This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarionTheLibrarian (talk | contribs) at 02:39, 3 July 2008 (→Body Integrity Identity Disorder: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:39, 3 July 2008 by MarionTheLibrarian (talk | contribs) (→Body Integrity Identity Disorder: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Transgender. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Transgender at the Reference desk. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transgender 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: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | LGBTQ+ studies Start‑class  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives | |||||||||||
Index
|
|||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Trans time-line or time-map
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.
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.
Please comment and suggest. TranWen (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd be interested to read such an overview. The Transitioning 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. Pseudomonas(talk) 12:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Transgender vs. Transsexual
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.
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. --OldCommentator (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
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.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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 here. --03:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
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. --7Kim (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Anne Lawrence
- "Anne Lawrence, a physician and sexologist who is openly transsexual...".
- Why is this relevant? Any relevance is not explained, only implied. forestPIG 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.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 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. Schn0529 (talk) 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 Transphobia." -07:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.217.176 (talk)
Body Integrity Identity Disorder
This similarity between transsexuality and Body Integrity Identity Disorder (or apotemnophilia 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.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 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. --Puellanivis (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- 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". --Puellanivis (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Categories: