| Revision as of 23:15, 4 October 2004 editAlexR (talk | contribs)3,829 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:36, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,019 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] | ||
| (401 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{merged-from|En homme|16 September 2023}} | |||
| ==Joan of Arc== | |||
| {{merged-from|En femme|16 September 2023}} | |||
| Is it fully correct to refer to Joan of Arc as a crossdresser? Granted she ran around in armor, carrying a sword, but Im not sure if women of the Russian Army, during World War II, were "crossdressing" anymore than Pope Joan was. ] | |||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Fashion|importance=high}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=high}} | |||
| {{WikiProject LGBT studies}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Sociology|importance=low}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| | algo = old(60d) | |||
| | archive = Talk:Cross-dressing/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| | counter = 3 | |||
| | maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| | archiveheader = {{Aan}} | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| }} | |||
| == More common term == | |||
| The article does not state that Joan of Arc was a cross-dresser. It states that Joan of Arc cross-dressed for reasons unknown (and currently unknowable). There's a BIG difference between those two things! <br> | |||
| However, although the article does not say so, Joan of Arc did not just cross-dress for battle, but was ultimately burned because she refused to promise never to wear male clothes again. That points to some problem with gender identity, also an intersexual condition has been assumed by some authors. Again, those theories are unprovable. <br> | |||
| And nobody implied that the women of the Russian Army were cross-dressing; as far as I can tell from the pictures they had a female uniform. <br> | |||
| ''Pope Joan'' om the other hand is an apocryphical figure, nobody knows whether such a person ever existed, much less why she was playing a man's role. If she existed, however, she was cross-dressing; again, though, not necessarily a cross-dresser. <br> | |||
| -- ] 16:39 10 Jun 2003 (UTC) | |||
| The statement ''the Anglo-Saxon-rooted term "cross-dresser" has largely superseded the Latin-origin term "transvestite"'' ought to be an empirical verifiable fact, but risks looking like desired prescriptivism. does not seem to support the statement. The three references look as if they say what they think should be used or is used by right-thinking people rather than what is used in general. ] (]) 13:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sexual orientation== | |||
| : Thanks for that; always good to verify one's hunches by checking the data. The answer you get, though, depends a fair bit on what you ask for. If you look at these terms, and compare and , it's not so clear. The other factor, is that ngrams is based solely on books, and doesn't include other sources, such as journals, and reliable magazines and web sites. Still, "largely superseded" doesn't match the three sources, either. I've removed that expression. Thanks, ] (]) 03:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| The text says: | |||
| :The results linked to for ngrams have excluded the term ''cross-dresser'' altogether ({{tquote|Ngrams not found: cross-dresser}}). They are only comparing ''transvestite'' with ''crossdresser''. And of course, ''crossdresser'' (with no hyphen) is less accurate and less common than the form with a hyphen. Google ngrams does not seem to work correctly with hyphenated terms. | |||
| However, most male-bodied cross-dressers | |||
| :A cursory Google search shows "cross-dresser OR crossdresser" as having ~92 million results, and "transvestite" having ~40 million results. That seems about right, and what we would expect in the 21st century. ] (]) 05:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| prefer female partners. So do most female-bodied. | |||
| :: The original search by the IPv6 used incorrect placement of the hyphen and excludes cross-dresser, but includes it, and does show that ''transvestite'' is much more common than ''cross-dresser'' in books. However, you have to examine the actual sources, not just the count, to see whether they are reliable sources or not. For example, in the list of books at the ngrams link for "transvestites" for the period 2015-2019, all of the top ten books in the list are pornography, with titles such as "Transvestite Hooker from Detroit", "Transvestite Sissy Candy Tied Up in Pink Panties", "Classic Transvestite Candy in Pictures", "Mistress X Transvestite Dominatrix", and "Transvestite In Chains". It's not till you get to #15 that there's a reliable-looking source ("Sex between Body and Mind: Psychoanalysis and Sexology in the German-speaking World, 1890s-1930s"). So, the raw tally from ngrams, although much higher for ''transvestite'', cannot be used. A far as hit counts in Google, there are neither 92M nor 40M results for those; that's not even close to the correct tally. Stick to reliable sources, which includes reliable published books, academic journals, and selected magazines and web sites. Using the tally that you get from Google web search is highly misleading. ] (]) 18:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, what's the method used to determine these things? Popularity? Popularity in reliable sources, which are ambiguously defined? At least GLAAD and the APA style guide are saying that ''transvestite'' is now considered offensive. That's not the end-all-be-all, but any review of what is common / standard, should include a variety of criteria. | |||
| :::* https://www.glaad.org/reference/trans-terms | |||
| :::* https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender | |||
| :::] (]) 19:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::: A number of things. It's laid out in our policy on ], and in particular, section #Deciding on an article title, which includes five ]. "Popularity" is, indeed, one of them, at least if you take that word as a rough proxy for the ] recognizability criterion on that page. Having that policy to hand is one thing, and applying it by trying to figure out what is most common/popular/recognizable is quite another, as the initial attempts using ngrams makes clear. But in general, yes, if we could get an accurate sense on what the most common term is in reliable sources, then we should normally follow that. One way to do that, is via ] sources (encyclopedias, college intro textbooks, and the like) which normally distill the majority viewpoint of secondary sources, because by definition, that's what they do. If we have a few good tertiary sources we trust and they agree, then in theory that saves us from having to check hundreds or thousands of secondary sources. | |||
| :::: However, there is one other thorn to deal with, and it could be a deal-breaker. Things like ] and the other criteria only are relevant when both terms in question ''both name the same thing'', otherwise, there's no point in comparing usage. We can dicker about whether to call that thing in your garage a ] or an ], and questions of popularity or ] come into it. However, if we were talking about merging ] and ], then the fact that "car" is much more common does not mean we should merge the two and call it "car"; it means nothing at all and is irrelevant, because they are two different topics, albeit closely related in a ]/] relationship, therefore, no merge of those two. So one question here, is: do these two terms represent the same thing? Because if they don't, there is no point going any further. I would say they do not, as cross-dressing simply describes a behavior, and may also apply to Shakespeare's actors at the ], Dustin Hoffman in ], or Robin Williams in ]; none of those involve transvestism, in my understanding of that term, which these days is used more in the context of identifying personality disorders. ] (]) 05:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The main issue that I have with these two articles is that the contents of the articles have a large amount of overlap. If we could keep the article for '']'' as the general practice, and '']'' strictly for the medical understanding, that could be a big improvement. That probably wouldn't require a lot of work (if that made sense in terms of direction). ] (]) 06:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Let me know sometime if you have any thoughts on improving these two articles. This is something I've been thinking about from time to time over the last few months. ] (]) 18:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Sexuality in World Civilizations I== | |||
| So everybody who cross-dresses wants a female partner? If true, that implies that female cross-dressers are homosexuals, by and large, and that male cross-dressers are heterosexuals, for the most part. Interesting. In fact, so interesting that it practically demands <b>evidence</b> and <b>explication</b>. It says that the sex of a person has a truly profound influence, in the subset of humans who cross-dress, on whether one is homo- or hetero-sexual. | |||
| {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Chicago/Gender_and_Sexuality_in_World_Civilizations_I_(Fall) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2022-09-27 | end_date = 2022-12-10 }} | |||
| <span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 23:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)</span> | |||
| But.... I suspect that it's just a carelessly constructed sentence. Without knowing the basis for the 2 sentences I wouldn't dare to change them. | |||
| ==Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism TR 1 pm== | |||
| ] 06:38, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC) | |||
| {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/The_George_Washington_University/University_Writing_1020_Communicating_Feminism_TR_1_pm_(Fall_2023) | assignments = ], ], ] | reviewers = ], ], ] | start_date = 2023-08-29 | end_date = 2023-12-07 }} | |||
| <span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 22:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :"So do most female-bodied. " is unsubstantiated. I'm going to reword it. ] 06:40, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wiki Education assignment: Psychology of Gender== | |||
| :: Actually, my experience confirms that most female bodies CDs prefer female partners. That however may be so only because there is a role model in the lesbian community for people who want to cross dress, while there is none for straight women (or more general, androphiliac female bodied persons). On the other hand, cross-dressing used to be an established part of the gay community, but that has very much changed, and in many parts it is, at least off-stage, frowned upon. So cross-dressing among gay men has declined, while it never quite took of among straight women. So that is merely a cultural matter, albeit a very influencial one. Whether you call that a ''profound'' influence is a matter of definition then ;-) --] 11:20, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC) | |||
| {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Illinois_Institute_of_Technology/Psychology_of_Gender_(Spring_2024) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2024-01-08 | end_date = 2024-04-28 }} | |||
| <span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 02:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ==Regarding female cross dressers in history== | |||
| Regarding female cross dressers in history. This is a fairly large topic because before womans liberation many male roles were off-limits to females so it was actually very common to see women dressing up as men to gain access. I've searched Wiki and this is the best place I have found on the topic. It has nothing to do with sexuality, or fetish really. For example I posted ] and she did it for one reason only: to gain access to the front lines of WWI so she could make money selling her first-hand accounts. Now, one could speculate on her sexuality, but that's not history, that's specultion. In fact, the military in WWI feared a wave of women imposters trying to gain access to the front lines for various reasons. It really has nothing to do with sexual preferance or fetish or anything like that, which the term "crossdresser" seems to imply. Is there another more appropriate article to discuss this? Or do we need to create one? Certainly, there must be a history book on this subject or even entire sub-field (gender studies?) ] 20:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :That's two things you mention: One, what the word cross-dresser implies, and the other the problem with historical figures. | |||
