Talk:Transsexual/Archive 4

message: It appears that Wikipedians have added and removed a photograph from this article in just the last few hours, usually stating "revert" in their edit summaries.  In my own opinion, the photograph should not be included in this article, as it is sexually provocative and irrelevant to the subject of transsexuality, at least from an encyclopedic perspective.  If your opinion differs, please state so here, so that we can resolve this edit war as quickly as possible.  Andrea Parton 07:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war

message: By the way, who likes that I mentioned that show? I bet noone else noticed that :) I did the edit a while back... Tyciol 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Shoot Me 

message: I believe this of a couple articles that seem similar to me need a diagram explaining them.  I will draw one myself if everyone else agrees not to revert it and agrees on the specifications.  If not, then I won't waste several hours making something to let it get ruined.  MartrtinS 11:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not necessary, and would not add to the encyclopedic nature of the article. Dysprosia 12:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  diagram needed 

message: I added a number of links, and created a "trans youth specific" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.168.72 (talk • contribs) 
:The external links listed are getting a bit overwhelming, and there appear to be multiple listings of certain sites. Since I have a site listed, I will not cull the list, but a lot of the sites do not appear to be especially notable. As a reminder, Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Maybe someone can take a look at that... Jokestress 05:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  added links 

message: :Add "Support" or "Oppose", followed by an optional brief explanation, then sign your opinion with "~~~~".
* Support - I consider 'Transsexualism' to be the more common term. Move and redir to avoid confusion - Ali-oops✍ 02:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Last night we had a few edits pertaining the"religious right" and "psychologists". Here [=="Religious right" and "psychologists"] a reference to the former was simply removed, in other edits "Many religious conservatives and others still believe that the causes of transsexualism are psychological and/or emotional in nature." was changed to "Many psychologists/psychiatrists ...". Obviously, those edits have to be discussed first. -- AlexR 09:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops ... methinks I did not have a look at the context last night. The first of those edits was about reparative therapy, and somehow I did not notice that the sentence I quoted stood there on its own, not related to that. My bad! This sentence of course is utter nonsense (at the moment) in both versions. There may be indications that there are either physiological causes or physiological co-factors, but of course we cannot say that it is already proven that the cause of transexualism is physiological, which the sentence clearly implies. And of course there are many psychologists that assume a psychchological cause, it is an occupational hazzard, just as a geneticist is likely to assume a genetical cause. That by itself is not a problem, either, it only becomes a problem if either people insist that it can be cured (which we all know is not possible) or if someone attaches less "value" to a condition that is caused by psychological causes than to one that is caused by physiological causes, which itself is POV. (And, if you ask me, nonsense into the bargain.) Furthermore, the article already discusses the matter of "causes", so there is even less of a point to put in a sentence at some random point that suddenly declares that only "idiots" would assume on of those debated positions. -- AlexR 21:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Religious right" and "psychologists"

message: :I hope my last edit clarified a few points. Feel free to make them better and/or discuss them here. 
:As for the topics that should go into seperate articles, well, I think that does apply to everything that does not just concern transsexual people, but (all or many) non-transsexual transpeople as well. 
:* Youth: My reason for moving this one into its own article has nothing to do with how much of that applies to adults as well, but with the reason above -- every gender-variant child experiences those problems, and a change of gender role may just as well be necessary for non-transsexual-transgender youths.
:* T-X vs.T- Y: This list may not be complete, but I count at least those:
:** "Proper transsexuals" versus everybody else
:** "Transgenderists" versus "Transsexuals", transpeople claiming that everybody who undergoes SRS is an idiot (or similar)
:** "Cool Transgender" versus "stupid Transsexuals", often in academics and/or feminism, by cisgender people, vilifying everybody who undergoes SRS (and often other medical treatment) as "people who were trapped by the patriarchy". Spin-off of the "Transsexual Empire" mindset. 
:**Whether we should include this one I leave open and ask for comments:
:*** "Homosexuals" versus "those who actually switch full-time", claiming, similar to the above, that if people could just be happy homosexuals, there would be no transpeople. Transpeople who actually change gender just can't stand the thought of being homosexual. (As a trannyfag, this one is, IMO, slightly below "reparative therapy".)
:* Much of the medical topics, those really should be only refered to with a link, and at most a sentence or two. 
:* Same as with the "Standards of care" and "legal" stuff.
:And the transmen thing you complained about -- well, first of all, exactly which version did have more on transmen than transwomen, and if there ever was one, how long did it stand? I mean, given the relative number of out transwoman and out transmen here, it sure was not very long, although I don't think I ever saw one. You know, this reminds me of studies done on the relative attention girls and boys get in class, and their perception. As soon as, in a class with an equal number of girls and boys, girls got about 30% of the attention of the teacher, the teacher, the boys and the girls all estimated that the girls got most attention (i.e. >50%). I get pretty much the same reaction from transwomen lots of times. And that is not even metioning those who consider it a completely unreasonable demand that they should stop uttering sentences like "But all trans* people just want to be women!". 
:As for myself, I tend to put transmen just as much as transwomen when I write for a number of reasons (besides being a transman, that is). One is that transmen are still marginalized, not just in the outside view, but also within the trans-community. Making them a bit more visible is certainly appropriate. Also, many points are much easier to argue with transmen, not only because readers just tend to have a far smaller set of prejudices that have to be fighted, but also because many points transwomen also complain about make even less sense with transmen. (A year of RLE to find out whether they can stand the reactions of people seeing them in trousers? Yes, such an absolute necessity!) I have also seen that in some places transmen have been thrown into with transwomen in a really stupid way, especially in "Requirements for sex reassignment therapy". Here, the problems of transmen are often just different from that of transwomen, and to throw them just in without discussing both seperately once again marginalitzed transmen and ignores their specific problems. I didn't do much about it, since that bit should go into its own article anyway. But I definitely don't like it. 
:Maybe we should put a sentence in before we direct people to other articles, something like: "Since this matter does not just concern transsexual people, but also non-transsexual transgender people, this topic has its own article." Just an idea. -- AlexR 12:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting the article

message: I am not quite happy with the "Defintion" part. It currently says:
: The minimum requirements for labeling a person as transsexual are debated. Some feel that hormone-induced changes, without surgical changes, are sufficient to qualify for the label transsexual. Others, especially health care providers and some transsexual people, believe there is a certain set of procedures that must always be completed.
From my experience, to be labeled as "transsexual", one has to at least want genital reassignment surgery; compare also the ICD-10 definition. Since that seems to be also the definition of the "general public", it should at least be stated who defines it otherwise, and why. The ICD-10 definition (and many transsexual people I know) also claim that being transsexual includes only accepting a binary gender system, and hence a switch from X to Y with nothing in between. (Not to mention those who include a straight sexual orientation as necessary, too.) Mind you, the crafting of the "transsexual identity" with its reciprocal influences of medical defintions and transsexal narrratives etc are a most interesting topic, but one where we should dig up sources before we step into that. Nevertheless, that paragraph, as it stands, seems problematic to me. -- AlexR 13:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: In the section on objections to research of causes, the article states that many "gender professionals" have contested the rationale of searching for a cause of transsexualism. I think this needs to be more clear on who "gender professionals" refers to. Psychologists? Sexologists? Gender studies experts? Psychiatrists? Physicians? Transsexual/transgender care providers?
Andrea Parton 05:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gender professionals

message: "Transsexualism" sounds like a disease. Transsexuality is the more modern term. Let's move the page.--Sonjaaa 23:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It is less commonly used, more POV, and in my opinion, more pejorative. Rebecca 08:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already had this debate weeks ago, and reached a consensus. So there is hardly any reason to move it again. -- AlexR 10:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a quick note on the concept "interest in feminization/masculinization": I acknowledge several issues with the terms, but I was looking for something generalized enough to encompass any gendered behaviors, whether the person is trans or not. An "interest" is a concern or curiosity, and it does not preclude the possibility that these feelings and behaviors stem from an innate cause. It also does not preclude their stemming from social pressures. It's a complicated issue to model inclusively and non-hierarchically, and I remain unsure of the utility of the concept. My hope is that the proposal will encourage others to consider models and transitional language which don't suggest that taking steps to gender oneself is a disorder or disease, but a natural variance in humanity that extends to the level of requiring medical technologies to better align one's identity and expression in relation to one's place in society. Jokestress 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transsexuality