Talk:Trans woman/Archive 1

message: : Seems to me it should probably #REDIRECT to Transsexual, which is very comprehensive. Wouldn't this article just duplicate that one horribly? Martin 01:37, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most certainly not to Transsexual, because transwomen are not just transsexual. If at all, Transgender might be to article to redirect to. OTOH, the articles transwoman and transman were written particularly so that matters pertaining just one direction can be put there. Therefore, the article should remain; and the matter in mediation would be the same, anyway, whethere here or there. -- AlexR 01:49, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Most certainly not Transgender, as that would breach the identity naming guidelines, and would be seen as pretty offensive by a fair portion of transwomen - myself included. Ambivalenthysteria 02:21, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Err, excuse me, but putting it under transsexual would be offensive to the other transwomen - and it would breach the very same guidelines. However, since I spoke out against a redirect anyway, I think this debate is purely theoretical; it is another reason to keep an article instead of a redirect, though. -- AlexR 03:02, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  On that we agree; it is another reason to keep the article, instead of a redirect. Ambivalenthysteria 03:40, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok - fair comments. I'll wait and see what emerges here before leaping to judgement. :) Martin 21:57, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect?

message: Someone cited my survey study in this discussion. Someone else replied that it was "total nonsense." As the author/researcher, I feel I should say something here.
The survey study I conducted was for my undergraduate Honors project in sociology. It was a very modest effort, and (as I discuss in an appendix) flawed on several counts. The statistics in it have no significance beyond the sample involved both because of the small sample size and the sampling biases involved. As far as the quantitative data involved, then, characterizing the study as a "failure" seems harsh, but not inaccurate. What little relevance my survey study has lies in the qualitative data I gathered. This is why I have encouraged readers to direct their attention primarily to my literature review rather than my own study.
I suppose that the original article author cited my thesis not because of my modest survey study, but because of my review of extant literature on sexual orientation among transsexuals. I hope that you will read that and find it useful (although it is slightly dated now). It should be clear that trans people range across the entire spectrum of sexual orientations; I made and make no claims about the proportional distributions of sexual orientations among us, based on my little survey study or any of the bigger but still not really representative studies out there.
--Harperjean 20:58, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see.  I was looking at it as something meant to be a thorough treatment.  I agree that what I said is overly harsh in light of your intent.  From that viewpoint, I suppose I ought to congratulate you on your well documented and carefully compiled project. --Eequor 21:16, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  My study ("total nonsense") 

message: A few transsexual activists claim the orientation of transsexual women is correspondent to that of the cisgendered femal population, however, these claims so far have not been substantiated and appear to be politically motivated rather than based on facts. I put this bit in to refer to the debate above. Actually, since Julie and Eequor are the only people I have heard that claim from for approximately the last eight years, I don't have a problem if it is removed. The question is, is this point of view widespread enough to warrant inclusion.  I was not certain, so I put it in. -- AlexR 00:08, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's okay with you, that's fine. Ambivalenthysteria 00:27, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The "A few activists" bit

message: *This page needs to be moved to trans woman. Trans is clearly not a prefix here, i.e. it does not mean "across the woman". Trans is an adjective (shot for transsexual or transgendered). A construction like "transwoman" makes the woman sound like some weird entity, when in fact she is just a kind of woman. Trans woman is on the same grammatical model as black woman, deaf woman, gay woman, etc. In English, we talk of trans women, trans people, trans guys, etc.--Sonjaaa 20:39, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
**We use what the majority of English-speaking people use. "Transwoman" has more than a thousand extra google hits over "Trans woman", and I rarely, if ever, see the latter used. Ambi 03:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename