Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AWilliamson (talk | contribs) at 03:48, 15 January 2005 (→Pope John II). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

God

• God, transgender creator of the universe

I assume the above was a joke. --Uncle Ed

Didn't you say earlier that you believed God was a synthesis of the masculine and feminine? :) -Martin

Yes :-) but I didn't say God changed from one to the other. God has always been a harmonized being with the dual characteristics of masculinity and femininity. So He answers to "Heavenly Father" as well as to "Holy Spirit" (the comforter). It's a bit complicated, maybe. And, oh, probably beyond the scope of this article. If yer really interested, someday I'll write an article on the dual characteristics of masculinity and femininity from the Unification Church perspective. --Uncle Ed

That would make God transgender but not transsexual... but yes, beyond the scope of the article... :) -Martin 09:33 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

lifestyle

In presenting this list, we do not mean to imply that the fact that these people being transgender makes it a more or less valid lifestyle or condition -- that would be a clearly bogus argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad vericundiam (see logical fallacy).

I don't think this is helpful. For one thing, I don't think there's any language in the page that implies the contrary; a fortiori, I think the way it's worded sounds actually hostile, achieving the opposite of its stated intent. Perhaps we could come up with a different way to word it. - Montréalais

I copied it from listing of noted atheists (and similar pages). I think the point does have to be made, but by all means mess around with the wording... -Martin (aka Lucinda)

Joan of Arc

Can someone provide documentation that Joan of Arc was transgendered? Is every woman who has ever worn an article of men's clothing a transgendered person? Also I don't think the Inquisition's accusations meet any standards of scholarship.  :)

I had a bit of trouble leaving Milton Berle on this list, myself. -- Zoe

Milton Berle? How the heck did he make it onto the list?

I don't even know who Milton Berle is...

"documentation that Joan of Arc was transgendered" - are you asking for evidence that Joan of Arc consistently cross-dressed over a fairly length period of time? And/or for evidence that her cross-dressing was included in the list of reasons why she was burned? And/or that cross-dressing is typically considered part of transgender? And/or something else? Martin

Milton Berle

I just changed Milton Berle from "drag queen" to "drag comedian", but don't you think there needs to be some analytical thought used in applying present-day categories to people from the past? Some of the people on this list, probably including Milton Berle, never heard of transgendered anything. Ortolan88

It's a good point. I don't know much about Berle, so I'll use Joan of Arc as my token example. Now Joan certainly hadn't heard of the concept of transgender. But Joan, in cutting her hair short, dressing as a man and leading an army, was crossing the gender boundaries of her time and culture, and such crossing of boundaries is essentially the definition of transgender.

I think there's a different between cultural terms, like "gay", and behavioural terms, like "homosexual". To my mind, transgender is something you do (or do not), rather than a culture to which you belong. However, I wouldn't call Joan of Arc a "dyke" or a "transfag" or "butch", because those labels are cultural, and they don't make any sense applied to people prior to the 20th century. Martin

If transgendered includes transexuals, cross-dressers (homosexual and heterosexual), women who joined medieval armies, Molly Pitcher, hermaphrodites, and drag comedians, meaning no disrespect, it is not a rigorous category.

I'm hesitant to continue this discussion because my questions about rigor on lists have had a way of getting out of hand (a mere mention of the word "disambiguation" on of the football talk pages started a discussion that rivals the medieval doctors in complexity, prolixity, and passion), but maybe a broader introduction to the list about how gender and gender-identified clothing are fluid categories, and how many people through the ages have jumped from one category to another would help. When we say "People who have been transgendered", who "transgendered" them? Ortolan88

transgender/transsexual/and transvestite

This page is confusing transvestite, transgender, and transsexual. Susan Mason

In what way? Martin

In that its a list of transgender/transsexual/and transvestite persons, but is only called "list of transgendered people" Susan Mason

Transgender can be construed as a catchall term. - Montréalais

It is somewhat incorrect to do so. Susan Mason

Some people use transgender as a catch-all term for crossing of gender boundaries.

Some people use transgender to specifically refer to be people between genders.

Thus the term has two meanings. Neither meaning is "incorrect". Martin

Articles required and separate lists?

I dropped the line in the heading that said only those with their own wiki articles were listed, because I just added some who do not yet have articles, but for whom I will write articles (although Rene Richards was already listed earlier without her own article). I will reinstate the wiki-requirement line as soon as I get around to writing up those on the list now, with the exception of the few drag performers I added from the GLB list. I have a personal…distaste for drag performers and I feel it would be unfair and ill-advised for me to attempt to write articles on those people. If they cannot be filled out, I will remove them again. If anyone else wants to start some of these missing articles, that’d be really great too. : )

Also, I’m not sure either Joan of Arc or anyone from mythology should be listed here. Any thoughts or comments? Paige

Perhaps it would be worth listing them seperately? You could use a header for each list... Martin

I'm sorry, Martin, I must be having a blonde day. I'm not sure what you mean, list what separately? Do you mean a heading for TG's, for drag queens, etc.? If that's what you mean, I can sorta see the logic behind it, but I just don't want to be the one to do it. It could be construed as divisionist or biased and that could get catty pretty fast, don't you think? Paige

I was thinking of one list for "modern" TGs, and another list for historical/mythological TGs... Martin 08:28 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Nice work :) Martin

Nice idea in the first place, Martin. It looks a little better this way, I think. Paige

Gwen Araujo

Was Gwen Araujo TS? Of course that depends on one's definition of TS...

How on earth did Kate Bornstein stay off this page for so long? :)

• Gwen Araujo was a pre-op TS at the time she was murdered.Rickyrab 03:52, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

var

Source for Sara Davis Buechner: http://www.tgguide.com/soapbox/news/042.htm
Tualha 06:23, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

Anyone know if Roberta Cowell is still alive? Can't find much about her on the web. -- Tualha 15:58, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Achilles and Heracles and again, seperate lists

Are Achilles and Heracles really "transgendered"? Achilles, at least, was only disguising himself to get out of the Trojan War. It's not like he did it as a lifestyle choice, and I don't think you can say is "known" for that. Adam Bishop 03:34, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a separate list of people who cross-dressed temporarily, or for reasons of disguise (however, I agree with the above comments that classification may be tricky). Bonnie Prince Charlie would be another name to add to such a list. --David Edgar 07:53, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think these people who clearly did so only for a limited time and for a definite purpose, which has nothing to do with transgender, should at least get a seperate heading. It should also be mentioned that it is a rather common behaviour, including many many women who cross-dress in times of war, often to escape rape. Of course, we have few names here and there are not all that many famous people among them, either. But nevertheless, it happened (and still happens).
Maybe a list of historical people would not be a bad idea, because for historical people one always needs a warning; compare Talk:Elagabalus. -- AlexR 13:20, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Alexis Arquette

Alexis Arquette should probably be in the list, as she has announced plans for a complete gender reassignment (not to mention intending to film the whole process for a documentary). DanaJohnson 02:37, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hatshepsut

The article:

Transgender, for the purposes of this article, is an umbrella term that can include transsexuals, transvestic fetishists, cross-dressers, intersexuals, drag queens, drag kings and others.

Hatshepsut, female Pharaoh of Egypt who wore male clothing and even a false beard

Hatshepsut fits none of those definitions (except possibly other) so therefore to say she was a Transgender is untrue. Hatshepsut wore males clothing for the mere fact that it was a uniform. Now some historians (I'm thinking Gardner here) do say she was a transvestite, but he is heavily biased against Hatshepsut (and says her being one as a bad thing).

If you are going to count every person who wore a uniform people wore in their profession, I would like to see every single notable actor (especially from Shakespears time) on the list due to the fact that in plays men had to dress up as women. Which I think, to do so, would be ridiculous. Hatshepsut was 100% female, she didn't consider herself male. It's just Pharaohs were traditionally male, so she had to wear their clothing to be a pharaoh.

I know there was some debate on Joan of Arc, but Hatshepsut didn't cut her hair short. She just wore a uniform --John Lynch 00:57, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree in this case, as far as I know, there is no reasonable evidence that Hatshepsut was in any way transgendered. If one considers her doning ceremonial beards as cross-dressing (which is stretching the definition a bit) than it is clearly a cross-dressing out of necessity, and, as far as I know, it was the sole "male" item she wore. So indeed, she should be removed, unless somebody else has other, substantiated information.

BTW, if she went with the fasion of the time, did she have any hair to cut short in the first place? --AlexR 13:33, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good question Alex (about the hair thing) and I have no idea actually. I removed Hatshepsut from the list (I really felt she didn't belong). However there is a comment about it here and if people feel she should be added back I definitely don't mind discussing it. If a "controversial transgenders" section is created (a list of people who some believe they were a transgender while others don't) she should definitely be added then.--John Lynch 13:10, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pope John II

Is there any evidence to support this claim? Suggestion that he was or is a cross dresser is potentially offending for Catholics and Christians in general and should be therefore backed by evidence or removed.

Depends how you look at it. The legend of "Pope Joan" certainly exists, and has existed for a very long time. (It would be a cross-dressing "she", though, not a "he", at least physically speaking.) There is not proof for hir actual existance, though, but that is already stated. I can not see what could be possibly offending by simply telling people that this legend exists, because it definitely did since the 15th century, and there was a bestseller book about hir a few years ago. So s/he is definitely worth mentioning. -- AlexR 22:16, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for raising that issue – I misread the page and thought it is a claim about the current Pope, John Paul II. AndyBrandt 23:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dead trannies are unoffensive? Hyacinth 18:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What happened to the Pope Joan reference? Looks like it was removed with no reason given (at 18:14, 1 Oct 2004) along with Joan of Arc. While the latter is somewhat more debatable, I think Pope Joan definitely still merits inclusion. Should both be replaced? --David Edgar 13:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Uh, that was probably User:AWilliamson, he started out as IP, and at least he repeatedly removed those two from Cross-dressing. Feel free to restore them, but prepare for a debate - check talk:cross-dressing, I am currently in mediation with him. He does not like people very much who happen to even consider an opinion different from his. -- AlexR 21:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To both of you, I will make the following brief points: Given that AlexR himself, in a note on 12 Nov 2004, had previously said that he would, quote, "strongly object to any definite statements that she was a transgendered person (whichever way that is phrased).";  and given that this and related subjects have already been discussed interminably, during which I have pointed out what the accepted historical facts are concerning both persons; let's please not start another fight on the same subject - especially since AlexR had previously agreed, at least, that Joan of Arc should not be definitely described as "transgendered", but merely listed in the "cross-dressing" article. 

Regards,

Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 03:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC))

Isn't it good to see once again MrW's ability and willingness to simply read - the article clearly states:

Regarding historical persons, please also note that for individuals at least until the beginning of the 20th century, there were no names for transgender behaviour, and therefore we have no statements that are a clear documentation for their reasons to behave the way they did; most of the time, we have no statements by themselves at all. All we can say is that by today's standards, these people or their behaviour would be considered transgendered.

I also cannot quite agree that we have agreed to what MrW claims that we agreed upon - I said that I would not support any claim that Joan was definitely transgendered, but obviously I can very much agree to put her on this list with the disclaimer I cited above. And no, I am not starting another fight, since we are in mediation about this. And BTW, the entry on cross-dressing is exactly what we are in mediation about. I would kindly ask MrW to remember that, too. Oh, and for everybody else: When MrW says "accepted historical facts" he means "accepted by him". Just check Talk:Joan of Arc - this is not the only instance he disagreed with other people, claiming his personal opinon was the only "accepted" one. Anyway, since a mediation is still on, I am quite willing to debate the question with everybody but MrW. Him I ask to do any further communication via our mediator. -- AlexR 04:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's quite enough, Alex. All the issues which you bring up again above (e.g., your dismissal of the historical documents I've cited, which you have sometimes rejected in favor of fictitious sources) have already been dealt with many times before, and do not need to be dealt with all over again. That's enough.

Regards,

Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 03:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC))

Making the article intelligible

Have removed the word cisgendered as it is a pretty much unknown neologism (only 42 unique hits in google if you exclude wikipedia and its mirrors), is a word that most people have never heard of, and because it appears to be added purely as a link to encourage people to use the word (and so is POV). jguk 05:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is also POV in omitting the adjective as it can be construed to imply that a transsexual woman is not a woman. Is the term "non-transsexual" ok with you? Dysprosia 08:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Uh, eh, what is POV supposed to mean here? Cisgender is the opposite of transgender, and funny, but when I searched Google for cisgender or cis-gender, I got 690 hits. It is also used widely in newer literature, so how can ot be POV? And of course Dysprosia is right in that there needs to be something indicating that the woman is not a transwoman, because, obviously, saying plainly "woman" clearly implies that transwomen are not women. And that is clearly POV. I do disagree with "non-transsexual" though, because non-transsexual can mean a lot of things, including all non-transsexual transgendered women, which is clearly not meant, either. Sorry, "cisgendered" is the right word, and if jguk never heard of it, that does not make it POV. I'll revert, therefore, and will link "cisgender". I'd appreciate a constructive debate, if necessary, and not one that does not bother with any arguments except "I am too stupid to use Google". -- AlexR 13:58, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll still revert as it is an unusual word and few people have heard of it. Your 690 hits on google double-count a lot of websites and include all the wikipedia mirrors. And personally I'd say any word that has only unique 690 hits in google (ie more than we have here) should not be in an article - an alternative construction should be found that will be generally understood. After all, this is a list of transgendered people - not a campaign to get the word cisgendered accepted. Since (1) it would look silly to move to non-transsexual, non-transgendered woman, or an actress who was born a woman etc. etc.; (2) the person in the list is the fictional character and not the actress; the fact that the character is portrayed by a woman who was born as such probably belongs in Hayley Cropper rather than this article. I have therefore deleted the whole sentence. jguk 18:14, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to say that just because something isn't well known, by you and according to google, it is not encylopedic or non-NPOV. If an encyclopedia included only what you already know, what would be its purpose? Hyacinth 18:28, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hang on, I'm not saying get rid of the article cisgendered, nor was I saying that (or any other word) is non-encyclopaedic. I'm saying the main body of an article should use language that is easily understood, and that in the main means using words that are in common usage. Anyroad, I've deleted the whole sentence now, let's call it a day there. Coronation Street's just starting and I don't want to miss it:) jguk 18:34, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me if I revert again. This is a list of transgendered people, and it can therefore be assumed that the readers either already do know something about transgender, in which case chances are quite high that they understand "cisgender", or want to learn about ir, in which case using the one existing proper word makes a lot of sense. Also, Hyacinth is perfectly right - understandable is one thing, but presenting false information or no information at all seems to defy the intention of an encycloedia to me. And no, until you stop to removing information, we will not call it a day. -- AlexR 21:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We dont have to restrict ourselves to basic language. We aim to present an encyclopedia here - we should use whatever language we can in order to make our point. Cisgendered is linked, and so there should be no problem. Dysprosia 02:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And what is your point? The info we are arguing about is irrelevant - the transsexual is the character, why comment at all about the actress, let alone use irregularly formed neologisms to describe her? Nor do I accept that a list of transgendered people will only be read (or should only be read) by people who are 'in' with transsexual jargon, or who want to know a lot about transgender issues - I came to this page by accident, for instance, and as Hyacinth noted, people come to encyclopaedias to learn what they do not know. As a compromise, I wouldn't revert if you added 'played by Julie Hesmondhalgh, and then anyone interested in her could find out about her. Finally, I note that there are (quite properly) links to lists of transgendered issues at the bottom, so those who are interested in them can find out more there. jguk 05:05, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is that in response to my comment? Please indent properly to reflect this. Regardless of whether the information is relevant or not, you had made the point that the use of the term "cisgendered" would not be easily understood, and I was mentioning that we don't necessarily have a responsibility to use "basic" terms when more possibly accurate terms exist also. Dysprosia 05:25, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The information is not irrelevant, on the contrary. Usually, until now, transwomen are played by cismen on screen. Having one played by a woman is definitely a step forward in accepting the gender of transgender people. I might also add that I'll go for an RFC, and if we don't get comments (these subjects tend to make many paople uncomfortable, or at least silent) I guess mediation is the only way out. I sincerely doubt that you want to go there, since you have no point to make. -- AlexR 15:04, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I personally do see jguk's point: cisgendered IS a fairly newly coined term and not in wide use. This does hurt the readability of the article. However, there are points in the other direction. As I understand it, the term was coined precisely because there was no previously existing word for the concept. It has no exact synonyms with wider use. If it were to be replaced, it would have to be replaced with a (possibly rather long and awkward) phrase, not a single word. We use technical terms within an encyclopedia where they are necessary, and this seems that it may be one. In Misplaced Pages, this is made easier because the word can be made a link to its own definition, so anyone unsure of it can find out. —Morven 17:58, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

For purposes of the readability, indeed, intelligibility, of this article, it is apparently necessary to refer to surgically altered men and women as women and men respectively and therefore it is probably necessary to use some term such as cisgendered to refer to members of the vast unaltered majority. If cisgender is to be used, however, it should be explained, briefly, in this article. I believe it would be best to provide a glossary of terms else we all go mad trying to figure out just exactly what is being discussed here. I can't quite remember which ones are transwomen and I certainly don't have the ability to parse cismen, etc. without assistance. Ortolan88 22:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... there are a few problems with what you write:

One is surgically altered men and women. Now what is that supposed to mean? Sounds like any people who had some kind of plastic surgery, the mayority of whom would not be transgender, while not all trans-people had it, either. So while I assume that you mean transpeople, surgery does not have much to do with being transgender. Most (but not all) transsexual people have some kind of gender reassignement surgery, and many, but far from all non-transsexual transgender people (and many intersex people, many of those against their will), but it seems to be highly useless as a definition.

We can not explain each and every word that somebody might not understand, certainly not in a list. That is what links are for, especially when the definition can be infered from the context. That is the case here. The List of transgender-related topics, which is equally linked, or the categories, can be used as a glossary, too. The terms are often a bit too complicated for a short glossary, too.

As to remembering which are "transwomen" and which are "transmen", it seems to me (not just in this case) rather strange that it should be hard to remember. These words are (also) used as self-descriptions. Now, a person who feels that she is a women would hardly use "man" in any form to describe herself, now, would she? Therefore, transwomen are obviously those women who identify as women; and since we are talking about transpeople, has not been born in a female body. Same of course for transmen. Once you think about it for a few seconds, I don't think you have that "Can't remember"-problem any longer.

As for cis and trans - well, if your ever learned Latin, this pair of prefixes should be familiar. If you ever learned chemistry, it should be familiar, too. If neither, there are more than enough words using the trans- as a prefix or part of the word to remember: Transport: Moving from one place to another, or Transcendence: experiences that are beyond the human realm of understanding, or Transcontinental: That extends or passes across a continent; also, of or pertaining to the farther side of a continent. Cis-, on this side of is, in English, not much in use any more - however, it is a pair, and if you know one, you know the other.

Hope that helped, -- AlexR 11:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why not read what I said? I was arguing against those who were trying to keep cisgender out of the article. It's not a question of making it clear to me, it's a question of a clear article, and you can't have a clear article if you require readers to keep Caesar's Commentaries and Skeate's Dictionary of English Etymology in mind as they read.

First, you yourself made those remarks that required clarification, and second, the Misplaced Pages does not require its readers to keep anything else at hand, ir requires at most a klick of a mouse. And an article is perfectly clear if that is all that it takes to get the information needed. -- AlexR 16:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When you're talking about a subject that is, if you don't know it, pretty damn arcane to the average reader, you do have to explain every word. The average common reader, even if schooled in Latin and chemistry, is going to come grinding to a halt when they encounter cisman or transwoman. Sorry. In some more enlightened future, that might not be so, but the way to get to that enlightened future is to write clear encyclopedia articles now. An encyclopedia is supposed to explain things, such as the many unfamiliar categories in this list. Ortolan88 15:59, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I said - the word is linked, and that is all the clarification that is needed. This is a list and it would change from a list to something pretty illegible and useless if every word somebody might not understand would be explained on this page. Methinks the concept of the Misplaced Pages is as arcane to you as is the concept of transgender ... -- AlexR 16:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the part about No personal attacks and if you'll have a look at my user page or my contributions you'll find that I'm moderately familiar with how Misplaced Pages works. Dropping out now, I've led you to water, but I can't make you drink. If you don't think the article should make things clear, there's apparently no way to convince you that it should. Ortolan88 16:31, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In fact the whole article is a bit of a nonsense in its use of vocabulary. The words 'woman' (and 'man') are used throughout - presumably to mean someone who was born as a woman (or man) unless the context requires otherwise - yet exception was taken when the word woman was used of Julie Hesmondhalgh. The list, in general, does not tell you in what way any individual was transgendered, so why argue particularly for just one character?

Excuse me? Have you read the article? "Woman" is used several times to describe transwomen, in other words, women who were not born with the body to match. Same with man. Where "woman" is used to describe the physical sex, it is clear from the context. (As in Billy Tipton, woman who lived as a male jazz musician). So obviously, it is necessary to state that in this case a cisgender woman is meant. Not to mention that calling somebody "cisgendered" is hardly a way to describe how that person is transgendered. The two are mutually exclusive, and there is only one way to be cisgendered. Either you are or you are not. Sorry, but your constant removal, each time with a new non-argument, starts to resemble vandalism. -- AlexR 18:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Finally, I see from your user page and contributions list, AlexR, that transgender issues are clearly very important to you. This is a list people can stumble on who have no particular great interest in transgender issues - but maybe want to know a little about them. Do not put them off with jargon and unusual words or phraseology! Otherwise they will not follow all the links, will not read the articles you and others have contributed and go and find a part of wikipedia they can understand. Have an article here that is easily intelligible and welcoming, and many will follow the links and will read on. jguk 18:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it will turn you of, but I sincerly doubt that using a rare word in any article, one which furthermore is linked, so it takes one mouseclick to check what it means, will turn of many readers. Not to mention that people come to encyclopedias to learn something, so to be "turned off" by an unfamiliar (and linked) word seems to be a bit counterproductive.

BTW, can you give me anything resembling an argument why you so much insist on having that sentence taken out of this list? What is ailing you? -- AlexR 18:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My argument is listed above. As far as what is ailing me - it's in the title of this talk discussion. It's making the article intelligible. I can't understand why you're attached to the word (unless you are one of those campaigning for it to have a wider circulation - in which case, it would be POV to have it). Use another word/phrasing and I'll go away. Alternatively, follow Ortolan's suggestion and offer a brief lead-in or definition of the word in this article. Persist in reinserting a generally unintelligible word without further explanation in this article, and I'll stay until a reasonable formulation is adopted. jguk 19:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unclear points in the article

AlexR argues above that it is necessary to note that Hayley Cropper is played by a cisgendered woman (ie a woman who was born female and is not transgendered). I have gone through the article noting other various ambiguities and inconsistencies. Please feel free to amend the article to deal with these points.

Living individuals Nadia Almada - doesn’t say male to female transsexual; April Ashley, doesn’t say male to female transsexual; Mianne Bagger, golfer, doesn’t say male to female transsexual (the term ‘transsexual woman’ itself is unclear. She would view herself as a woman. Others, including the law, in many territories around the world would still recognise her as a man; Georgina Beyer, New Zealands doesn’t say male to female transsexual; Kate Bornstein, doesn’t say male to female transsexual; Sara Davis Buechner does not say why this person is transgendered; Patrick Califia, does not say why this person is transgendered; Wendy Carlos, does not say male to female transsexual; Lynn Conway, does not say male to female transsexual; Caroline Cossey, does not say male to female transsexual; Jayne County, does not say why this person is transgendered; Candy Darling, does not say why this person is transgendered; Michelle Dumaresq, does not say male to female transsexual; Jackie Enx, does not say male to female transsexual; Bulent Ersoy, Turkish male to female?; Leslie Feinberg, does not say why this person is transgendered; Lauren Harries, does not say male to female transsexual; Harisu, whilst it implies this person is a male to female transsexual - it is unclear; Mary Ann Horton, does not say why this person is transgendered; Dana International, does not say why this person is transgendered; Eddie Izzard, does not say that Eddie Izzard is a man who was born a man; Kamikawa Aya, does not say why this person is transgendered; Taff al-Khalifa, is it female to male here, or is this inconsistent with the phrasing used elsewhere in the article?; Jennifer Jane Leitham, male to female?; Angela Morley, male to female?; Hedda Lettuce, man or woman?; Jan Morris, male to female? Or female to male?; Dee Palmer, male to female?; Grayson Perry, does not make clear that Grayson was born male; Dr. Renee Richards, male to female?; Joan Roughgarden, does not say why this person is transgendered; Jason Saffer, man or woman?; Melissa Sklarz, does not say why this person is transgendered; Sandy Stone, does not say why this person is transgendered; Margaret Stumpp, male to female?; Terre Thaemlitz, does not say why this person is transgendered; Pussy Tourette, male or female?;

2 20th and 21st century individuals. Gwen Araujo, male to female or female to male? The term ‘transsexual girl’ is ambiguous as to which; Danielle Bunten Berry, does not say why this person is transgendered; Bella Evangelista, man or woman?; Tyra Hunter, the term ’transsexual woman’ is ambiguous - male to female TS, or female to male?; Marsha P Johnson, does not say why this person is transgendered; Christine Jorgensen, male to female?; Glen Milstead, man or woman?; Sylvia Rivera, does not say why this person is transgendered; Brandon Teena, male to female or female to male? The term ‘transsexual boy’ is ambiguous as to which; Billy Tipton, uses ’woman’ unqualified to mean someone born as a woman; Ed Wood, Jr., man or woman?

3 Earlier historical or mythological individuals

Achilles, does not specify that Achilles is male; Chevalier d'Eon does not say why this person is transgendered; Christina of Sweden does not say why this person is transgendered; Roman Emperor Elagabalus does not say why this person is transgendered; Heracles, does not specify that Heracles was male; Deborah Sampson, 18th century uses the word ‘woman’ unqualified to mean a someone born as a woman; Hannah Snell, 18th century uses the word ‘woman’ unqualified to mean a someone born as a woman;

4 Fictional individuals Azure C., male to female? Is the person who plays her (assuming a her) a man or woman, etc.?; Hayley Cropper, male to female? Is the person who plays her (assuming a her) a man or woman, etc.? jguk 19:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to address some points here. Note that there is preexisting Misplaced Pages guidelines and convention to use self-identification (see Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions#Identity, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Sexology_and_Sexuality/Terminology, Misplaced Pages:Style_guide#Identity)

the term ‘transsexual woman’ itself is unclear

It is quite clear, since it has been linked, and the fact that the person has a "female" name is indication enough that the person is a woman, or likewise for men, and attempting to explain too much goes beyond the scope of the article, becomes cumbersome, and doesn't quite achieve neutrality. Using "transsexual woman" is accurate and respects self-identification.

man or woman?

Certain forms of transgender behaviour mean that the person does not view themselves as being either! One should not attempt to "explain" their birth sex, due to the self-identification guidelines above. Dysprosia 22:42, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I admit that to avoid listing out all possibilities of how a person may be described I used language in that list which would be considered imprecise by those who study and participate in discussions on transgender issues. I don't agree that the term 'transsexual woman' is clear because it is linked - there is no reason for a casual reader to believe it has a technical meaning here - particularly as the lead in to the article essentially says 'everything's all been thrown in on this list'. This could be easily remedied by improving the lead in. Also for clarity, the 'self-identification guidelines' (or at least their affect on this article) should also be described in the lead in.

You see, my point is that an article should be clearly understandable. You shouldn't have to click lots of links, have a dictionary or wikipedia's style policies open to understand it. That doesn't mean technical words should never be used, but it does mean they properly introduced.

You're right, too much information would clutter the article. (Which is why I deleted a small amount of the clutter that I had, unfortunately, added myself:) ) There should be enough to tell the casual reader who the person is and to encourage them to click on some of the names to read their own detailed articles.

Lastly, I don't think saying someone having a 'female' name is indication enough - whilst some names are distinctly 'male' or 'female', some are unclear, particularly to an international audience. We should not assume that people can recognise someone's sex from their name. jguk 23:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also for clarity, the 'self-identification guidelines' (or at least their affect on this article) should also be described in the lead in.

No, they shouldn't. It's a list of transgendered people, not a discussion on the language we use to describe them.

You see, my point is that an article should be clearly understandable.

This, by no means, is achievable or even desirable in many circumstances. If this were the case, each and every mathematics related article would be prefixed by a lengthy (and redundant) discussion of the supporting theory before one would even get to the subject matter! This article is similar - a discussion and explanation of the language would detract from the actual subject matter.

I don't think saying someone having a 'female' name is indication enough

I never said that it would - with the link to transsexual man or transsexual woman or transgender, this should provide enough background information to get an understanding as to why they are listed on this page. Dysprosia 01:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is a difference between what are clearly technical articles and articles that are not. When reading about something technical - be it a science or humanity subject, the reader accepts that more complicated terms are necessary. This is not true of non-technical articles such as this. When I've got time, I'll show you what I mean. I don't think it would mean anything more than rewriting the lead in and keeping it of the same length. jguk 06:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll have a quick go at it, though I still maintain there is little need for too much "explanation". Dysprosia 07:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree not too much, but enough for a casual reader to be able to understand the article. jguk 07:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just seen your final tweak to the lead in, Dysprosia. All seems ok, and it looks much better now the reader is warned that words are used in a technical meaning rather than how a reader unfamiliar with transgender issues may normally understand them. Your phrasing to make it clear we are using the terminology the individual themselves uses is better than mine too. Thanks. jguk 09:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I should have added that I like the way the lead in is now phrased to encourage readers to look at the linked articles (why is TS different from TM/TW? what does TM or TW mean? etc. are all questions that may occur to a reader, who can now easily find the answer).jguk 09:13, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I cannot quite understand the latest edits. The first paragraph seems to imply that "transmen and transwomen" are distictively different from "genderqueer people, cross-dressers, notable drag queens and drag kings, transvestic fetishists, intersexuals who identify as transgender, and others" which is ridiculous and obviously false. Also, it is really news to me that transvestic fetishists are among transgender people. Usually they are not counted as such. Sorry, but this messes it up completely.

Sorry about that, your wording is better. I had tried to preserve the terms in the version before my edit, and wasn't thinking about that. Dysprosia 12:11, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And sorry, but for Hayley Cropper, the claim that "Unusually for a fictional portrayal of a transsexual, the character is played by an actress who is not herself transgendered." is also false. Most transwomen I saw portrayed in movies were played plainly by men, and very rarely by other transwomen. -- AlexR 12:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)