Talk:Transgender/Archive 1

message: From Patsy (tg), Norway.
"Cathegorization" of transgender persons is bound to be inaccurate. Trying to cathegorize transgender persons in the context of a dictionary, encyclopedia, etc., one shouldn't use the verb "is", but "may."
When you attemt to reclarify the word 'transgender' by adding another, 'transgenderism,' it only makes things more confusing. (I would never understand it, despite a life-time of 'transgenderism.' [Is it a diagnosis, or a political ideology? :-)])
It won't work across cultures, not to speak of languages.
An article on transgenderism must rely on good explanations, and some often used slang/terminology, not exact word definitions.
: We can say that someone who might be transgendered might fit the definitions of transgenderism. They are not different words, just grammatically correct. To say that "someone is transgender", or that "the definition of transgender", it sounds very clumsy. However I agree that categorization of transgendered people into a strict definition is inaccurate, but I think the article as it stands carries forth this idea, that to say that someone is transgendered means that they generally fit some of these categories, but not that they always fit these categories . Dysprosia 07:31, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  "cathegories" 

message: I could not tell at a quick glance, or by skimming, whether a "transgendered" person is someone who was born with both male and female sexual organs. So I don't know how to evaluate the picture shown at http://www.bakla.net.
The last 3 pictures look like a woman, who has a penis. Does this mean she was born a woman, and had surgery; or that he was born a man and somehow sprouted breasts; or was born with both sexual characteristics; or is it a trick photograph.
I like articles to be easy to understand, and if I'm in the wrong article to find out what I'm looking for, I'd like to be able to tell that without having to read the whole article.
--Uncle Ed 22:17, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not seen the images, but that would probably be someone who was born with a penis, and has later taken hormones for breast development.  Penis construction surgery is rather crap.  Morwen 22:22, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Clarified. Hope it's better. (A short note re your pronouns - you generally use the pronoun of the gender that the person is trying to present: the bakla photos have this woman trying to present as a woman so you would use she - "or that she was born a man and.."  Or simply use gender-neutral pronouns or rewording. This is just a niceness thing.) Dysprosia 22:24, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vagueness 

message: I am dizzy with the idea of freely editing the fine work previously put in on this article, and hope that I have only added, and not detracted, from the quality of the article.  I am a transwoman in the United States, in the process of obtaining my Ph.D. in the field of "Law & Society." I am finishing my dissertation, which is on the adoption of transgender human resources policy in U.S. employers.  This is scheduled to be completed next month, and you may see some of my work at http://jillweiss.blogspot.com . Please feel free to comment or to write to me at jtweissny@aol.com
Jill
:Your changes look great.  Characterising the politics around this term is not an easy task.  Morwen 17:27, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
::Yes, they look fine to me. Nice to see more transfolk here @ Wikipedia.
::If you want to stick around and contribute more to Wikipedia, I suggest registering a user name at the login page. See Wikipedia:How to log in.Kimiko 19:18, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jill's edits 

message: 69.229.44.225's edits had some good points, especially the issue of medical professionals pathologizing TG folks. However, there were a lot of typos, and the edits removed a lot of good content from the previous version. I hope the current version retains the best of both. Jiawen 08:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another big edit 

message: (I am brand new to wikipedia here, so I am looking for how I can help)
I am wondering just how diverse people "define" the transgender continuum.
Let me start off with my brief description of how I see a "person" defined.  It is quite common for people talking about this subject address three or more "attributes" people have.
Sex is defined as what genitals you have been given at birth.  Sex as an attribute is not a binary designation, as evidenced by intersexed and hermaphrodite conditions.
Sexual Preference is defined as what sex you favor for intercourse.  It too is not a binary designation, and I can think of at least four common orientations: Male, Female, Bi, None.
Gender is generally defined (I believe) as whether you believe yourself to be male or female.  I personally believe that this definition is wrong, and that gender is a continuum.
Then, I also usually add in addition a fourth attribute.
Gender Roles are defined by me as roles you like playing.  Again, I believe that a continuum here is needed as well.  What I mean by Gender Role is what would traditionally be thought of as what men or women would traditionally do.  For instance, this could include items like "hunting" or "cleaning" or "raising the family" or whatnot.
These, among many other attributes, might make it possible to "define" a person.
Now, looking at traditional history, I will try to make up two People: one Male, and one Female.  (Please keep in mind these definitions are for discussion purposes, I am not trying to enforce any stereotypes or such.
The Male would have a male sex, have a sexual preference for females, have a male gender, and prefer the gender roles like hunting.
The Female would have a female sex, have a sexual preference for males, have a female gender, and prefer the gender roles like raising the family.
Now, if one were to take those definitions as the de-facto standard, then theoretically anyone who diverges from those definitions could be (again, in theory) considered gender queer, or transgendered.
For instance, under this view, then even a gay man or woman would fall under this catagory as transgender.  Of course, I believe that the opinion of the gay community would be that this is not the case.  (Please correct me if I am wrong there)
So finally, I get to the subject of the topic here.  Just how far does everyone out there imagine that the transgender catagory spreads?
(as background, I believe myself to be a transexual woman.  I say this even though I do not (cross) dress, have not been to a psychologist yet, and do not take hormones of any type) Srinity 23:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just how inclusive does everyone view the term transgender? 

message: This entire article is really not encyclopedic at all. It's full of exclamation points and insufficient definitions. I cleaned up a lot, but it needs a lot more that I didn't feel like I was up to.
I removed this entire section because I didn't feel like it belonged in the article at all the way it was. It needs to be substantially edited to meet the Wikipedia standards of quality.
===Inclusive Categories===
The way we included the subcategories of the mutually exclusive and partially exclusive categories, above, covers all inclusive categories.
: I disagree with the smallish set sizes for each of these. I realize that the ultimate purpose here is to emphasize the diversity of characteristics possible, but limiting a given category to (for example) four variations actually has the opposite effect. There are not, for example, only four types of sexual characteristics; the truth is that there is a vast range of possibilities for each category.
:I'd suggest that, instead of emphasizing concrete numbers of variations, the article should instead give a half-dozen or so possible variations within a category and use a lot of "etc." to emphasize how many variations there truly are.
:Gender variation is not a matter of simple arithmetic, unless you consider operations with infinity to be simple. Jiawen 08:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed 

message: The way we included the subcategories of the mutually exclusive and partially exclusive categories, above, covers all inclusive categories.
: I disagree with the smallish set sizes for each of these. I realize that the ultimate purpose here is to emphasize the diversity of characteristics possible, but limiting a given category to (for example) four variations actually has the opposite effect. There are not, for example, only four types of sexual characteristics; the truth is that there is a vast range of possibilities for each category.
:I'd suggest that, instead of emphasizing concrete numbers of variations, the article should instead give a half-dozen or so possible variations within a category and use a lot of "etc." to emphasize how many variations there truly are.
:Gender variation is not a matter of simple arithmetic, unless you consider operations with infinity to be simple. Jiawen 08:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusive Categories

message: The concept of "transgender" is a very modern political construct located primarily in the United States, which has a known cultural bias towards extreme individualism.  Somebody has to speak truth to power, even when that power self-identifies itself as "liberal."-- Naif 11:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Define "truth". Ambi 12:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd like to see your information on transgender being a "very modern political construct".  I find this a bit problematic strictly on the grounds that you are making an assertion with an indefinite burden of proof.  --Colin.weatherby 19:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I respect both of your comments, but at this time I have outside responsibilities that prevent me from addressing your intelligent and well thought-out resopnses. --Naif 12:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political construct 

message: As a scholar and a professor (and a transgender person) I use this page a lot, and the grammar is driving me crazy.  I've been resolving to try to help with that for a while, so here goes. Also, I added a section on "genderqueer," since that identity descriptor is used but not explained in the article. There's a lot more I would change if the article were mine, but the idea is to make it more accurate, not perfect.  Anyway,  --Dr. Jillian Todd Weiss 03:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Cleanup 

message: Most transsexual people would not identify with the Symbol on the Article. When I had surgery, I lost the arrow and now only have a circle and a + symbol. Can an alternative please be used or is this a symbol that is in common usage in the USA for transgendered people? I would hate to think that this symbol found its way into common usage. It smacks of the dualgender ideas promulated by the UK Beaumont Society, a largely transvestite based organisation who up until relatively recently discriminated against transsexual people and who still work to another agenda. --NikkiW 16:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but since you obviously do not identify as transgender, how can you possibly object to the symbol? Also, the symbol has three arms, and nobody forces you to identify with the one on the left. Also, again, do not assume this is US only. And could you please tell me why you object so much to an organisation thataccording to you, I've never heard of them, but then, I am not Britishdiscriminates against transsexual people, while you at the same time so obviously discriminate against non-transsexual transgender people? You want to deny them a name, an identity, and a symbol, how can non-physical discriminiation get worse than that? So you are not in a position to complain here.AlexR 08:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You are correct, I do not identify with the symbol but can see it has a relevance to those who see themselves as gender queer and also those still in a state of flux. If it is viewed from the basis of Alternatives, then it is perfectly valid. Perhaps last time I read it, the explanation as to why it was so designed was not visible on my reading it.
However, I strongly disagree with you that I discriminate against other people who are gender-variant. On the contrary I give support to all variants in my everyday life and stand up for all people faced with discrimination. Your assessment of me is wrong, sorry.  Jumping to conclusions about me and my philosophy on how I treat all people based upon 4 paragraphs thereabouts is unfair and uncalled for. For a person who clearly contributes a great deal to Wikipedia, your agression in the above does you no favours, which is sad, because you could have so easily approached my discussion posting with something more reasoned and well mannered. The same objective would have been achieved without getting people's backs up. Perhaps it is the testosterone in you !(and I mean that jokingly !)Oh, and I never whine lol.
--NikkiW 20:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The symbol 

message: Because there are many unique issues related to transgender youths, should a section on this be included?
Most noteably, Hormone replacement theropy before puberty results with mostly the desired secondary sexual charactoristics.
LexieM 01:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold. Go for it. Dave 01:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transgender Youth 

message: Is there a source on "In Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini instituted state procedures to help pay for sex-change operations in those who identified as transgender.", specifically the part about the state funding part? I see no mention in the Transsexuality in Iran article.
Jaytan 10:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look here. ntennis 12:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transgenders in Iran 

message: I listed the article yesterday on Wikipedia:Cleanup#April 8,2006 with the following comment: "I tried to bring some order into that article today, and removed lots of BS and whining, but I think I worked too much on it already, this one desperately needs somebody to go through it and turn this mess into a readable article." User:Metamagician3000 already was so kind as to do some improvements, but in my opinion there should be a few cuts as well - this article cannot replace all the other articles in the WP that deal with transgender issues, and it sure looks like it tries at the moment, making it a mess.AlexR 11:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I note, once again, that a page asserts that "all transsexuals are, by definition, transgender" despite at least a decade worth of transsexuals, primarily post-operative male-to-female transsexual women, asserting that "transgender" is not a proper umbrella term for "transsexual".  I note, also, that while "Conflict" is briefly mentioned in the article, I seen no discussion of the "Conflict", nor any proper analysis of why the conflict exists, the nature of the conflict, or arguments about it.  As such, this article has pretty serious POV issues since it glosses the issue "transgender" subsuming "transsexuality".  I'd like to introduce some discussion of this conflict into the article, since it is a real part of transgender politics, but have this feeling that it would promptly be edited out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.12.83 (talk • contribs)  15:59, 19 May 2006
:And if we had hordes of people from London who claim that they are insulted when also being refered to as a subset of people from England, exactly how much room does that need in an encyclopedia? However, if you can make resonably NPOV statements about this matter, make them. If you are unsure, discuss them here. Make also sure, though, that you have references when neededmerely personal statements, which have appeared in this articles a few times, will indeed be edited out. They would be edited out of every WP article, though. You have a much better chance of being taken seriously, though, if you sign your statements, and preferably get yourself a username, too. Unsigned IP-statements are 9 out of 10 times not worth reading.AlexR 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transgender / Transsexual Conflict 

message: I'm pretty sure this paragraph from the Monosexuality page needs revision from a trans perspective. What do you all think? It's not my text, don't worry!
:'The term “monosexuality” has also been used to describe the sexuality of people who only wish to have sex with one specific person, regardless of gender. This becomes important when considering partners that choose to remain in their relationship with a transsexual or transgender person. Note that this meaning is quite contradictory to the usual meaning of the term, since someone who chooses to remain in such a relationship cannot reasonably be considered either homosexual or heterosexual.'
DanB DanD 01:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over at "Monosexuality" 

message: The article starts off with two definitions:
:Transgender is an overarching term applied to a variety of individuals, behaviors, and groups involving tendencies that diverge from the normative gender role (woman or man) commonly, but not always, assigned at birth, as well as the role traditionally held by society.
:Transgender is the state of one's "gender identity" (self-identification as male, female, both or neither) not matching one's "assigned gender" (identification by others as male or female based on physical/genetic sex).
Both of which appear to be valid uses, but it seems a bit odd to just lump them together in two separate paragraphs, with no explanation. It seems to me that these are distinct (though with some overlap) usages of the term: e.g., a man who wears make-up and sometimes cross-dresses but identifies as a man would be transgender by the first definition, but not by the second. On the other hand, someone who identifies as a gender different to their "assigned gender" would be transgender by the second definition, regardless of their gender role. Shouldn't it be noted that there are these two definitions, rather than listing them with no explanation? Mdwh 14:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in the UK, and I've heard transgender used in the same way as described in the article... Mdwh 04:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what the first two links are meant to show? As for the third, it says for transgender: "A term used to include transsexuals, transvestites and crossdressers. A transgenderist can also be a person who, like a transsexual - sometimes with the help of hormone therapy and/or cosmetic surgery - wishes to live in the gender role of choice, but has not undergone, and generally does not intend to undergo, surgery." - isn't this consistent with the article? Mdwh 15:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions 

message: One of the things that I might point out is that Trangender and Transexual are used differently in different parts of the English speaking world. In the UK, Transgender is purely reserved for pre-operative individuals, whereas Transsexual is post operative. This, of course, bucks against the USA definitions! Fluffball70 01:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in the UK, and I've heard transgender used in the same way as described in the article... Mdwh 04:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what the first two links are meant to show? As for the third, it says for transgender: "A term used to include transsexuals, transvestites and crossdressers. A transgenderist can also be a person who, like a transsexual - sometimes with the help of hormone therapy and/or cosmetic surgery - wishes to live in the gender role of choice, but has not undergone, and generally does not intend to undergo, surgery." - isn't this consistent with the article? Mdwh 15:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global understandings 

message: I removed the "transgender as in between" section as it was a direct mirror of the original definition of transgender, which is already present in the article.  Mugaliens 19:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transgender as "in between" duplicates original definition in "Origens" section 

message: I do not believe a "citation needed" should exist for the following:  "Contrary to common belief, the vast majority of cross-dressers, which comprises the vast majority of those who wear clothing of the opposite sex, are heterosexual [citation needed]."
This is a commonly known fact throughout the CD community.  Countless online polls of CD-specific websites have confirmed that less than 10% of those who identify as crossdressers are other than heterosexual.  Furthermore, historically crossdressing and transvestism have been seen as fairly synonomous.  However, in recent years, most of those identify as a crossdresser may wear female clothing, such as heels, pants, or a shirt, but they identify and appear as male.  They are not trying to "pass."  They simply enjoy, for whatever reason, wearing items of clothing intended for females.  Contrarily, most of those who identify as a transvestite do try to pass.  Finally, some who might be labeled as a crossdresser reject that label entirely, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that heels were worn by men for half of the last five hundred years, the fact that men's fashion has, over the last thousand years, run the gamut of most everything (except for bras) currently found in the female side of the store, and the fact that fashion changes on a fairly continual basis.  In the last ten years, fashion shows have seen many men in heels and far more "feminine" outfits than one might find on the street.  Some men have taken notice, and when these fashions haven't appeared in the men's side of the store, they've simply shopped on the other side.
Thus, caution is advised before any labels of transvestism or crossdressing are applied in any given situation, as some rather compelling arguments can be presented which counter both labels, unless the behavior is to such an extreme that it's clear (nails, hair, boobs) that the individual is desiring to appear as a member of the opposite sex.  Mugaliens 19:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CD Heterosexuality 

message: 216.221.96.202 added a strange vandalism [here] and i fixed it. block, anyone?Teh tennisman 21:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  since I got random'ed here... 

message: and needs a serious clean up.  As someone who knows very little about all this stuff I'm not really much clearer having read it.  two suggestions to start with, please clearly define transman and transwoman, it's not immediately obvious which way the transition is taking place in each case (though I think I've worked it out now).  Secondly there are whole lot of random sentences throughout that just don't fit.  Most probably need more explanation but this needs to be placed properly in the article.  It needs a simpler general overview with all the basic definitions at the start assuming the reader knows nothing and may have some of the usual prejudices (if there is such a thing?) becuase this seems to be the general overview and introduction page to a range of issues.  this stuff is really important too, good luck. Pugsworth 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is still really confusing... 

message: [tɝans dʒɛn dɝ] seems like a weird pronunciation -Iopq 11:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA incorrect? 

message: By positioning the navigational “LGBT Click Box” (Template:LGBT sidebar) at the top right of the article, the association of transgender people with „LGB“ (disambiguation page, where the text “Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals” is linked to LGBT, LGB again “pocketing” transgender) is extremely overemphasized, falsely making the connection appear absolute, predominant and obligatory, where in fact (quote from LGBT#Controversy):
* »The term LGBT is controversial. For example, some transgender and transsexual people do not like the term because they do not believe their cause is the same as that of LGB people; they may also object when an organization adds a T to their acronym when the level of service they actually offer to trans people is questionable. There are also LGB people who don't like the T for the same or similar reasons.Many people also believe that a sharp distinction should be drawn between sexual orientation and gender identity. GLB concerns the former; TTI concerns the latter.«
IMO the Template:LGBT sidebar should be removed from the transgender article completely, but not wanting to initiate an edit-war, I'll be content for the duration of discussion with positioning the template less predominant below the transgender symbol. Transgender is the main-topic of the article, which essentially has nothing to do with any specific form of sexual orientation, because transgender people can for example also be heterosexual or even asexual.-- ParaDox 15:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the “LGBT Click Box” be removed from the transgender article completely? 

message: Placing the statement 'the t in lgbt is controversial' at the beginning of the article without further explanation, when its addresses further in the article makes a definite pov statement. Discussing it later in Contrast with "sexual orientation" places the issue in a better context. NickGorton 18:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, wasn't so good, and so you removed it :-)  I've just added »(compare LGBT, section “Controversy”)« to the first sentence of »Transgender#Contrast with "sexual orientation"«, not assuming that's stylistically perfect. -- ParaDox 11:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been thrust into the T community and not entirely by my choice. Not that I regret it though. At any rate, I've known lots of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transsexuals... From my experience, grouping them is like putting apples in with oranges, lemons, and limes. Apples just aren't citrus. Sure they're fruit, but then so are grapes. Heterosexuals belong grouped with LGB more than T do, because at least heterosexuality is still an orientation. 24.254.189.253 04:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure - complete agreeance with your reasoning. but whether or not they should be there, they are. Cheers! Lauren♫/∆ 06:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The T in LGBT is controversial 

message: as of late january 2006 I can say that the current page is distinctly useful, it covers a range of the debate, seems to be relativly clear and understandable. I know it may move to another state in due course but I just wanted to note to all contributors how much I appreciate your help, to get it to this point (X-mass 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a random passer-by I'd like to echo this congratulation: despite touching on such a wide range of topics this article seems complete, uses clear and precise language, and is both information-rich and coherent. —Greg K Nicholson 15:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In praise of the current page 

message: Does anyone have the book
* C.F. Prince, Virginia. 1979. 'Charles to Virginia: Sex Research as a Personal Experience.
Some searching on Google says that Virginia coined the term, but I find no solid references except that she probably claims that in the above book.  Can someone provide a citation?SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We might want to mention why she came up with the term: "because she needed a term to describe her decision to become a woman without changing her genitals (what she would call her 'sex,') the term 'transsexual' would not do" Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 05:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: http://www.transgenderzone.com/library/ae/fulltext/20.htm says she popularized the term.  So, I am going to use that as the source instead and use the word "popularized" instead of "coined".  – Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 05:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Coined the term"... 

message: Transgender is currently the LGBT collaboration of the month, and is being peer reviewed to pinpoint possible improvements for editors to implement. You can find it here Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wanted to emphasise there's some really, really good stuff being brought up in the peer review, and that it would be nice if anyone editing this page could update the reviewers as to what's been implemented and what's not. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been watching this article and little has been changed.  I've been working up a rewrite (or at least partial) in my user space, but it's slow going at the moment.  So far, it has personally been a good exercise for myself - I didn't really understand what the term transgender means and the article doesn't make it very clear (one of my complaints in the PR I believe). – Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 22:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleaned and referenced much of the transsexual section. Cheers, Lwollert 11:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration peer review 

message: http://www.secondtype.com - Worth adding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.149.16.69 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 11 April 2007
* No. Fails wikipedia's reliable source requirements. --AliceJMarkham 14:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I just put it out of that category. This mistake is really everywhere. I put it into an “Other flags” category - for the moment.
Comment I used there was:
/* Sexual orientation flags */ This is definetely wrong. Don't sort this flag under "Sexual orientation". Transgender neither implies any sexual orientation nor is it a phenomenon on that field.)
-- 84.143.136.81 14:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping [[Transgender Pride flag]] out of ''“Sexual orientation flags”'' category in [[List of flags#Sexual orientation flags|List of Flags]] 

message: I do not know if consensus exists (see above) concerning advocacy/activism sites being linked to, so I will not disturb them for the time being (with one exception: see below). However, I think I can say from the above that a consensus does exist about the support groups and biography sites: namely, delete them and replace with a link to "Transgender" at DMOZ. Similarly, I think I can say that a consensus does exist about information sites: namely, keep them. I will therefore carry out those changes, and insert the comment as stated by Alison above. A site-by-site analysis is given below. Editwikipediausername 02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links cleanup part 2 

message: The external links category has been cleaned up as per part 2 above. More cleanup is possible (for example, all references to advocacy groups can be moved to List of transgender-rights organizations) but I don't know if it is desirable to do so. I therefore propose that the "external links cleanup tag" be removed on the grounds that it has been sufficiently cleaned. If anybody has an alternate plan or feels that there is more cleanup required, please share your input below before I remove the tag. Regards, Editwikipediausername 00:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links cleanup part 3 

message: I would like to add a new external link. I am a member of a group based in Cincinnati which focuses on trans stuff and our site has a large amount of information about various topics related to genderqueer issues including information on GID, gender identity, community, and various resources.
-thanks
[ http://www.uc.edu/groups/GenderBloc GenderBloc] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jakku Ari (talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I applaud the group's work and activities the inclusion in this article doesn't seem to add anything to the present article. If GenderBloc is notable enough perhaps starting an article of it's very own would be more appropriate. See also the discussion about external links clean-u above as there might be a place to be listed in those options. Benjiboi 06:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Link 

message: Removed old talk to /Archive_01. Includes all unsigned comments and of course YATVT (Yet another Transgender versus Transsexual) debate  AlexR 11:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: The very last paragraph under this heading is a bit argumentative. I didn't want to delete it myself bu felt it should be addressed. The part I'm getting at is the whole "biological determinism" and everything after the use of that phrase. It's an obvious bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiyae (talk • contribs) 09:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please post the section you think needs work here and offer any alternatives. Benjiboi 11:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transgender and Criticism 

message: This section is load of random comments which have no references and cannot be verifiable.
A transvestite is someone who cross-dresses, but transvestic fetishism is a medical term for someone with a fetish for cross-dressing.
''
To prevent confusion, the term "transvestite" has been rejected in favor of "cross-dresser.''
Transvestic fetishism has been considered a derogatory term, as it implies a hierarchy in which the sexual element of transgender behavior is of low social value.
It is often difficult to distinguish between a fetish for cross-dressing, and transgender behaviour that includes sexual play.''
Who said all this? Please... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MalikaTG (talk • contribs) 00:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went through it and cited it. NatalyaAF, I believe your concerns were that transvestic fetishism is fetishistic and intermittent and should be differentiated as such from other categories. AliceJMarkham, I believe that you had similar concerns but I need to point out that your proposed solution of putting "Transvestic fetishism" in a separate section resulted in "Transvestic fetishism" appearing as a transgender identity in the contents list, which was probably not what you intended. I have reworded the entry accordingly and placed sufficient citations to justify removal of the "disputed" tag. I believe the reworded and fully cited version addresses your concerns. Kind regards, Anameofmyveryown 06:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Much better. I approve. :) --AliceJMarkham 14:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Transvestite 

message: I cleaned it up.  I deleted the last two lines and re-wrote the first.
Someone should check it to see whether it's okay now or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NatalyaAF (talk • contribs) 08:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went through it and cited it. NatalyaAF, I believe your concerns were that transvestic fetishism is fetishistic and intermittent and should be differentiated as such from other categories. AliceJMarkham, I believe that you had similar concerns but I need to point out that your proposed solution of putting "Transvestic fetishism" in a separate section resulted in "Transvestic fetishism" appearing as a transgender identity in the contents list, which was probably not what you intended. I have reworded the entry accordingly and placed sufficient citations to justify removal of the "disputed" tag. I believe the reworded and fully cited version addresses your concerns. Kind regards, Anameofmyveryown 06:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Much better. I approve. :) --AliceJMarkham 14:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is another Edit by NatalyaAF

message: So that's it: gotta go. I have 2hrs 54mins before my unlimited Internet access expires, and my usefulness to Wikipedia drops dramatically. I have been on Wikipedia for approx 6 months, and in that time I have worked on this article, the 2007 United Kingdom floods, the 2007 South Asian floods, the European Parliament election, 2004 and :Template:Location map Scotland - if nothing else, it's an eclectic mix. It hasn't been fun (there are only so many pictures of mothers scrabbling through the mud of their wrecked Bangladeshi village you can see before wanting to throw up), but it has been rewarding. God alone knows how many cites I've added, but it's gotta be in the 100's. I have attempted to do my best by this article, and I have followed a policy of quoting like crazy in the citations so that those who cannot access the sites can at least see I wasn't lying: if nothing else, it deters vandalism. I have 7-10 days of limited Internet access left, but after that it'll take me six-12 months before I can get back to speed and it won't be easy (JSTOR costs!), but I will try. If/when I return, I will try to bring an article up to FA status, or at least GA (FA is hard). I would like to try with this one (it has to have hit B-class by now), if you'll permit me - if nothing else, it has to be better than wading through a table of EU election results which somebody put "this table is derived from official figures" without saying which official figures, and how they are derived (there were 25 countries in the EU in 2004, the archive results are in Spanish, and I no hablas espanol. Ouch!)
2hrs 29 mins left, so better cut this short. I was working on a fine valediction (you'd have liked it: it had puns!), but nahhh, short is good. So I'll leave you with this.
Benjiboi, if you switch between the plural ("drag artists") and the singular ("is") in the same sentenceone more time, I will go back in time and prevent your grandparents from meeting.
See ya in 2008, Anameofmyveryown 06:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valediction...for now 

message: I notice that a lot of images have added to this article recentlyall of them photographs from LGBT pride parades. While this was certainly in good intentions, I think it would be better to have a more diverse selection of images, and also in positions where each image is relevant to the adjacent text. --krimpet⟲ 05:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it! Benjiboi 05:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I note we also have the problem that all of the photos depicting individuals are of transgender women. - Montréalais 05:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, feminine or otherwise somewhat sexualized, at that. How typical a view of women - trans or not. Maybe a historical or notable person would be more appropriate? Karenmny 09:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I noticed that in 'Identities', the listing of the categories is uncited. This leaves me wondering: Is this a scientifical statement at all? Who else, besides the transgender organisations, which are hardly unbiased sources, supports the view that all these categories belong to transgender? 89.182.72.73 21:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I now checked cross-dressing, and found this (sourced!) definition: "Cross-dressing is the act of wearing clothing commonly associated with another gender within a particular society." Now, this definition fits everybody who once, for what reason at all, wore clothings of the other gender, for instance many actors or totally average guys who, for instance, dressed as a witch at carnival. And per 'Identities' here, those people are transgenders. Don't you have to agree that this broad definition is total nonsense? And since I now am supposed to be, to my huge surprise, a member of the transgender community, I urgently demand to know who is responsible for this idiocy! Where is the source for this 'definition'???89.182.72.73 21:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously not all cross-dressing implies transgenderism, but in some cases it may, and there is an overlap. It does say "Cross-dressers may not identify with, or want to be the opposite gender, nor adopt the behaviors or practices of the opposite gender, and generally do not want to change their bodies medically.", which seems to make this clear. As for scientific definitions, of course they should be included if they exist, but I presume "transgender" is a word used in more contexts than just scientific ones (but as you say, sources would be good). Mdwh 10:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I doubt there is a "scientific" article to show that all cross-dressers are transgender and to prove the umbrella-ness of the term transgender. That is a literary or linguistic argument that has yet to be resolved. Essentially the definitions of words need to evolve significantly and be generally accepted by people. From this, it is important that the trans community not only define themselves well, but explain their definitions well and propogate the ideas. Therefore if a majority of trans groups agree to the definition we should list it as the definition to encourage assimilation in society which will result in wide-spread acceptance. Did everyone get that? (Kiyae 00:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and good luck getting the meeting going on all that! Benjiboi 03:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Therefore if a majority of trans groups agree to the definition we should list it as the definition to encourage assimilation in society which will result in wide-spread acceptance." Firstly, what definition? That everybody is a "cross-dresser" who once dressed like a member of the other gender, for whatever reason, even if it was a single incident? Sry, but by this definition, hundreds of millions would be 'cross-dressers', without their approval. Even if you could show a majority of transgender groups supporting this view (this would be difficult, is there a comprehensive list of those groups, and how do you weigh them? By counting their members?), they would still not be representative of this large group of 'single-instance cross-dressing' heterosexuals. And, don't forget, T groups are hardly an unbiased source regarding this issue. They have an interest in boosting the number of people they allegedly represent in order to increase their standing. This raises questions about NPOV. That's why I spend a lot of time looking for a good definition by an expert, and Gilbert,as a professor of Philosophy who specialized on gender and transgender issues, publishing in 'The Journal of Transgenderism', was the best I could find. If you don't like his definition, look for another one by someone with a similar qualification, and let's discuss this here. 89.182.93.50 10:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote in question was referring to cross-dressing, not what does or doesn't make someone a cross-dresser. Even if it was, what does it matter if the person in question doesn't identify with the label? You don't have to identify with "golfer," but if you habitually golf, it still applies to you. Of course, whether a single instance of cross-dressing is enough to make someone a cross-dresser is debatable. I would say no, the same way I wouldn't refer to someone as a golfer for having randomly golfed at one point in their life. Greta (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Another point: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool "to encourage assimilation in society" and to support "wide-spread acceptance"! These are important issues, but WP can't take a stand. 89.182.93.50 10:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identities 

message: Having cross-dressed once, for whatever reason, doesn't make a person a cross dresser. This should be self-evident, and an article in "The International Journal of Transgenderism" supports this view:
"Another group that may be excluded by the BVD test can be those female impersonators who look upon dressing as solely connected to their livelihood, actors undertaking roles, individual males and females enjoying a masquerade, and so on. These individuals are cross dressing but are not cross dressers."
http://www.symposion.com/ijt/gilbert/gilbert.htm
What's needed here is a new article on Cross-Dressers that gives a clear and scientific definition, mirroring the predominant scientific view. Also, the overly broad definition that is now given under 'Identities' here obfuscates thew issue and should be revised. 89.182.0.102 10:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading further in The Journal of Transgenderism, which features numerous articles by renowned experts in the field, I have found not a single instance so far where the overly broad definition is supported. Here's just one of the countless statements on the definition of Transgenderism: "Transgenderism as it is now defined includes a significant part of the population, including many who can also be classed as gay or lesbian, as well as transsexuals, individuals who have gone public in their transgender persona, others who belong to the various clubs and organizations, and thousands who have not yet admitted to anyone other than their spouse or significant other that they have some transgender characteristics." http://www.symposion.com/ijt/gilbert/bullough.htm Professor Bullough clearly states here that transgenderism copes with perons having "transgender characteristics". Nothing in this definition can be interpreted as supporting the view that a single instance of cross dressing necessarily is evidence for the presence of such a characteristic. Actors, for instance, are obviously not transgender perons under this definition. 89.182.0.102 10:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I see you (or someone else?) restored the link, but designated it as "see also". This is a much better solution, sry that I didn't have that idea. I'm checking the discussion on "cross-dressing" now again, I already did that before, but didn't find the relevant part.  Thx for quoting it here, this clears up the picture. I support the view that the motives (including the unconscious ones) and the habit is important. This should be included in the explanation in an appropriate form. Maybe there is a good quote somewhere by a renowned source. 89.182.0.102 11:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I found the quote in the article. And, yes, imho it's appropriate to keep readers from confusing Cross-Dressing and Cross-Dressers. But the definition here still needs a revision. Sadly, I haven't found a good definition in a short form anywhere yet. Even the Experts seem to shy away from giving a clear description of the main points. :-( 89.182.0.102 13:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, added the definition of Gilbert, even though not fully satisfactory it is still the best one I found so far. I tried my best, had some difficulties with formating the source, so there is still plenty room for improvements by other editors. A nice side-effect: Since Gilbert makes it clear that artists who are cross dressing for professional purposes only are not cross-dressers, the definition of Drag Queens now makes some sense. Before, it was questionable why they were not included in cross-dressers. Again, I tried my vcery best, pls correct if I made mistakes. 89.182.0.102 14:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I appreciate your input, and your desire to improve this article, I would like to note to you something of a bit of ettiquette, it is generally considered bad form to edit a post beyond a strikethrough, and that each separate instance of a comment should be separated in the talk pages.  This allows one to see the entire history of the talk, and unless the meaning is so absolutely impaired by a grammatical error, we get your point, and this page need not be of publisher quality.  So, if you would not mind, simply live with typos, and grammar mistakes in your own and other's works, as this is an informal argument about improving the main article. Thanks so much for your understanding. --Puellanivis 21:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sry, but my understanding was that postings shouldn't be altered anymore AFTER someone else answered. As you can see from the timestamps, there hasn't been much of a discussion here :-( As  you also can see here and in history, the instances are separated, with two exceptions: The first came from an edit conflict, when I was still amending the posting, and the second one I totally deleted because it was only based on a dumb misunderstanding by me. Sry if those two mess ups confused history a bit. I try to stick to the rules, but, the point is, I don't know the rules very well. OH, and I NEVER edit the talk postings of others. Or did I, by accident? 89.182.0.102 21:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if it came across as condescending, I didn't mean it to be, I was simply attempting to address a point of etiquette that you didn't seem to be aware of.  :( Sorry if it sounded like I bit your head off, and I take my medicine :( --Puellanivis 07:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem! It was just that I was a bit surprised, because I really tried to do a good job here. But you were right, my back-and-forth posting on this talkpage must have been somewhat confusing. Maybe you know how it is, when enthusiasm gets you, you don't care as much about details. So, no damage done, and thx for weighing in. Oh, and looking at your userpage, it seems to me weboth share the same two main languages, but you seem to do better with English than me. Is my edit at 'Cross-dresser' ok? I make quite a lot of mistakes at grammar... 89.182.77.205 10:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-Dressing vs. Cross-Dresser 

message: This article claims there are countless historical examples of transgendered people yet provides no reference, should the claim be removed without proof or else provide a reference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.218.228.176 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical examples 

message: This article is very much written without a neutral point of view. First example, the section headed as "Criticism" implies physical attacks (i.e. similar to "gay bashing"), lack of understanding, and bias. It goes on to attack mental health professionals, stating that people who identify themselves as transgendered are often educating mental health professionals. The bias indicates that the medical and health care community "has it wrong" and that the only accepted point of view is that "transgendered" is natural and has only natural cause. If anything, the situation is far more complex, with there being multiple causes and the descriptions of the health care profession being absolutely clueless is biased, wrong, and harmful in that it will dissuade people from counseling and professional assistance in favor of community. This article packs a lot of information, but needs to be taken back a step and have the issue analyzed from an neutral point of view, point out the current state of (varying) opinion of the scientific community profession, and what the theorized causes are in total. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.144.99 (talk) 12:18, February 8, 2008
:I think you raise some valid issues regarding the "Criticism" section.  I personally disagree with criticism sections, but I will move the NPOV tag from the top of the article to that section until some more involved editors can address your concerns.  --David Shankbone 18:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you at least for letting it stand for another 2 minutes. I see the editor has come by to join the discussion. His total contribution to the discussion was to say "I think it is neutral" and to tell me to get an account. I won't get an account because it's basically a waste of time to contribute, as the way this was handled indicates. I was given no more than 2 minutes to justify my NPOV tag before it was reverted, and this revert was done while I was attempting to discuss it as per Wikipedia rules. My rolling back of the NPOV tag was then undone by an editor moments after I put it back on. Instead of discussing the challenge, or addressing my points, the editor said "I think it is neutral." To me the above just further illustrates the bias. One cannot actually even discuss it, let alone challenge the neutrality. There is no way that an editor fully read this article in light of my criticisms within the short time before my NPOV tag was reverted. Given that, future discussion on the points is a waste of time. You have my point of view, you will ignore it, end of discussion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.144.99 (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I worked on the Characterization as a Lifestyle section for a long time, but in the end I just deleted it. Can someone find a source that criticizes and defines what "trans lifestyle" is? I find myself unable to articulate and defend this idea when I can't comprehend it. Certainly a trans lifestyle exists, but are there really people saying that trans people should repress their gender by repressing how they want to live? I'm not sure this criticism is separable from the criticism that transness is a disorder, in which case they should be explained together. --Ephilei (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, somebody went and messd it up again. Instead of fixing it this time I'll just tag it. Look, if you're going to defend the POV in a section then fucking defend it. Don't just blindly revert without so much as an edit summary. — NRen2k5(TALK), 14:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV - Criticism section 

message: Specifically, from the NPOV page:
"Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority."
Now I recognize that a site specifically about a minority will have more focus on that minorities viewpoints, my specific problem is with the criticisms section of this page.  Significantly more text is deveoted to rebuttals to the criticisms than to the criticisms themselves, exposing the undercurrent of bias from the author.
Something needs done.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.86.139 (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an encyclopedia in the days of the Bible were to be printed and say that Leprosy is caused by a disease that is not the person's fault, it would get censured and likely burned.  The prevailing knowledge at the time (and still in many undercivilized countries) is that Leprosy is an affliction given divinely to someone who has committed a serious and grave sin/wrong.  The criticism available against transgender at this time represents the exact same view of Leprosy as a divine punishment.  The majority view of the medical community is that transgenderism, and transsexualism are quite rare, but normal, and not caused by an individual's personal choice.  If you're talking about a condition that purports to have a medical basis, then the medical opinion matters, not the uninformed opinion.  I really don't think there is creditability at all in presenting any argument from an opinion based on uninformed prejudgement, which is the majority of transgender criticism today. --Puellanivis (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually that entire section, to me, seems rather well-written and exceeding my expectations for articles. Is there a particular criticism that needs a fuller explanation? Benjiboi 11:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It goes against the manual of styles for wiki, and it's not the trans community's role to make things less confusing to you. Snapdragonfly (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some hints at NPOV 

message: The site in question is registered to one Anne McLoughlin in Dublin, IE. (Proof) — NRen2k5(TALK), 04:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained change 

message: There is a need to present an over-view of the transition process.  People who live or work with someone who is transitioning should be able to see what the process comprises, where the transperson is in the process and what is still to come.
Various aspects would need to be represented in more than one time-map.  Aspects aimed at a particular audience or for a particular purpose could be grouped on one time-map.  Topics for time-maps could be: Self-discovery and self-acceptance, Coming-out at work, Transitioning with family, etc.  Aspects would include: Emotional issues, relationships, hormonal issues, physical and surgical issues, medical issues, legal issues, etc.
Please comment and suggest.
TranWen (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd be interested to read such an overview. The Transitioning article is quite brief and vague at the moment, and might be a good place to start. If you can get objective ranges for timescales that'd be really good. Pseudomonas(talk) 12:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trans time-line or time-map 

message: This may be a question that's best posted elsewhere, but here goes.  
Is it really appropriate to describe third genders that exist in non-Western cultures as instances of transgender?  If, for example, Indian culture contains three genders (male, female, and hjira), then a hjira is living in her culturally ascribed gender, one which doesn't map cleanly onto Western conceptions of "male" or "female".  It would seem that, logically, to live in a culturally established third gender is basically the antithesis of transgender, as the behaviour is no transgression of gender roles within the relevant cultural context, but rather a full enactment of them. 
I guess what I'm wondering is whether labelling non-Western cultures' third genders as "transgender" represents an inappropriate imposition of Western frames of reference on a cultural phenomenon that can only be correctly understood within a frame of reference derived from the relevant cultural context.  If so, then to describe third genders as expressions of transgender may darken understanding of both the third gender under consideration and third genders in general, and may be as much a gross and simplistic distortion as to describe third genders (or for that matter transgender) as expressions of homosexuality.  And it would seem to me that darkening and distortion of understanding would be something an encyclopedia would like to avoid.
Don't want no OR here;  I'm certain that there is good, sourceable writing out there around this subject.  It just seems to me a question worth raising.  --7Kim (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Question Concerning Third Genders and Transgender 

message: :"Anne Lawrence, a physician and sexologist who is openly transsexual...".
:Why is this relevant? Any relevance is not explained, only implied. forestPIG 20:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anne Lawrence 

message: ...trans <L, combination form meaning across, beyond, through] and [gender <ME <MF gendre, genre <L gener- meaning kind or sort]
it is totally confusing. Thanks.  NPOV-V-NOR 22:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The etymology is correct, but I can see your point. In English, "gender" has come to mean self-conceptualization as male or female and is used to make a distinction from biological sex. Historically, though, the word means "kind or sort" and it is in this sense that linguists speak of grammatical gender. As the article is written, however, I think the modern English meaning is made pretty clear. TechBear (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was clear, I wouldn't ask for clarification! ;-)  NPOV-V-NOR 18:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  please someone clarify this 

message: This article is very one sided. It does not reflect the diversity of opinions, and when it presents any criticism of modern gender philosophy it immediately discounts it and dismisses it. I think it is comprimising the integrity of Wikipedia and needs an overhaul. The criticism section should be integrated into the main body of the article and the blatant negations of opinions contrary to those popular in the GLBT community should be deleted. Let the criticisms stand on their own and let the public decide.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.119.160 (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have specific proposals?  Like, you kind of need to explain how it's an umbrella term because that's kind of what it is.  What would be the plan?  Like, weave criticisms of each sub-identity into each of their descriptions without doing NPOV attribution of the stuff as a oppositional perspective to be contrasted with a non-stigmatizing perspective?  Or, yeah, can you give an example instead of a general complaint?  -SemiAnonymous 14:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Objectivity questioned 

message: The image :Image:Tipton portrait.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with Image:Tipton portrait.jpg 

message: In my studies I have come across these two characters. Out of my curiosity, does anyone know the difference (in terms of meaning, not obvious looks)? -PatPeter 04:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I found it, the first one refers to transgender individuals, the other hermaphrodites. -PatPeter 23:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  i just gotta say, i don't think there really is any sort of formal definition/distinction between the two.  ⚧ seems far more common among the trans community (to denote transgender, intersexed, and all other individuals that might not fit the standard gender binary).  I rarely see ⚥  used much of anywhere, frankly.Rootneg2 (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

text: While agreeing with Rootneg2, I would add that the latter image, ⚧, includes a "leg" that encompasses both the male and female symbol, i.e. including a third gender, bigender, genderqueer, or other trans identity that actively incorporates/presents elements of both genders, whereas many transmen would only actively identify/present as men, or transwomen as women.  This distinction (or rather additional inclusion) is important as it challenges the now-defunct notion that transgender people are always and simply a man in a woman's body or vice versa.  -Sean, a bigender wiki user without an account! 03 November 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.216.226 (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I've never seen ⚥, but I frequently see ⚧ used for transgender people.  The latter symbol currently redirects to hermaphrodite - should it go to transgender instead?  Or perhaps to LGBT symbols#Transgender symbols?  Ideally, there should be an article on the symbol itself... --Alynna (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between [[⚥|<span style="font-size:xx-large;">⚥</span>]] and [[⚧|<span style="font-size:xx-large;">⚧</span>]] 

message: I noticed that the transgender article uses the same main photo as the transexual article. I suggest using a different one, maybe the one of Billy Tipton or the Civil War soldier photo. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=transgender+psychology&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en
--222.64.29.80 (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much by definition, links in "See Also" should lead to articles that can be read. Links to non-existent articles is pointless, so I've removed what you added. When those wiki articles are written, then you can readd the links. TechBear (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The proper procedure is to register as an editor, create the links on your own page, use those red-links to write the articles, then link to the articles from elsewhere. Red links should be avoided in an active article, and should not be added at all to a "See Also" section. TechBear (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I also wanted to add that the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and has policies of using verifiable, reliable sources, excluding original research and mimizing emphasis on fringe theories. Please keep these policies in mind when you edit the Wikipedia and write new articles. TechBear (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red link are created based on the following... 

message: This edit claims that transgender identity got removed from the list of mental disorder only recently. This contradicts Gender identity disorder#Controversy. The way I read it, Le Mondé just repeated some older news yesterday (compare  vs. ). However, I am not sure, could somebody who actually knows French help?--87.183.241.220 (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status in France 

message: See the discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Transgender_sexuality_article. A.A.Graff (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion 

message: Hi,
According to Wikipedea, Virgina Prince coined the name transgender, as a term for cross dressers,Please re check your references.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.0.144 (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong terminology 

message: The Bible verses cited are unclear on a number of levels. First, practically speaking, the links each lead to the first chapter of the cited book in the King James Version. That makes them effectively useless. When I went to edit the section, I saw the verse numbers are included in the source code, but apparently either the wrong Bible-citation template is being used, or it is being used incorrectly. I am not up-to-date on the current discussion on Bible citation templates but perhaps (for now at least)  should replace .
Second, the verses listed as potentially supportive of transgender need explanation. To those unfamiliar with whatever scholarship may have been done on this issue, they may seem vague at best to irrelevant at worst. It would be better to cite a secondary source from a theologian drawing support from those verses. I know there is a secondary article specifically for religion and transgender, but the summary present in this article should nevertheless be clear, if not detailed.
--Ginkgo100talk 14:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on religious views 

message: This section starts by preaching treatment, then switches to lambasting those that aim to 'cure' the transgendered. Neither POV is properly attributed, and the statements about Zucker's motives only come from activist sites. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in mental health section 

message: The section on religion needs to reflect that Christianity as a faith generally condemns lady men and the like. There are some Protestant denominations that have probably decided to tolerate such behavior but they're not of comparable following with more traditional denominations. K. the Surveyor (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity 

message: The section on religion needs to reflect that Christianity as a faith generally condemns lady men and the like. There are some Protestant denominations that have probably decided to tolerate such behavior but they're not of comparable following with more traditional denominations. K. the Surveyor (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity 

message: The section on religion needs to reflect that Christianity as a faith generally condemns lady men and the like. There are some Protestant denominations that have probably decided to tolerate such behavior but they're not of comparable following with more traditional denominations. K. the Surveyor (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity