}} |
|
|
#{{cite journal |last=Tompkins |first=Avery |date=2014-05-01 |title=Asterisk |url=https://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article/1/1-2/26/91872/Asterisk |journal=TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly |volume=1 |issue=1-2 |pages=26–27 |doi=10.1215/23289252-2399497 |issn=2328-9252}} ] (]) 02:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Hey @], |
|
*The funny thing about perceiving a POV is that one can never tell if the POV perceived is actually the reflection of one's own. It seems to me that you have no way of breaking free of that than I do. Nonetheless: |
|
|
|
:Could you choose some of the best sources and add them as inline citations? |
|
*Regarding what is believed by the "vast vast majority of sexologists..." How exactly can you know what they believe? There has never been a survey, and I don't recall seeing you at any sexology meetings. Personally, I have been a professinal sexologist for over a decade, I am a member of several sexology associations, and I serve on the editorial boards of the three largest journals in the field...and I ''still'' would never presume to say I know what the majority thinks. So, unless I have missed running into you all these years at all these conferences, it seems to me that you have no way of knowing this either. I am not saying you are not entitled to your opinions on this matter, I am pointing out that you have little basis for making claims about ''other'' people's beliefs. |
|
|
|
:If you don't get to it, I can, but you may be more familiar with the source material. |
|
*Next, I am surprised to hear a scientist ask me for references to show what Lawrence did ''not'' say. It is a basic tenet of science that one does not prove the null hypothesis. The onus is instead on you to show that Lawrence ''did'' refer to autogynephilia as a sexual obsession. (Moreover, it makes no sense to call any specific sexual interest as a sexual obsession. ''All'' sexual interest is an obsession.) I note that neither you nor the article here contains a reference supporting that Lawrence used such language. If she did, then it would, of course, be easy for you to show me wrong just by producing the location of where she did. (I am perfectly willing to admit when I make an error, as you have seen me do previously.) |
|
|
|
:Thanks! |
|
*Your description of Lawrence' comparison between the GID and BIID entities does not (to me) at all resemble what she says in her article. Your description does, however, closely resemble what other people have ''said'' that Lawrence says. If you have trouble locating a copy of the original article, I would be happy to email it to you. |
|
|
|
:] (]) | :) | he/him | 05:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
*I don't know at all to whom you are referring by "mainstream trans sexology." Exactly how many transsexual sexologists other than Lawrence and Maxine Petersen (who also supports autogynephilia) are there who published more than, say, two or three papers on transsexuality in peer-reviewed journals? Moreover, Lawrence also serves on the American Psychological Association's task force for making recommendations on trans-relevant policies, having been invited to do so by the President of the APA. So, although she may certainly be in the minority relative to rank-and-file psychologists/physicians or the transsexual population, when compared to the professional sexologists who actually conduct and publish research on the topic, she is at the epicenter. |
|
|
|
::@] I think 1, 11, 15, and 14 are the best sources and should be there. I guess that's a reasonable number and they cover what the sentences are saying. ] (]) 05:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
*As I said, you have every right to disagree with Lawrence. However, your statements above are not actually disagreeing with Lawrence, they are instead disagreeing with a caricature of her statements, none of which she has ever made or believed. |
|
|
|
:::I could not read number 11 (foreign language) or 14 (limited access), but after changing the paragraph headings, etc. for more logical flow () and adding bullets to the relevant paragraph (), I made your edit, with the following modifications: |
|
—] (]) 02:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::-converted quotation marks to italics |
|
|
:::-added clause about the transgender umbrella after agender to clarify how trans* includes other identities under the transgender umbrella |
|
|
:::-clarified summary of argument over use of the term |
|
|
:::-I read the sources and added them as ] where I though they fit best. |
|
|
:::-serves as -> represents, because I think that wildcard has a specific meaning (could be wrong) in computer searches, as referenced by source number 15 |
|
|
:::If you disagree with any of my choices, or want to add more information/make more changes to the article, please feel free to continue recommending them here! This was a great recommendation! |
|
|
::::P.S., in the future, you can add inline citations by surrounding your citation template with ref tags like this <nowiki> <ref>{{cite web}}</ref>, </nowiki> but that may have been too much work on a talk page. However, regardless, if you want to recommend any future changes, I would ask that you just put which sources you are referencing, like this: |
|
|
:::::"] is the greatest" |
|
|
::::::: The truest book |
|
|
:::just so it is known which sources you want to use. |
|
|
:::Again, thanks! Have a good day. |
|
|
:::] (]) | :) | he/him | 05:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thanks for that all. Yup, that's perfect cause I have problems sometimes with syntax or grammar. And here's an open PDF for 11: https://notablesdelaciencia.conicet.gov.ar/bitstream/handle/11336/143541/CONICET_Digital_Nro.632f17dd-d63f-4e3e-89dc-46a7306a31c9_A.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y ] (]) 05:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Thanks also to @] for removing the quotation marks; I neglected to do that. |
|
|
:::::] (]) | :) | he/him | 22:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{already done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] completed the request ] (]) 12:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC) |
This question is not about people, but about terminology. Please don't flame me. I've read both articles and a goodly chunk of the archives. Maybe I missed it, but I can't find RS that really explains the difference between terms "transsexual" and "transgender" or makes a definite statement that they are the same. I find lots of opinions, but no sourcing. As a follow-on, are there particular researchers who have made a study of how use of the terms has changed over time? Bitten Peach (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
This phrase "They are framed as something entirely separate from transgender women, who possess the same gender identity of people assigned female at birth" does not make sense, and I wonder that's really what the author even hinted at saying that. I guess it could be reworded. But does this mean they are framed as cis women or trans men? Because "the same gender identity of people assigned female at birth" is not clear. Or did this try to explain what is a trans woman? Then you can just replace female with male, but would this contextualization be necessary? LIrala (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Sources to use (since they are many, only use the most reliable and highly reputable ones):
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Trans § Requested move 15 November 2024. Please join the move discussion for a primary redirect to this article currently in progress. Raladic (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Already done User:JuxtaposedJacob completed the request The AP (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
