Talk:Trans woman/Archive 2

message: *AlexR: In English, when you "assume" (or "take on" or "adopt") a (new) gender identity, it means that you start identifying as that gender, i.e. you consider yourself a member of this gender, whatever this means for you, e.g. pronouns, name, expression, clothing, whatever. What part of the word assume do you find confusing? For example, I became a trans girl the moment I realized and accepted the fact that I was actually female. I took on a female gender identity from that point on. Can you suggest a better wording if you don't like the word "assume"? How would you say this in German?--Sonjaaa 07:03, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
**Acknowledge? Ambi 07:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: assume

message: Since the same stupid edits happen there too, the debate is at Talk:Sex assignment. -- AlexR 07:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sex assignment

message: This survey (Transgender Community Health Project, from San Francisco) might be of relevance to the section on sexual orientation, as it gives the percentages for sexual orientation of those surveyed. That section in general could be helped by a few references. --Mairi 03:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We must add this! Crayolacrime 08:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd now be more appropriate for Sexual orientation of transwomen, as the topic of sexual orientation of transwomen has now been split out of this article. But I agree that it should be mentioned there. --Mairi 08:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual orientation survey 

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 11:56, 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)

text: What would it be a diagram of? I'm having a hard time thinking of anything in the article that ought to be in a diagram, and that would have a clear diagram. Mairi 18:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Ambi 07:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  diagram needed 

message: can they make babies?70.124.132.176 17:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at my talk page - there's a section that discusses it - It's not really adding to this article, though Lwollert 10:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  babies 

message: What is meant by "physically assigned as male at birth"? Does this mean they were born a male? If it does, then what's all this talk about physically assigning? I'm pretty sure you're male or female the moment you're conceived or shortly after. Nobody does any physical assigning that I know of. --Calibas 03:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See sex assignment, which is what that's refering to (the wording could be clearer). It basically means someone looked at them shortly after they were born and decided that they were a boy (which normally doesn't involve much thought). Mairi 05:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, See Male and Gender to find out a bit more about this issue. And don't forget the intersexed people who are still regularly assigned an arbitrary sex because their primary sexual characteristics are too long or too short or just plain weird.(no offense intended) The allocation of physical sex is probably the strongest determinant of what gender a child will be brought up in. Lwollert 10:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: Resolved. 
Since shemale is distinct meaning from transwoman, i have listed for DRV. See discussion here. Im posting here for people who have transwoman in their watchlist. Thanks. Lara_bran 10:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Recreation permitted in Deletion review. See discussion here. Lara_bran 04:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Shemale]] listed for DRV 

message: I swapped the lede image for a different image, per the discussion at Talk:Transgender#Lede_image.  If you would like to discuss which image should be used, please do not reply here; let's keep the discussion in one place.  Thank you. Photouploaded (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede image

message: In the section of the article that deals with sexual orientation there is repeition of there being as many or more transwomen who self identify as non-androphilic compared to those who are androphilic.  I will re write this. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: repetition

message: Sounds like a new trans article may be unneeded. Perhaps we could start drafting how to encyclopedicly, and of course NPOV, represent the above points to be included in this article with sources. I feel that will give time for others to also look st these issues in case we missed something. Once it's complete i think it may make sense to also move this article if trans woman is the most logical title. 
Presently we have:
We should clean, clarify and ref, if we use Serano we should clarify why we are quoting her. Also it may make sense to lead the terminology section with this rather than ending it. If we have some Origin and Usages it may help show rather than tell.  -- Banjeboi 01:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there currently any objections to going forward with this change (adding the space, that is)? BassoProfundo (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see more than a local consensus, let's ensure we're not missing something obvious here. I think as we find strong reliable sourcing we can find out what the best way forward is, especially clarify who finds the addition or omission of the space offensive. This seems like it's a very new development as well so we should clarify that.  -- Banjeboi 08:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problem with choosing 'trans woman' as the preferred form within this article, on the basis it is the more popular form, and citing the objection to 'transwoman' in Serrano as an explanation of why (some?) trans women find 'transwoman' offensive.  The lack of sources that 'trans woman' is offensive suggests it is not offensive - unless somebody comes up with one.  But, as we are opting change this on the available evidence - that it is the preferred and more-widely used term, the Serano citation is all that is needed to inform people that it has been argued that 'transwoman' is offensive.  We do not need to say it is offensive, only that it has been seen as offensive - and Serano is a notable-enough public trans figure to warrant inclusion, I'd have thought.  This way, we do not force the usage because people here say they don't like it, but because we have agreed through consensus that this is best approach, based on the sources, which will make it hard for anybody to ignore by inserting 'transwoman' - which can simply be changed to 'trans woman' if it occurs, pointing to this discussion and the entry itself on this, as the consensus position. Mish (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To a point I agree but the first step is to use sourcing to rewrite this article, then make any changes. Just to play devil's advocate here, we seem to be saying let's change every usage of the word on the world's encyclopedia based on Serano's objection. It would seem, per NPOV, we would balance that out with statement(s) that other trans activists don't seem to care or whatever can be crafted to fairly represent what sources support.  -- Banjeboi 12:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, whatever.  Somebody needs to do the work - I'm not that fussed to do it myself.  Then the title can be changed as well? Mish (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think so.  -- Banjeboi 08:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text:  In my experience transwoman is a lot more likely to cause offense than trans woman. Also, I know many trans women who "want the trans identity as a source of pride and diversity" and still refer to themselves as trans women. For reasons such as this I welcomed the change to the article's title. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Next steps

message: There is incorrect info in this article. Voice and hair are NOT affected by the hormone replacement therapy in transwomen. These issues should be corrected using voice therapy and various epilation methods.--~Chick With (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Body hair is affected by oestrogen, in that it becomes finer, although in somebody who was hirsuit as a man, there may be little noticeable difference.  Head hair, like nails, becomes more brittle, while any recession (male-pattern-baldness) stops, although there is limited prospect of any re-growth once recession has begun.  Progesterone counterbalances the brittleness, as I understand it, however, it increases growth of boby-hair. Mish (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then it should be specified that facial hair is unaffected, though the commencement of hormone therapy early enough can prevent further development. --Camicochan (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction regarding hormones 

message: Hello, I removed the Ray Blanchard reference in the later half of the article as he has been under scrutiny from all sides of the transgender and LGB communities. His work is dubious at best as he has had a long history of completely ignoring the narratives and stories of actual trans people, imposing his theory of the "homosexual male transsexual" on others. I hereby request that no further referencing to Ray Blanchard or Kenneth Zucker be added, as their intellectual dishonesty supersedes any "authority" they have on the matter of transgendered issues.
See also: BBL controversy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.16.7 (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: His work is not only dubious but should be completely removed  from all wiki articles .  Like many in the ex-gay Christian  movement claimed to have cured gays ( which it absolutely did not and is now disowned by the governing bodies of psychiatry ) he claims to have "cured" being transsexual in children.Tis there no clinical  proof of this whatsoever .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Actually, it is the transsexual community who is more offended by Blanchard than the TG community.  Genuine TSs are actually not in the TG nor LGBT community as a group, and TGs nor LGBTs never asked them if they wanted included or spoken for.  This book was an insult to the mainstreamist TS community more than the separate TG community.  Most TGism can be "cured" (but why?) while TSism is inborn, and a near-cure with HRT and surgery is the goal.  It is more of a palliative thing.  Of course, the theory was about recreational transgenderism, not inborn transsexualism, despite Blanchard's use of the term transsexual.  From my own observations (I know, not scientific, and "original research"), there are men who are self-stigmatized gay men who go as far as to get surgery as to avoid owning their gay feelings, and likewise, there are men who are into fetish and want to be with lesbians, who work up TSism as a way to attempt to normalize their fetishes.  Neither are truly transsexuals, and was a point sorely missed by Blanchard, and those who pointed that out were called liars.66.110.251.145 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Blanchard Reference 

message: What's with the image in this article? It displays correctly when clicked, but does not appear embedded in the article itself (which is a shame, because it's a wonderful photograph). I'm not sure how to fix this; perhaps it's just my computer? Somnambulent (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image broken? 

message: It is worthy of noting that the term biological woman, when used to describe a natal non-transsexual woman, is not completely accurate. Hormone replacement therapy for male-to-female transsexuals, wherein the male hormone testosterone is reduced and the female hormones estrogen and progesterone are raised, results in countless biological changes. These include natural breast development, accumulation of fat around hips and thighs which serves as energy storage for breastfeeding, softening of the skin, loss of male fertility, loss of muscle mass, loss of body hair, and changes in metabolism. As such, a male-to-female transsexual who has been on HRT for several years not only resembles - or in many cases is indistinguishable from - a natal woman, but also has a biology that is very unlike that of a typical male, or her pre-HRT biology. Therefore the term genetic woman is more accurate when describing a natal non-transsexual woman, as it implies transsexual women having the genetics that developed testicles and the resulting effects of testosterone. The term biological woman implies that transsexual women have a male biology, which isn't true when it comes to HRT.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AuroraFinn (talk • contribs) 09:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of either using the terms "biological woman" or "genetic woman", the term "cisgender woman" can be used instead.  Solar-Wind (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, genuine transsexuals ARE cisgendered and just like "biological" women except for their birth condition.  Only transgendered males who live as women are "gender variant."  A TS woman identifies completely as female, while a TG person living as a woman has mental and behavioral traits of both genders.  There is no need to distinguish TS women from other women, just the men who live as women and keep their parts for life and live gender variant lives known as "transgender."  A TS woman is born with the same nature and neurology as other women, while a TG male who lives as a woman and keeps his male parts for life does not.66.110.251.145 (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is correct at all. I really don't think there is some "nature" that all cis women share in the first place. Gender identity is a spectrum, and even for people who identify within the binary, there is a whole lot of variety. Referring to a non-op trans woman as "a transgendered male living as a woman" is invalidating and simply inaccurate.P.gandal (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological vs. genetic woman 

message: Pete Burns should be here. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.98.43 (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, Pete Burns should not be here.  He's had a lot of facial surgeries done, but he is not seeking to transition, nor does he identify as a transsexual woman; he's apparently not on hormones, has never had breast implants, and has no desire for SRS.  bonze blayk (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  PETE BURNS 

message: I am a TS woman who is not transgender nor a part of the LGBT. When used correctly, transgender is everyone who is gender variant. TS women have a complete female identity and are not "gender variant." So TG is a gender variant umbrella for those who don't get surgery, or don't get it for the expected reasons, while TS is someone born with the need to get the corrective surgery and assimilate. A MtF TS is a type of woman with an unwanted physical anomaly, while a MtF TG is a type of man who chooses to vary his gender identity to that which is against nature. TS woman transition to become whole, conform, and destroy as much differences as possible, while male-born TGs attempt to partially transition as a way to become different. I am not the only one who believes this and none of the gender "experts" have the condition of transsexualism. Again, the new understanding is that TSs and TGs are different in kind with TSs being gender conformists, and TGs not, and that the term TG includes everyone EXCEPT those diagnosed with TSism. It is ignorant, prejudicial, and bigoted to say that TSs are included in the TG community. If you say this is not encyclopedia, I will just say that you all need to wait until my next book. Then it will be relevant. A TS who is proudly not transgendered and who ONLY helps TS persons (and  others who act like the general populace) without helping TG persons.72.11.53.145 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see above, this type of distinguishing aspect has been discussed on this talk page before. We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, per WP:Verifiability, not our personal opinion, and the WP:Reliable sources don't distinguish the terms the way you are distinguishing them...not generally anyway. Many transsexuals, for example, don't feel the way that you do about this topic, including some WP:Notable ones. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transsexual not transgender 

message: "[study] found that trans women reported that:[5]
36% have lost their job due to their gender." [..]
One thing might not be clear (didn't check study, it might not even discriminate these factors, and it might be impossible?). Women in general report bias based on their gender (say losing a job if getting pregnant or if there is a possibility (but maybe more like not getting a job/promotion in the first place?)). Then a man who would turn into a woman, by some kind of magic (like in some movies), would report a bias. And I mean if becoming like the completely average (non-transgender) woman (even if, being without the memory of being a man in the first place).
I'm just saying, the bias you perceive would then actually be because of "gender" as gender is usually understood. But is that what is meant by gender by transwomen? That kind of bias would be kind of expected.. (not justifying). I *think* what is really meant there is some kind of other or additional bias. Should it say "have lost their job due to their trans-gender status"? Would they loose their job based on not being perceived as "normal" women? comp.arch (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study of bias 

message: Add Content
Section: "Notable Trans Women"
Content: Bruce Jenner
Acmeissn (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2015 

message: The article currently contains the following 
On fixing a deadlink to the source used for this section, I noticed that the source (p.96) only states .
I have looked for alternate sources to support the "severe pain" aspect, which I believe would be reasonably likely to be interpreted by readers as meaning physical pain. Unfortunately, I am not able to find a reliable source for this aspect. The sources that I am able to find (eg.) actually contradict this assertion.
I invite other editors to assist with finding sources to support the "severe pain" aspect; otherwise we will need to remove it & bring this section in line with the sources that we do have; using "severe distress" or similar. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "severe pain" is not the appropriate language here. Just "distress" would be good imho as that's the language the source uses. Gender identity disorder uses "discontent" FWIW. EvergreenFir (talk) Please  00:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender dysphoria & "severe pain" 

message: "Both transsexual and transgender women may transition, though only transsexual women would medically transition." is wrong. E.g. there are males assigned at birth who take hormones or get breast implants to just affect their breasts but still identify as male. That's partially medically transitioning. Part of the problem is the umbrella use of transgender to include all non-binary folks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender notes, "Several somewhat ambiguous and possibly overlapping definitions can be found for the two terms: transgender and transsexual."
Linda1lee2 (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 04:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2015 

message: "Transgender is an umbrella term that includes different types of gender variant people (including transsexual people)." This is wrong. "Transsexual" relates to the body and "Transgender" to gender. There are transsexual women who critizise the concept of gender-identity but do have a good knowledge about their body. The mixture of two different aspects of variations is harmful (although this concept is based on US-based psycho-sexologists). --5.56.219.54 (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This belongs over on Talk:Transgender, but transgender makes it clear with its sources that it is indeed an umbrella term, often including transsexual. EvergreenFir (talk) Please  19:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

text: The above IP poster has posted about this more than once, under different IPs, including at Talk:Transsexual. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transsexual is not Transgender