Talk:Trans man/Archive 1

message: Shouldn't "lesbian transmen" be "hetero transmen" or "ex-lesbian transmen"? 
It's trans women who can be called lesbians, not the other way around. --Sonjaaa 05:46, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
Nope. There are people who identify as lesbian transmen, that is (ex-)female-bodies persons who are now "male presenting" and who still identfy as lesbians (but not as women) and are accepted as such by at least a part of the lesbian community. I know that is irritating (it surely irritated me) but that is how some identify, and therefore, the entry is correct.
BTW, "hetero" is - like "homo" - not exactly without problems when refering to transpeople, and "ex-lesbian" also has a host of problems, one of them, as said, the "ex-"part, and the other the question to which extend a transmen who desires women is lesbian; the latter question having about as many answers as there are transmen who desire women. Some have always refuted the description "lesbian", a few even refused having any sexual relationship because they did not want that label, some had been activ in the lesbian community and thought they somehow "had to be lesbian" while never quite feeling they actually were, and some felt perfectly at home within the lesbian community, and did not wish to leave it when they changed their gender role and/or their body. 
Once more, life turns out to be colorful, complicated and wonderful ;-) AlexR 10:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I reverted many of those edits.
* Transmen do not necessarily have surgery.
* The self-descriptions are a quote, and should therefore retain their capital spelling.
* "For some transmale-identified people" is not correct, otherwise there would be little need for all those self-descriptions.
* The "please note" section is somewhat questionable, since Wikipedia is not an usage guide. I left it in anyway, but changed it a bit to apply to all, not just those who identify as "men".
*Cut "like it is with anyone who is not transsexual". a) this article does not just deal with "transsexuals", and b), the variation is obviously different from that of cisgender people, so it is wrong, too.
* Restored cut of "queer" or "lesbian" transmen. 
* Restored previous order on links; unless there is a very good reason to change it, alphabetically sorting them is a good idea. Sorted "famous transmen", too; although I wonder wheter it is needed, there is a List of transgendered people already. If it ultimately remains, it should be expanded.
And I might add, it is generally preferred when edits are not made with lots of savings in between, it clutters up the history. Use the preview button instead, please. -- AlexR 06:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: IP edits 4th Nov. 04

message: And this 
I'd rather call that another attempt to impose the usage of a small group on all others. Disgusting.
Is a bit hypocritical when you restored a little used and offensive designation ("lesbian transmen") to this entry.
The parts of this entry that you restored muddy the meaning of what a transman/transmale/transsexual man is and to be politically correct in embracing all gender identifications erroneously as transmale.  As transmale, it it offensive that lesbians deign to usurp the designation of "trans" for their own purposes. User:TheTransman
:I take it that this is meant to be a reply to my statements about IP edits 4th Nov. 04. First of all, answers to comments should usually not go under new headings, but should be formated just like this. Otherwise, the connection between the two entries can get lost. Second, it is a lot better if you sign your entries, like this: --~~~~. I signed your entry for you, but please do so yourself the next time, otherwiese, after a while nobody knows who wrote what. Third, making a heading that is quite likely to offend is not exaclty a polite thing to do, and people who argue with plain style or spelling errors are usually regared as having no other arguments. Not to mention that I cannot recall having read any Wikipedia policy that excludes non-native speakers from editing entries. In fact, I cannot recall either any particular criticism about my writing, so if you consider what I said to be so badly worded, then in the article, correct it, and in this discussion, at least don't put it into headings unless that is what you want to talk about.
:As for your comments, those are obviously your personal views. And while you are entitled to hold every personal view you wish to, you cannot insist that this article conforms to them. There are transmen who do not identify as transsexual (me, for example), and there are people who call themselfes "lesbian transmen", whether you or I or whoever else likes that or not. I am also under the distictive impression that you don't even know what "lesbian transmen" usually are, namely female-to-male transgendered people who do indeed change gender, but do not want to leave the lesbian community they were part of for a long time entirely behind them. And I don't see what right you or I or anybody else has to prohibit them to do exactly that, and to choose exactly the self-description they want to. That is not "usurping" anything. The article writes about facts as they are, not as some homophobic 150% transsexuals would like them to be. Which is why I remove the NPOV notice, it is inappropriate. -- AlexR 17:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's obvious that English isn't your first language. 

message: Perhaps an section on this issue should be added to the definition. This can be a very confusing topic even to those familiar with transexuality and transsexual persons (perhaps except to those who identify in this way). I expect that this proposed entry will not be perfect the first time; however it doesn’t appear to be very well articulated.
Gbm2b83 07:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  add to definition 

message: Who came up with that idiotic idea? The article clearly states that not just transsexual, but also transgender people from the FtM direction are called or call themselfes transmen. Therefore, obviously the idea of merging the article into transsexuality is at best false, but quite likely the not exactly rare discrimination of non-transsexual transgender people by "proper transsexals". Either that, or the person who demanded the merger just can't read. Not to mention that whoever did that obviously didn't think there was a need to start a discussion about this anywhere. -- AlexR 16:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging into TS

message: Quoting from 
Quote - - "
Gorton, R. Nick, M.D. & others. Medical Therapy & Health Maintenance for Transgender Men: A Guide for Health Care Providers. Lyon-Martin Women’s Health Services. 2005. bibliog. . open access.
This full-text, open-access book is free under the GNU Free Documentation License and is available at www.nickgorton.org in open office, PDF, and Microsoft Office. Gorton (Lyon-Martin Women’s Health Svs.), Jamie Buth (medicine, Tulane Univ.), and Dean Spade (Sylvia Rivera Law Project) provide an essential text for “anyone wishing to learn about the medical treatment of transgender men—whether transman, provider, or perhaps even both.” While some of the book will be difficult for nonclinicians to understand, much is well within the grasp of most consumers. There is not a great deal of quality material readily available on this topic, so this is a welcome addition.
" - - Close Quote FemVoice 03:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found a book that I added to External links 

message: I changed this to start "It should be noted", rather than "Please note" since the first one sounds more formal. I also removed the second sentence for reasons of style. Maerk 23:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Please note" line

message: This is a very difficult article to read. Not the subject matter, just the actual act of reading. I can appreciate the need for accurate ideology here, but it seems to be ALL ideology, and somewhat dismissive of the average reader who just wants some basic information.
I'd do something myself, but I don't know enough about the subject, and I'm pretty sure that whatever I did would offend someone's ideological sensisbilities one way or the other and get reverted. But I did want to put it out there that this reads more like a queer theory paper than an encyclopedia article, and I hope that future revisions will take the needs of curious and uninformed readers into account. Best, dablaze 00:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability 

message: Should Feinberg really be listed as a transman? AFAIK, ze doesn't identify as one. Kolindigo 07:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Leslie Feinberg]] 

message: The following are the transmen from "List of notable transmen" who are redlinked; meaning that there is not an article written about them.  There is a great opportunity here to create articles on these transmen if you can assert their notability.  Joie de Vivre 04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redlinked transmen moved here

message: It'd be nice if there were a segment about transmen becoming pregnant, since I'm hoping there'll be consensus for a little note at the top of pregnancy indicating that people go here for that special case, as it's outside the scope of that article. Thanks. Kuronue | Talk 13:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pregnancy 

message: I think there is no way to defend including identities that seem to contradict the main thrust of what "trans man" is all about.  I think someone with an agenda must really want "tomboy" and "amazon" and "bearded female" or whatever to appear on a page about a group of people who are male identified and almost completely live as men or intend to do so.
why does ftm redirect here?  in my experience, transman and ftm have different connotations and usages.  maybe that AmBoyz boilerplate identity section would be better served on a page describing the wild and wooly wide open ftm world and not here, where it tends to obfuscate the point that trans men are men.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.109.38 (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The random string of irrelevant identites lifted from the defunct American Boyz group 

message: Looking at the above discussion, I'm not about to delve into whether or not the trans* representation of Wikipedia ought to be divided further. However, I think it's impossible to keep the supposed AmBoyz quote either way, becuase at the moment it has no source. amboyz.org is defunct, it was never quoted as a reference with dates and such, the group was never notable enough to get a wiki article, archive.org can't retrieve a copy, and when you google for the less well-known labels ("Female Guy" "Tranz" "Boss Grrl" "Bearded Female", in this case), you get 1) This wiki article and 2) sites that have lifted info from here, as the top results. Combined, this seems like a clear violation of both WP:V and WP:NOR. If those labels are frequent enough to be mentioned in a Wiki article, they ought to be easily confirmed from a number of external and unrelated sources. The quote should be removed, and not put back unless verified.
Unfortunately, a lot of the article looks like this. We have a bunch of statements about this and that, a bunch of external links, and no references / footnotes section at all. Given that the content of the article is partly controversial (or, at the very least, talking about subjects that an average person might not be informed about), a liberal application of WP:CITE can only improve it.
I'll go through the article and add request for citations. Some of this stuff ought to be easily cited, if I have more time, I'll look at that too.
Also, I'm noticing that the article is currently undergoing heavy editing. Probably needed, although I'm not sure if it's good to just remove huge sections without comment, but either way, people, WP:V! The new versions aren't cited either! //Amphis 09:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AmBoyz quote removal/reverting + Article needs to comply with WP:V / WP:NOR + WP:CITE 

message: This article lacks a lot of important information, like broader information on status and presentation, including aspects like workplace, disclosure and coming out; sexual orientation section is poor. External links can be significantly extended too.
On top of this, the article, which discusses very sensible subject, became a constant battleground and seems some people try to politicize it, instead of making it a good source of information. Usage of highly offensive terms, terms that nullify or don't respect male identity of transmen, ignorant or transphobic slurs (e.g. "bearded woman", "lesbian transman") is not only inappropriate, but is also harmful.
So please avoid this unneeded and pointless war of words. Lets leave this space for pure information. Thru the night 01:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Few words about quality of the article and politics around it 

message: The following are the transmen from "List of notable transmen" who are redlinked; meaning that there is not an article written about them.  There is a great opportunity here to create articles on these transmen if you can assert their notability.  Joie de Vivre 04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redlinked transmen moved here

message: Hello, can transmans get bald?(for example by treatments like hormone replacement therapy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.107.82.139 (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2008‎ 
:yes MykellM (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Baldness

message: The text (correctly) uses 'trans man' (with a space). I'd like to put a space in the title, too. In the absence of discussion, I'll do this in a day or too. (See also the 'transwoman' article (and the comment I left there), which needs much work work on this point.) Dchudz (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a recent change that I reverted. I don't think there is concensus for these changes but perhaps looking at what the majot transmen organization use would help here.  -- Banjeboi 00:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure about what usage is most common in organizations for trans folk. I don't know how relevant this is here, but what matters to me personally is that if I try to find out what trans folk have to say about "transman" or "transwomen"(Google will turn up the same things for you as for me, so I won't link anything), I find arguments (which make sense to me) that the lack of a space is offensive. It seems like anyone who's thought about whether to put the space in or not wants the space. Dchudz (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be different for transmen and transwomen. In either case we should look to reliable sources to lead the way. I'll think more on it but I'm not keen on changing without good reason.  -- Banjeboi 10:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

text: While personally, the lack of a space rubs me the wrong way, I agree that we have to go with what we can back up with reliable sources and not what is inoffensive. SparsityProblem (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the last sentence of WP:CENSOR? BassoProfundo (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Anyway, I am currently changing "transwoman" to "trans woman" throughout Wikipedia according to the discussion at Talk:Transwoman, and I am doing the same for "transman" where I find it on the same pages. Any objections to the "trans man" usage (rather than just objections to changing anything)? BassoProfundo (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, actually. Instead of just applying one preference rather than what we have project-wide, why not actually present some reliable sourcing to support which is the most encyclopedic to use. Your preference might be the right way to go but with no verifiable reasons there no reason the next person can't come along in two months and change everything back with the same preference reasoning. Please discuss first and see if an informed discussion leads to consensus.  -- Banjeboi 01:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes have little to do with my personal preference, and much to do with the combined personal preferences of various trans people who have posted directly and linked to posts at Talk:Transwoman. As far as I am aware, no such objections to "trans man" exist. BassoProfundo (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My hunch is we should focus on the Talk:Transwoman page then since that's where the changes are mainly focussed. If we find something useful there that applies to this page we can certainly use it.  -- Banjeboi 02:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreed. There shouldn't be any reason why one term would not parallel the other, so we'll keep the discussion over there. BassoProfundo (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I don't agree the terms are or are not parallel, they might be but they also could have no bearing on each other. If we find compelling reasons to use transman IMHO that does not equate that transwoman is preferred.  -- Banjeboi 04:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I'm far from familiar with the subject, but is the term transman applied only to those who were born with ambiguous genitalia, and underwent surgery to make their genitalia appear more female?  If not, then the lede contains some pretty POV terminology, such as "assigned to actual".  One's "actual" gender is determined by one's chromosomes, and the myriad combinations thereof.  The terminology seems to suggest then that a transman is someone who was born male, had female genitalia surgically created, and feels male.  This seems to be a rather small subset of the population. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer to that question is a No. Most trans men were born with a medically "normal" vulva and vagina, normal uterus and ovaries, etc. Most of them were therefore judged, as newborns, to have a "female" body. This is the assignment of sex: associating a particular body configuration with a particular label like "female." (As the related article notes, that assignment is a social judgment as much as a biological one.) Because of their bodies, they were reared/raised as girls/women, but later grew to realize that they identified with the male gender rather than the female. Is that more or less comprehensible? I'm choosing my words very carefully here -- it's fallacious to talk about "a female body" or "male genitalia" per se, because at least to some extent, bodies' fe/maleness is socioculturally as well as biologically determined. —Switchercat talkcont 01:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I follow to an extent.  Are we talking about people who have some chromosomal combination other than strict XX or XY? Gender assignment is a medical term.  I won't beat around the bush here:  By saying that transmen transition from an "assigned to actual" gender, it appears the lede is trying to legitimize something that needs no legitimization, only description.  The article should not be about whether or not it is "ok" to be trans, but rather what the phenomonon is.  That's what I mean when I say it's POV. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've editted the article to remove some of these problematic words, as well as for some general tidy-up.  Let me know what you think. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked the lede back generally, we can't infer all transmen were born with female genitalia. If someone else states that we can cite what they state but frankly that is a problematic general statement although I agree there may be a better way to express this. With many intersex people they are born with ambiguous genitalia and are indeed assigned one sex or the others. This is not always known to the child until they are much older.  -- Banjeboi 02:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and there are many high-profile cases that demonstrate the point you're making.  My concern, however, is the OR/POV assertion that a gender is "assigned" to someone with definite genitalia. I wish to avoid the perception that the article justifies the condition, rather than merely describing it.  I'll review your edits and reply further. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from my previous concerns, the only issues I can see are style-related.  Can you think of a way to address my concern without excluding those born with indefinite genitalia? How about "born with female or indefinite genitalia"? I shy away from justifying it, as we're talking about a psychobiological condition, with no moral implications.Throwaway85 (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps have a look at Intersexuality and see if something there may help as well.  -- Banjeboi 03:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I simply can't understand why the idea that gender is assigned is an "OR/POV" assertion. When an infant is born, a person makes a judgment as to whether they believe that infant's sex is female or male. To set up a dichotomy between "definite" and "indefinite" genitalia, and claim that there is objective truth, independent of an observer, about the gender of infants in the "definite" category, is what's "POV". I can't see how it's controversial to make the neutral statement that a particular individual (or class thereof) were assigned a particular gender at birth. SparsityProblem (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Beliefs such as yours, that gender is assigned rather than evident, are far from mainstream.  You may view them as respectful, accurate, or what have you, but they are still a minority view.  I'm sorry if you find it "POV" to state that people are born with definite or indefinite genitalia, and born with a definite chromosomal gender "XX or XY", or indefinite "XXY, XYX, XYY, etc".  My goal is not to offend, but rather to reflect reality.  Similarly, to adopt a minority view while dismissing the majority as "POV" is problematic and unencylopedic. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure we're using the same definition of "POV" here. Whether a view is minority or majority is irrelevant to whether it's POV. Can you explain, again, what is POV about the assertion that when an infant is born, an observer typically examines the infant and determines the infant's apparent sex based on its visual appearance? SparsityProblem (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

text: How about "appeared to be female"? I'm also okay with simply "assumed to be female", without the problematic assigned clause. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well assigned remains accurate, that's part of the point, the infant and likely the parents didn't pick a gender, a doctor did. Let's see if anyone else has input and we can ask for insight from some of the relevant wikiprojects.  -- Banjeboi 23:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, the gender was picked when the sperm, carrying either an x or y chromosome, fertilized the egg, carrying an x.  This is kind of beyond debate. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're aware we're discussing cases of ambiguous genitalia rather than just a male-female gender-binary concept. We both seek language that is neutral yet helps our readers understand the subject, I still believe this is possible. 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

text: It isn't beyond debate at all. I imagine most modern gender studies theorists, sociologists, and even doctors would disagree with you there. You're equating the assignment of gender (a social label) with the development of sex (a bodily state). —Switchercat talkcont 01:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had actually been told the opposite, which is why I raised the objection.  In cases of sexual ambiguity, it has historically been the case that someone is assigned, usually surgically, a particular gender, and there is a very real medical phenomenon there.  The case I am talking about, however, is where a person with XX chromosomes and unambiguous female genitalia feels they were "assigned" the female gender in error.  I'm quite aware that gender is not a binary phenomenon, despite our language concerning it.  There's a big difference in my mind, however, between saying someone with ambiguous genitalia and possibly non-XX chromosomes is assigned the female gender, and saying someone who is biologically female is "assigned" said gender.  It muddies the language surrounding the issue, and lumps together two disparate groups into one. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm a little confused about where your offense lies here, and I think it might originate from a misunderstanding of the connotations of the term "assigned." "Assigned the female gender" is, on my reading, no more or less POV than saying "was assumed to be of the female gender"; the two phrases are analogous in meaning, and I'm not really seeing why you (Throwaway85) have objections to the first but not the second. When the word "assigned" is used in a sex/gender context, there is no implication that the assignment was wrong (or that it was right, either). Everybody's assigned a gender, or assumed to be a member of a gender, if you like. Margaret Thatcher was assigned into the female gender at birth, and she agreed with that assignation. Billy Tipton was assigned into the female gender at birth, and later on in life, he rejected that assignation. I don't see how these statements would be any different if I changed "assigned" to "assumed"/"assignation" to "assumption" ... or why the former would offend you and appear POV, but you'd be fine with the latter. —Switchercat talkcont 01:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I take no offense to anything.  I object, however, to the patently false assertion that a doctor determines one's gender.  I realise that people may feel that their anatomy does not reflect their identity, but that doesn't mean they were "assigned" a gender, it simply means they don't identify with the gender they physically resemble.  Thus I have no problem saying someone is assumed to be of a particular gender, but have a big problem saying they were "assigned" the wrong gender.  I hope that helps clarify my position. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Assigned" gender? 

message: Above is the current wording, I've bolded the phrase that sounds liek it could be improved. Without digressing further into what is OR and POV perhaps we could work to add something NPOV like a person who was assigned or assumed to be female gender at birth might work? Thoughts?  -- Banjeboi 14:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "appeared to be female"? I'm also okay with simply "assumed to be female", without the problematic assigned clause. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well assigned remains accurate, that's part of the point, the infant and likely the parents didn't pick a gender, a doctor did. Let's see if anyone else has input and we can ask for insight from some of the relevant wikiprojects.  -- Banjeboi 23:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, the gender was picked when the sperm, carrying either an x or y chromosome, fertilized the egg, carrying an x.  This is kind of beyond debate. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're aware we're discussing cases of ambiguous genitalia rather than just a male-female gender-binary concept. We both seek language that is neutral yet helps our readers understand the subject, I still believe this is possible. 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

text: It isn't beyond debate at all. I imagine most modern gender studies theorists, sociologists, and even doctors would disagree with you there. You're equating the assignment of gender (a social label) with the development of sex (a bodily state). —Switchercat talkcont 01:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had actually been told the opposite, which is why I raised the objection.  In cases of sexual ambiguity, it has historically been the case that someone is assigned, usually surgically, a particular gender, and there is a very real medical phenomenon there.  The case I am talking about, however, is where a person with XX chromosomes and unambiguous female genitalia feels they were "assigned" the female gender in error.  I'm quite aware that gender is not a binary phenomenon, despite our language concerning it.  There's a big difference in my mind, however, between saying someone with ambiguous genitalia and possibly non-XX chromosomes is assigned the female gender, and saying someone who is biologically female is "assigned" said gender.  It muddies the language surrounding the issue, and lumps together two disparate groups into one. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm a little confused about where your offense lies here, and I think it might originate from a misunderstanding of the connotations of the term "assigned." "Assigned the female gender" is, on my reading, no more or less POV than saying "was assumed to be of the female gender"; the two phrases are analogous in meaning, and I'm not really seeing why you (Throwaway85) have objections to the first but not the second. When the word "assigned" is used in a sex/gender context, there is no implication that the assignment was wrong (or that it was right, either). Everybody's assigned a gender, or assumed to be a member of a gender, if you like. Margaret Thatcher was assigned into the female gender at birth, and she agreed with that assignation. Billy Tipton was assigned into the female gender at birth, and later on in life, he rejected that assignation. I don't see how these statements would be any different if I changed "assigned" to "assumed"/"assignation" to "assumption" ... or why the former would offend you and appear POV, but you'd be fine with the latter. —Switchercat talkcont 01:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I take no offense to anything.  I object, however, to the patently false assertion that a doctor determines one's gender.  I realise that people may feel that their anatomy does not reflect their identity, but that doesn't mean they were "assigned" a gender, it simply means they don't identify with the gender they physically resemble.  Thus I have no problem saying someone is assumed to be of a particular gender, but have a big problem saying they were "assigned" the wrong gender.  I hope that helps clarify my position. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Going forward

message: I changed the lede to read "a person who was identified as female at birth".  It is my hope that this is acceptable to everyone.  Let me know what you think. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Change

message: The sentences, "The term "trans man" is used as a short form for either identity (transsexual man and transgender man).[4] Trans men may identify as transsexual, as transgender, neither, or both," create an illogical conclusion. A term which which is narrowly "used as a short form" for "either," of two other terms cannot then be defined as meaning one of those other terms, the other, and at the same time, "neither, or both." The addition of "neither, or both," disqualifies the term from definition. If it can mean, "neither," it can mean anything other than the two terms it is able to represent.
What is at question is, what is the common usage of the term? Is the term generally restricted to transsexual and transgender males? If so, it cannot mean, "neither," of these terms. If there are other common usages of the term, then a disambiguation is required with explanation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.64.244 (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a good point. In my opinion, "trans" has an inclusive meaning that can encompass people who identify as gender-variant but who find that neither "transsexual" nor "transgender" applies to them, but I do not have sources right now. It would be good if someone added them. SparsityProblem (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logic Gap 

message: For the purposes of this article, what denotes an expert?--Transpuppy (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the need for an "expert" on the Trans man page 

message: *Transman is the more common usage, not trans man.  Can we get the redirect swapped? Nicoleta (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: swap with redirect

message: I clicked "Female-to-Male" link, and was redirected here? Who decided this was the best title? Is this what the clinical name is? Trans man? Sounds like a superhero. Or at least, a weird offspring of a transformer and a superhero. Or a superhero transformer. "Relax, citizen, for I am Trans Man, I shall save you!" --Buddy13 (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: all your questions may be answered by simply reading the article instead of reacting to the title. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

text: The word "trans man" is simply a combination of "trans" (short for transsexual or transgender) and "man".  See how that works?  Solar-Wind (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm completely retarded and I don't know where the term came from, duh. But the slang term isn't the proper term. If I type in "butt crabs" (which I just made up and may or may not be real) I expect to be taken to the clinical name, not some silly colloquial name. --Buddy13 (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a verifiable source that shows what the "proper term" is (rather than your own opinion, which does not constitute a reliable source), then feel free to improve the article. Otherwise, why not complain about Functor instead? That's a pretty silly-sounding word, after all, it sounds like something completely different than a mathematical object. And let's not even get started on homomorphism. SparsityProblem (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If we reference the GLAAD Media Reference Guide dated 2010 (the most recent publication) we find that the recommendation is to use the terms "transgender man" and "transgender woman" in all instances where the individuals preferred terminology is not known. Lacking some other source and recognizing the lack of consensus in the community itself, I would suggest the GLAAD reference is a verifiable source that outlines what is thought to be the current proper terminology.  Given that this guide is provided to journalists and media outlets as "the final say", I see no reason it shouldn't also guide Wikipedia's usage. --Transpuppy (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many transsexuals (or people of transsexual experience) who do not identify as transgender, or would even be offended by being referred to as transgender.  If the article titles are changed to "Transgender man" and "Transgender woman", many people who identify as TS-not-TG would not be included and in effect be erased.  Solar-Wind (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- not everybody who has a transsexual body is transgender. "Trans" is the best term to use since it encompasses both transgender and transsexual people; not all transgender people are transsexual (have transsexual bodies), and not all people with transsexual bodies are transgender. If the article claimed otherwise, that would be POV. SparsityProblem (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

text:  Good points. Trans can certainly honor both perspectives.  I was merely seeking to provide a reliable source for one possible terminology.  --Transpuppy (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculous title 

message: Lucas Silveira is not a trans man. He is a borned man.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.197.15 (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lucas Silveira

message: The title  which currently redirects to this article has been nominated at RfD. The nomination originally received no comments and so has been relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 10#Hefemale where your contribution is invited. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hefemale 

message: With this and this edit,  made changes to the article, claiming that use of "female-to-male (FTM or F2M)" is transphobic. I've seen similar happen at the Trans woman article, and I briefly commented on it. While some transgender people dislike these terms, just like some transgender people dislike the term genderqueer, these terms are not transphobic; not generally anyway. They are terms used by both the transgender community and medical community. This is partly why I reverted ZoShax, stating, "Revert unencylopedic, POV-pushing [...]. There is nothing transphobic about using the 'female-to-male' terminology cited in the sources. But moved it to [the] Terminology [...] section. " And then made this edit, stating, "Combined paragraphs. If you don't like the 'female-to-male (FTM or F2M)' wording, take it up with the sources." Flyer22 (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female-to-male (FTM or F2M) terminology  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Trans man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080725044946/http://www.ftmaustralia.org/treatment/whatis.html to http://www.ftmaustralia.org/treatment/whatis.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110708102750/http://www.buckangelentertainment.com/ to http://www.buckangelentertainment.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there a reason why the fact that total heterosexuality is very rare in trans men as opposed to being fairly common in trans women is left out?   It's a pretty important part of this, especially when issues like autogynephilia come up  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Trans man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080520111935/http://www.msu.edu/%7Ealliance/faq/faqtransgendered.html to http://www.msu.edu/~alliance/faq/faqtransgendered.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140722104158/http://vimeo.com:80/47185903 to http://vimeo.com/47185903
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: To what degree should the following subjects be mentioned? Trans men are victims of sex crimes, and there are cases where rape has occurred, allegedly with the intention of changing the sexual expressions and/or the sexuality of trans men. Just because the issue might be under control in well-governed societies like Germany, it doesn't mean that the issue is a significant problem in other societies. 46.15.231.40 (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The first version you added, which I reverted (followup note here), was too much a WP:Undue weight issue. This version you added, and which I tweaked, is better. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape with alleged intention of changing sexuality or sexual expression 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Trans man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.ftma.net/lib/94/0110.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402122608/http://www.sfjff.org/film/detail?id=3927 to http://www.sfjff.org/film/detail?id=3927
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Clearly this is a complex subject, and I do not feel qualified to edit here, so I throw this out to others who may have a better handle on things:  I find this article far more confusing than informative, and that is decidedly NOT what I would expect from an encyclopedia which, as I understand it, is Wikipedia's intended model.
For example, the very first sentence: 
 
::"A trans man (sometimes trans-man or transman) is a man who was assigned female at birth."
OK.  
:* A "man" is generally defined as "an adult male human".  
:* "Male" is generally defined as an individual that produces sperm.  
:* Medically/biologically speaking, for humans that would mean a person who has a) one X and one Y chromosome; and b) typical male genetaila:  testicles and a penis.
Parsing that back in to the original sentence, then, I get:
::"A trans man is an adult with an XY chromosome pair, testicles, and a penis, who someone mistakenly assigned to the female gender when recording the event of their birth."
Really?  So "trans man" is nothing but an elaborate neologism for a specific -- and, one can only imagine, exceedingly rare -- clerical error?
One must ask, "why"?  The remainder of the article makes this anything but clear.  Indeed, it is filled with a plethora of still other neologisms ("transmasculine"; "demisexual"; "big-ender"; "genderqueer", etc.), the meaning of which -- or the necessity for -- is neither well documented nor well explained.
:Your definition of man is unscientific and extremely simplistic. This talk page isn't the place to share your flawed definition, and repeating it multiple times doesn't make it any less flawed. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion reigns