Talk:Transvestism

message: I agree with the merge proposal. I don't see good reason why this article needs to exists separately from cross-dressing. It discusses the same topic using a different name. (See the map is not the territory). Also, I question why discussions from Oct 2010 have been archived already on this talk page, leaving it empty. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Support merge proposal. Loggerjack (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What proposal? Oppose merge with cross-dressing (a matter-of-fact term normally unrelated to lifestyle) which can be temporary and/or motivated by other mentality than what normally is considered transvestism (more often considered a lifestyle). And I agree about the archiving. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Two seperate and notable topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Is the new image gallery an improvement, and is its emphasis on very old images representative of the topic at large? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: Shouldn't the article mention gay males and lesbian women who crossdress in public? This is somewhat common now (at least in major cities), especially lesbian or queer women dressed in full men's clothing in public. Why the whitewash? Voss91 (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay Men & Women Crossdressing 

message: Changed whatever the hell this is to the dictionary definition:
Transvestism (also called transvestitism) is the practice of dressing as a woman, while having genitals associated with the opposite sex or gender.
Transvestism (also called transvestitism) is the practice of dressing and acting in a style or manner traditionally associated with the opposite sex
Ancholm (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: I reverted Scewing on trading :File:Gloeden, Wilhem von (1856-1931) - n. 0923 - da - Amore e arte, p. 32.jpg for :File:Daguerreotype of Transvestite c1850.jpg. I feel that the previous image is the better lead image and that Scewing's trade is not an improvement. But Scewing reverted me. Thoughts?
Scewing, do you think it is best to revert an editor restoring a long-standing image after your WP:Bold edit? You do know that editors are not always going to agree to your image changes, and that many lead images already have WP:Consensus, correct? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Flyer22 Reborn, let me apologize.  Undoing your edit was a mistake on my part, I got confused about not seeing my recent change on the page.  It was not my intention to revert your change.  Feel free to put back the old image.  I changed the image in the first place because in my opinion I felt that the new image added value.  This new image is a circa 1850s daguerreotype image, and therefore is perhaps one of the earliest photographic images of this type. In general, I usually feel that an article can benefit from an periodic change of the lead image. Again, I apologize for reverting your edit.  Cheers! Scewing (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Scewing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image change 

message: The term "transvestite" is considered derogatory (which, I might add, the article explicitly acknowledges). So, why not change the name to Cross-dressing? Why continue to use this language when there are alternative terms available?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.157.47 (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have a Cross-dressing article. And the Transvestism article notes the derogatory use of transvestism. So maybe what we should be considering is a merge. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Would agree to the merge. Which term to use as title I leave up to debate. For myself, I self-describe as a transvestite and find that "cross-dresser" brings to mind images of purely fetishistic behavior, but am well aware that many others have the exact opposite reactions to the two words. --Khajidha (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name change 

message: From where do we have "acting" in the lead? Trans-vest literally means cross-dress. Wouldn't the acting be a complicated thing to apply to everyone? Just askin'. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It all depends on what we are including in "transvestism". Does a man wearing a pair of panties purely for fetishistic reasons of sexual arousal with not attempt or intention of appearing to be a woman count? Is "transvestism" the same as "cross-dressing" and, if not, what does each term mean? I identify as a "transvestite" and as "bi-gender", all of which means that, while I am biologically and anatomically male I fairly often dress and present as a woman. To me, "cross-dressing" implies the more fetishistic behavior mentioned before, but many others use the terms in exactly opposite senses. --Khajidha (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: "Dressing ''and'' acting"?

message: -ism is considered very pathological. why don't we all start replacing it with transvestiteness (travestilidade)/transvestibility (travestibilidade) or transvesting/transvestiment (travestissement/travestimento)? because travestismo is associated with transvestic fetishism (fetishistic transvestism)… linde 09:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not (not) invent new words, no matter how worthy a cause may be. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  pathologization