| :* The word cross-dresser itself does not imply any sexual preferences or fetishes, although it is often associated with both. That however would happen with any word describing cross-gender behaviour, as it happened with this word. After all, it has been coined specifically to avoid these associations - ], which it replaces, acquired so many of them that it has become pretty useless. (And how many people actually know that even ''Transsexual'' does ''not'' describe a sexual orientation or preference, and the ''sex''-part was not supposed to imply that, either, when the word was coined?) <br /> I do agree that the article could be somewhat clearer on the subject; while that information is certainly there, the article is obviously the result of many edits, and little attemting to make one smooth piece. I do not think, however, that there is much need of another article; after all, cross-dresser or cross-dressing is the correct term to use. Expanding the articles on particular cross-dressing people of course would be most useful. (And BTW, the term "sexual imposter" is most certainly incorrect; after all, as far as we know, she did not pose in any particular "sexual" way.) | |||
| :* The other thing is, and I already added a bit about that to the article yesterday, the problem with historical figures and their motives. There are a multitude of motives for cross-dressing, raging from clearly transgender to plain necessity, and about everything in between. Sexual orientation probably played part in some cases, sure, but like all motives is very difficult to detect in hindsight; sexual play and fetishism are even harder to proof, and the later is a 20th century concept, anyway. Not to mention that there is another problem, namely, that we cannot trust even those few documents we have. In times where words and concepts like "transgender" or "transsexual" or even "gender identity" or similar did not exist, and where it is often argued that not even something like a "homosexual identity" (for those cases where sexual orientation might have played a role), and/or where people had to fear persecution simply for cross-dressing, or where the documents we have actually ''are'' court documents, we can neither expect that people express themselfes in ways that are sufficiently similar to our own thinking, nor would they have the words to do so. And certainly they had an excellent motive, in cases of persecution, to phrase their explanations in ways that would minimise their punishment. ("I wanted some adventure" would certainly be inappriopriate - but "I am a man inside, no matter what my body says" would in many cases have placed them in mortal danger.) <br /> So that is a very tricky thing, talking about historical persons who cross-dressed. | |||
| :So, in conclusion, I'd say this article needs some work, but moving parts of it into another article would need very good reasons, the whole matter does belong here. -- ] 23:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:36, 10 July 2024
 | The contents of the En homme page were merged into Cross-dressing on 16 September 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| The contents of the En femme page were merged into Cross-dressing on 16 September 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cross-dressing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
More common term
The statement the Anglo-Saxon-rooted term "cross-dresser" has largely superseded the Latin-origin term "transvestite" ought to be an empirical verifiable fact, but risks looking like desired prescriptivism. Google ngrams does not seem to support the statement. The three references look as if they say what they think should be used or is used by right-thinking people rather than what is used in general. 2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:5C5A:1B03:C6BA:40A7 (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for that; always good to verify one's hunches by checking the data. The answer you get, though, depends a fair bit on what you ask for. If you look at these terms, and compare AE and BE, it's not so clear. The other factor, is that ngrams is based solely on books, and doesn't include other sources, such as journals, and reliable magazines and web sites. Still, "largely superseded" doesn't match the three sources, either. I've removed that expression. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- The results linked to for ngrams have excluded the term cross-dresser altogether (
Ngrams not found: cross-dresser
). They are only comparing transvestite with crossdresser. And of course, crossdresser (with no hyphen) is less accurate and less common than the form with a hyphen. Google ngrams does not seem to work correctly with hyphenated terms. - A cursory Google search shows "cross-dresser OR crossdresser" as having ~92 million results, and "transvestite" having ~40 million results. That seems about right, and what we would expect in the 21st century. Hist9600 (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- The original search by the IPv6 used incorrect placement of the hyphen and excludes cross-dresser, but this search includes it, and does show that transvestite is much more common than cross-dresser in books. However, you have to examine the actual sources, not just the count, to see whether they are reliable sources or not. For example, in the list of books at the ngrams link for "transvestites" for the period 2015-2019, all of the top ten books in the list are pornography, with titles such as "Transvestite Hooker from Detroit", "Transvestite Sissy Candy Tied Up in Pink Panties", "Classic Transvestite Candy in Pictures", "Mistress X Transvestite Dominatrix", and "Transvestite In Chains". It's not till you get to #15 that there's a reliable-looking source ("Sex between Body and Mind: Psychoanalysis and Sexology in the German-speaking World, 1890s-1930s"). So, the raw tally from ngrams, although much higher for transvestite, cannot be used. A far as hit counts in Google, there are neither 92M nor 40M results for those; that's not even close to the correct tally. Stick to reliable sources, which includes reliable published books, academic journals, and selected magazines and web sites. Using the tally that you get from Google web search is highly misleading. Mathglot (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well, what's the method used to determine these things? Popularity? Popularity in reliable sources, which are ambiguously defined? At least GLAAD and the APA style guide are saying that transvestite is now considered offensive. That's not the end-all-be-all, but any review of what is common / standard, should include a variety of criteria.
- Hist9600 (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- A number of things. It's laid out in our policy on Article titles, and in particular, section #Deciding on an article title, which includes five WP:CRITERIA. "Popularity" is, indeed, one of them, at least if you take that word as a rough proxy for the WP:COMMONNAME recognizability criterion on that page. Having that policy to hand is one thing, and applying it by trying to figure out what is most common/popular/recognizable is quite another, as the initial attempts using ngrams makes clear. But in general, yes, if we could get an accurate sense on what the most common term is in reliable sources, then we should normally follow that. One way to do that, is via WP:TERTIARY sources (encyclopedias, college intro textbooks, and the like) which normally distill the majority viewpoint of secondary sources, because by definition, that's what they do. If we have a few good tertiary sources we trust and they agree, then in theory that saves us from having to check hundreds or thousands of secondary sources.
- However, there is one other thorn to deal with, and it could be a deal-breaker. Things like WP:COMMONNAME and the other criteria only are relevant when both terms in question both name the same thing, otherwise, there's no point in comparing usage. We can dicker about whether to call that thing in your garage a car or an automobile, and questions of popularity or WP:COMMONNAME come into it. However, if we were talking about merging Car and Sedan, then the fact that "car" is much more common does not mean we should merge the two and call it "car"; it means nothing at all and is irrelevant, because they are two different topics, albeit closely related in a hypernym/hyponym relationship, therefore, no merge of those two. So one question here, is: do these two terms represent the same thing? Because if they don't, there is no point going any further. I would say they do not, as cross-dressing simply describes a behavior, and may also apply to Shakespeare's actors at the Globe theater, Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie, or Robin Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire; none of those involve transvestism, in my understanding of that term, which these days is used more in the context of identifying personality disorders. Mathglot (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- The main issue that I have with these two articles is that the contents of the articles have a large amount of overlap. If we could keep the article for cross-dressing as the general practice, and transvestism strictly for the medical understanding, that could be a big improvement. That probably wouldn't require a lot of work (if that made sense in terms of direction). Hist9600 (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Let me know sometime if you have any thoughts on improving these two articles. This is something I've been thinking about from time to time over the last few months. Hist9600 (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- The original search by the IPv6 used incorrect placement of the hyphen and excludes cross-dresser, but this search includes it, and does show that transvestite is much more common than cross-dresser in books. However, you have to examine the actual sources, not just the count, to see whether they are reliable sources or not. For example, in the list of books at the ngrams link for "transvestites" for the period 2015-2019, all of the top ten books in the list are pornography, with titles such as "Transvestite Hooker from Detroit", "Transvestite Sissy Candy Tied Up in Pink Panties", "Classic Transvestite Candy in Pictures", "Mistress X Transvestite Dominatrix", and "Transvestite In Chains". It's not till you get to #15 that there's a reliable-looking source ("Sex between Body and Mind: Psychoanalysis and Sexology in the German-speaking World, 1890s-1930s"). So, the raw tally from ngrams, although much higher for transvestite, cannot be used. A far as hit counts in Google, there are neither 92M nor 40M results for those; that's not even close to the correct tally. Stick to reliable sources, which includes reliable published books, academic journals, and selected magazines and web sites. Using the tally that you get from Google web search is highly misleading. Mathglot (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Sexuality in World Civilizations I
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2022 and 10 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pizzapizzailovepizza (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Pizzapizzailovepizza (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism TR 1 pm
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 7 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sophie.Schell, Anewman0411, Mackenziegan (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sh2027, Brianbuigwu, Daisyyvenegas.
— Assignment last updated by Cjsmith7 (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Psychology of Gender
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 28 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mistikaa (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Zisha68 (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Categories: