# Talk:Fucking Trans Women

this post suggests that Mira was born shortly after 23 Mar 1982:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cbdh9JSOJDg/ ZoraSilv (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@ZoraSilv: Thanks so much. I've narrowed the DOB to 1982, with footnote giving a bit more detail.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

These are all sources that I've considered and chosen, for now, not to use, but that are in principle usable:

Friedman, Jaclyn (2019-06-27). "Why Trans People Don't Always Have Good, Pleasurable Sex—At First". Unscrewed. Refinery29. Retrieved 14 December 2022.
Merbruja, Luna (19 November 2014). "So You Can Fuck Us; What's Next? Going Beyond Sex With Trans Women". Autostraddle. Retrieved 14 December 2022.
White, Ro (2022-10-11). "How to Have Great Sex if You Deal With Gender Dysphoria". Vice. Retrieved 14 December 2022.
Trans Reproductive and Sexual Health: Justice, Embodiment and Agency
"Getting It On". Living Out Loud.
 -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)

Actually MOS:BOLDALTNAMES which clarifies MOS:BOLD#OTHER has only two exceptions for bolding alternative names: either synonyms/alternative names of article's subject or articles about events involving  a subject about which there is no main article. So, as this article is not about event, bolding the zine's author name appears redundant. We typically do not do this in all other articles about publications where an author is not wikinotable. Brandmeistertalk   09:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: To me it's ambiguous as to whether "only" refers to terms relating to the article's title, or any terms overall. Even if the latter, that'd be a contradiction in guideline (noting that WP:R agrees with BOLD#OTHER), not one clarifying another. Perhaps it would be best to start a discussion at WT:MOS about this inconsistency?  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@Tamzin: MOS:BOLD#OTHER says "see § Article title terms". Also the examples cited at MOS:BOLDALTNAMES refer to  terms related to article's titles. So personally I do not see ambiguity (though my edit summary wasn't entirely accurate, as MOS also allows people's names in non-biographical articles about events). Brandmeistertalk   01:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

In casual conversation with other trans women, Fucking Trans Women is usually discussed as a niche or even laughable text. Lots of people find it irrelevant to their lives. In light of this experience, I was surprised that the "Reception and impact" section is entirely devoted to praise of the zine. Are there no good sources that criticize the zine or its relevance to typical trans women's sex lives?
For example, this reddit thread includes some women who criticize the zine's contents and relevance. Obviously it's not a good source, but to me it shows more accurately the breadth of responses my community seems to have to the zine. I'm surprised there are no good sources with more critical responses. 2601:18C:8000:A5FE:0:0:0:38 (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)