Talk:Shemale/Archive 3

message: Removed this 'doubly uncited' sentence pending discussion/citation:
:"Shemale" is also a term used in online computer games to refer to male players playing as female characters,  or to a female transvestite who looks like a man but is known to be a woman. 
Please discuss. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs citation 

message: The definition put forth in this page needs reviewing.
True "Shemales" are not transsexuals; they are transgenderists, who desie to have aspects of both sexes. typically this is through surgical rather than hormonal modification of one's secondary sexual characteristics. These people do not wish to fully change their anatomical sex.
There does, however, need to be a section in this which refers to the confusion between transgenderists and transsexuals. Lwollert 00:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, very very few transwoman identify themselves as "shemales"; probably only a minority working within the sex industry itself. Second, it is at best debateable to claim that transwoman wishing to retain their original genitalia are not really transsexuals as most self-identify as "non-operative transsexuals". Certain segments of the pre-op and post-op transpeople would vehemently deny that "non-op transpeople" are transpeople at all (mostly amongst transwomen as opting out of surgery is fairly normal for transguys anyway due to the current limitation on surgery) but it's at best a contentious issue. Or maybe it's just a petty squabble of no concrete importance. In any case, violate neutral point of view standards to represent either side as the "authentic" one.74.104.127.146 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would challenge you to find a transwoman who genuinely identifies as "shemale." In the sex trade it's expected that transwomen advertise themselves as "shemales" so we may be seeing the results of that here. As for non-operative transsexuals not being true transsexuals, my personal experience indicates that it's a squabble amongst the "experts" rather than among the transgendered people themselves. People who are themselves transsexual generally understand that one's gender has little to do with one's genitalia and that the choice to operate or not is more about aesthetics and functionality than identity. Samantha D 19:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that Suzyj has hit upon a good idea and a good point. As suzyj points out, Shemale is not generally a descriptive term, it is a pejorative one. Would anyone object to an insert to the begining of the article that reads similarly to the oppening of nigger and faggot?  Lwollert 02:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the entire article needs to be almost completelly redone as to emphisize the pejorative nature of the word. However, I wouldn't object and in fact I'll go add it now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samantha D (talk • contribs) 00:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs review 

message: Both of these def., which are from Intersexed\Transgendered websites, contain a strong sense of the derogatory nature of the term.
Shemale: Derogatory slang used in the porn industry and escort services to wrongly describe an intersexed, transsexual or third-gender person. In some cases, intersexed, transsexual or third-gender portrayed in pornography are actually women with prosthetic penises adhered to their body. Shemale does not accurately describe intersexed, transsexual or third-gender persons. This slang is embraced by some, but not by all, transsexuals. Related words include she/he, he/she, shim.
A genetic male who has physical characteristics of both male and female by choice (due to hormones). The term accurately describes most MtF transsexuals during transition, but it is generally used by those working as a show-girls, or otherwise exploiting their physiology. (NOTE: Because of its usage by the pornography industry this term is generally derogatory, and many are highly offended by it.)
I think these definitions support the current wording of the article.  (That is "shemale is a derogatory term...".)Fixer1234 06:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source material 

message: As with many similar terms, the word is almost always used in the porn industry as a noun; that is you hear ("a shemale was [blah de blah]") and never "a shemale woman", etc. It's used to objectify and this is also what many find offensive about the term. Unlike Transsexual, which is often used as an adjective ("a transsexual woman"), this is never the case with 'shemale'. - Alison☺ 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a POV statement and as such, is not appropriate for use in the article.--Patrick80639 03:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wasn't suggesting that this be incorporated into the article. It's merely here as commentary and serves as background to the whole concept of objectification of those (esp. women) who work in the industry. Do you dispute this? - Alison☺ 03:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I assumed you were suggesting that be put into the article. Per Wikipedia guidelines stated at the top of this page, I don't think your question is appropriate in this forum, though I'd love to answer it.--Patrick80639 03:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. It's only there to lend perspective. I find it interesting to note the parallels between the word "shemale" and the word "slut" as they are both used by the sex industry. Interesting, no? - Alison☺ 03:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Slut" is not a genre of pornography.--Patrick80639 04:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but  'gangbang slut'  is, for example. I think Alison's analogy is completely accurate. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Both are nouns used by the porn industry. Both are considered pejoritive. The parallels are decidedly valid. From "Slut"; "Slut is a pejorative term for a person (usually female) who is more sexually promiscuous than is socially acceptable. The term has traditionally been applied to women and is generally used as an insult or offensive term of disparagement." - Alison☺ 04:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Gay" is also a noun used in the porn industry. It is not pejorative. Your parallels are too vague. "Slut" is a term that is very commonly used outside of pornography. However, "shemale" is almost exclusive to the adult entertainment industry. There is no such thing as "slut porn", for example.--Patrick80639 04:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gay is almost never used as a noun. It's always a "gay man", etc. Quite a different story. As to whether it's pejorative or not, well ... a day as administrator here will tend to disabuse you of that idea :-) - Alison☺ 04:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concede it is not used as a noun nearly as much as "slut", but "slut" is definitely not a term exclusively used by the adult entertainment industry. See, though, "Gay" can at times be used as a pejorative term, but not always. My contention is that "Shemale" can also be a pejorative term, but not always. To many it is a simple synonym for transgendered woman. I am not insisting that be the sole definition, but should be taken into consideration. At the end of the day, it is a marketing term, that many transgendered woman entertainers self-identify with.--Patrick80639 04:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, all editing done the past day seems to be a less-complete, redundant version of this version, . How about we revert to this? It seems to cover all the bases and looks more detailed.--Patrick80639 06:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For all the reasons I stated above, I strongly oppose changing the current version to the alternate layout proposed by Lwollert. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectification 

message: Article is recreated per deletion review here. Article was AfD'd here, and was permitted recreation on basis of new ref's came to light after AfD. Lara_bran 04:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreation per deletion review 

message: Image or comic image(manga) is required to illustrate shemale. Help is appreciated. Lara_bran 04:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  image required 

message: Note - besides corroborating the 'incredibly offensive' nature of this term, the 'what's offensive page' clearly reads to me to indicate that the term 'shemale' is not applicable to intersex people, and isn't used to describe them:
:"This is an incredibly offensive term. It reduces those on the MTF spectrum to the old "man in a dress" designation, and I have yet to meet an MTF who won't bite your head off or get very upset on hearing this term. Just say "pre-op or non-op MTF" to indicate someone who has breasts and a penis. (By the way, lots of intersexed people have both breasts and a penis naturally.)" 
This is corroborated by the following in-article cite:
:"a genetic male who has both male and female characteristics; a male who has undergone surgical feminization " 
Which pretty clearly excludes intersexuals. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intersexuals 

message: Just an FYI. I just made some significant edits:
# I edited down the multiple-redundancies in the intro
# I removed the 'Futanari' text but left the WP link to Futanari, since the word 'Shemale' is not mentioned on the original external link at all.
# I placed a 'citation needed' tag on the 'intersexuals' text, since the citation provided does not validate the text. This section is largely erroneous and should be removed, in my opinion. 
Anyway, thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Edits 

message: As per this discussion. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, i cant go to other talk page, your this edit is reverted. You can just de-wikilink, not remove term. Thanks. Lara_bran 03:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? That doesn't make sense. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have just completely reverted my edits without discussion, despite my postings above. Whether you disagree with my edits or not that's plainly disruptive editing. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a community effort, dont singlehandedly change the article. You alone seem to be too much interested in weakening the article, and since you are alone, reversion demands not discussion. You can seek third opinion. Thanks. Lara_bran 03:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:BOLD and WP:NPA. My edits reduced plainly redundant content and grammatically broken content in the first section and I removed unsupported content from the third section. My edits were an improvement, and your blanket revert is uncalled-for and plainly disruptive (to say nothing of unjustified gramatically or regarding the content). Most of all, I heartily suggest you stop claiming I have 'interests in weakening' the article, that's a personal attack. My edits were an improvement and I recommend you self-revert, edit and/or discuss futher, if you want your conduct here to be seen as collaborative rather than disruptive. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have to weigh in in agreement with Ryan on this one. We've been over this issue again and again on the talk page here. It's not a case of 'weakening the article', more a case of removing POV and dubious research (Google cache links??) - Alison ☺ 04:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google cache was provided beside original pdf, for html version, i have fixed it now. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Way better :) I tidied up some of the other links but it looks like some of those refs are duplicated. I'll dig though them tomorrow and tidy up per WP:MOS - Alison ☺ 04:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, I'm inclined to think that given the content on that article, the link to Futanari should be put in the 'see also' section, rather than its' own heading. I'll take a fresh look tomorrow. Thanks all! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the edit, looking forward to any discussion so occasioned. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 'Chick with a Dick' 

message: You changed 'male' to 'person' in the introduction with the edit summary 'per first ref'  but the first reference exclusively uses the word 'male', not 'person':
:"derogatory slang, 'a genetic male who has both male and female characteristics; a male who has undergone surgical feminization" 
Can you point to the specific reference that you meant to indicate to validate this edit? Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to this edit: . Thanks. Lara_bran 10:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that reference.com, dictionary.com are not reliable sources, will be removed. Thanks. Lara_bran 11:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your explanation doesn't hold water, and that page doesn't explain it. Your edit needs to be explained or it will be reverted. As far as your belief that dictionary.com and reference.com are not valid sources, I think you'll find your opinion is not commonly held. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 11:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  please explain this edit 

message: Removed this newly-added section, which contained a duplicate sentence (tranny, ladyboy) and another new piece of content:
:"This term is used in legal matters also, especially in USA, referring to persons who have female bodies, including fully developed breasts except that they have male genitalia.""she-males" - persons who have female bodies, including fully developed breasts. They are women in all respects save one: they have male genitalia." - U.S. v. Pryba (April 9, 1990) 900 F.2d 748 (4th Cir. (Virginia)))."
Personally, I don't see how the case is relevant to the article. The mere fact that the word 'She-male' was used during a court case discussing the porn movie 'She-Male Confidential') seems neither indicative of the word's non-porn or non-derogatory use. However, I'm hoping we can discuss and resolve it here, especially since Lara removed my response to this issue from his/her talk page - I'm hopeful my arguments will survive deletion here instead. Let's discuss. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 10:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: In the latest round of unjustified edits and reverts,  has removed the reference pointing to reference.com, with the edit summary "reference.com is not a reliable source, which refers back to wikipedia. " However, this is plainly incorrect. The content there reads:
Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English
Main Entry:  	she-male
Part of Speech:  	n
Definition:  	a genetic male who has both male and female characteristics; a male who has undergone surgical feminization
Usage:  	derogatory slang
Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7)
Copyright © 2003-2007 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC
Online Etymology Dictionary
she-male  
early 19c. U.S. colloquial, "a female," from she + male.
"Davy Crockett's hand would be sure to shake if his iron was pointed within a hundred miles of a shemale." ["Treasury of American Folklore"]
By 1972 it had come to be used (disparagingly) for "masculine lesbian." The sense of "transsexual male" seems to date from c.1984.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
Needless to say, I'm of the strong opinion that a reference to Webster's New Milennium Dictionary of English is a valid reference and I strongly believe it should stay, And I didn't see a reference back to WP on that page, anyway. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 10:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference.com is a valid source 

message: Lara, even if you can't resist reverting my edits without justification and without discussion on talk, and even if you delete my comments about the edit from your talk page, baseless accusations of vandalism aren't appropriate. You'll note I didn't accuse you of vandalism when you removed the reference to Webster's Online, so just stop it. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 11:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations of vandalism 

message: I've moved the following reference from the article:
* U.S. v. Pryba (April 9, 1990) 900 F.2d 748, pages 750-751 (4th Cir. (Virginia)):"she-males" - persons who have female bodies, including fully developed breasts. They are women in all respects save one: they have male genitalia.
In my experience, this is a typical behaviour of a court when faced with an industry specific or technical term. Irrespective of whether the term is insulting, in use in the general community, etc, a court will tend to use the terminology used in the case that is being tried. I'd suggest that a wording to reflect this might be the most appropriate way of using this reference. Someone might want to consult with the wikiproject law (or whatever the relevant project is called) in constructing the wording for this. I've wasted too much time on this and want to get back to productive editing and need to get some real-world work done. --AliceJMarkham 09:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court reference 

message: I'm glad to see that the Shemale article is written in a much less biased manner than previously (before deletion).
I have a suggestion, though.  Shouldn't "pre-operative transsexuals" in the second para. be "pre-operative or non-operative transsexuals"?  I don't assume it is the norm, but there are likely many "shemales" in both pornography and popular culture who have no intention of having genital reconstructive surgery.
--65.185.37.199 14:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-op vs. Non-op