Talk:Ladyboy

message: Hmmm...How exactly is this encyclopedic?  And what's with the link?  None of the other LGBT articles, if that's what you want to call this, include links to related porn sites, why does this one?  Paige 21:28, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not porn, but an informative non-sexual illustration. - Patrick 21:47, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it very interesting that the same picture can be listed on shock sites, but here it is merely "informative."  Either way, the article should  state that the terms ladyboy and shemale are rarely used outside of the adult entertainment world and are considered highly offensive and derogatory by most transsexual women.  Perhaps a look at the entry for Nigger_(word) might be helpful.  I also think that if this article is going to exist it should be more than a simple dictionary definition.  Personally, I really think it's a shame that the term ladyboy now yields this one and only result in a  search, and I still question the encyclopedic value of this entry.  The only two links to it are from shock site and List of sexology topics.  Should it be found to be worth keeping, some more in depth and informative discussion should accompany the definition, perhaps a sister article needs to be written on transgendered sex workers and the fetish surrounding these women, to which readers could be referred.  But even beyond that, there are other points which are not readily available if some were to ever have an intellectual interest in this term that other sites such as Wordorigins.org do not even address, such as its relation to the Thai word katoey (or kathoey, not sure).  -- Paige 16:27, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I encountered this on the shock site and thought it deserves a more neutral, respectful treatment. Please make the additions you suggest. Also, if there is a better term please rename the article. - Patrick 21:24, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Patrick, I'm really sorry if you felt that rant was directed at you.  It wasn't, but I should have been clearer about that.  As a woman who has had lots of similar epithets aimed at me, I personally find these terms very distasteful.  (Shemale, he-she, trannie, half-n-half, boy-girl, a little from column A, a little from column B, chick with a [blank], boy with [blanks], people have come up with a bunch of them, and none of them is very nice.)  None of that is in any way related to you writing this entry of course!  But since this makes it impossible for me to feel impartial, I don't think it's right for me to actually edit the article.  (That wouldn't be very NPOV, I think.)  So, I tried to express my concerns here on the talk page, as much to go on record with them as to urge the edits to be made.  I really believe you wrote the article with the best of intentions.  What upsets me isn't what was written, but the term itself, you know? I like the Wikipedia a lot, so to come here and see a page like this...well, it just made me sad.  I'm really sorry if it seemed like I was snapping at you.  It's just an emotional topic for me.  Paige 00:05, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, that's okay. - Patrick 09:13, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text:  Boy with blanks? Isn't that for folks who are impotent? Martin
I think this probably should be moved to Wiktionary (edited appropriately) and just redirected to transsexual or transgender. Martin 21:49, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)