This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Combined references
Language of Article
In the Academic Use section, someone has place the sentence "The term is also used by some psychologists to refer specifically to male-to-female transsexual people who have transitioned to female at least cosmetically, such as with breast augmentation, but have not undergone genital surgery."
I believe this sentence can cause confusion in the reader. It seems to me that many, if not most so-called transexuals, are people whose surgery has been "cosmetic." Exceptions would be those who whose surgery has been done in order to improve urinary function, for those people who have malformed genitals, or injured genitals, or whose surgery has been done to improve sexual functioning, for those people who are intersexed and have ambiguous genitalia, or who have injured genitals.
That is, their surgery has not actually changed their sex: they are still the same sex because they still have the same chromosome set in each cell. Therefore this is cosmetic surgery in many cases, and not surgery to improve functioning.
You might argue that hormone therapy has changed someone's sex more than cosmetically, since hormone therapy affects their functioning on a cellular level, in addition to affecting their superficial appearance, but surgery by itself only produces cosmetic changes. Nomenclator (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've revised that sentence to reflect your suggestion. Jokestress (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the sentence is confusing, and I'm okay with the edit, but I respectfully disagree with your statements about the cosmetic/functional boundary, and I want to caution you on your tone (e.g., "so-called transexuals").
- First off, I don't think that there is a clear line to be drawn between functional and cosmetic surgeries. "Top" surgeries (breast enhancement or removal) could be described as cosmetic, but it also serves a very strong function for reducing gender dysphoria, both directly and indirectly (i.e., by making the person's body more in line with their identity and by encouraging others to identify them with the gender with which they self-identify). "Bottom" surgeries (genital surgery) are often done to improve sexual functioning, as the person using the genitals is not able to use them sexually without dysphoria.
- I'd also like to point out some errors in your argument which I would like you to address:
- • "...still the same sex because they still have the same chromosome set in each cell." It is not the case that chromosome sets determine sex, additionally, it doesn't matter if there is sex-chromosome variety in a single person's cells. Specific humans may be described as "chromosomally male" or "chromosomally female" without being male or female. "Sex" does not necessarily mean "chromosomal sex." There are many examples, but XY gonadal dysgenesis should be enough for now. There is an argument to be made that "sexual reassignment surgery" is a misnomer, and that it should be something like "what-pronoun-people-use-when-they-can-only-see-your-groin-reassignment surgery," but this article is not the place to change that.
- • "Therefore this is cosmetic surgery in many cases, and not surgery to improve functioning." This is a non sequiter; your conclusion does not follow your reasoning. Just because a surgery does not reassign chromosomal sex does not mean it is cosmetic surgery, and does not mean it doesn't improve functioning. Note that surgeries can have cosmetic components (which just means that they affect the way you look) without being cosmetic surgery. Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Though you are correct, this is not a forum for enlightening editors about human sexual diversity. You are welcome to have a discussion on your respective talk pages. Also agree that Nomenclator's tone is unfortunate, which can also be discussed via User talk or more serious remedies. Jokestress (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't see what is wrong with my tone. I respect the right of any adult to do anything they want, to their own body. That is all I feel obligated to convey, in my tone. I think that "transsexual" is a misnomer. I would remind you that a male who has his testicles removed and has his scrotum used to construct labia, etcetera, and who take female hormones, does not have a uterus, fallopian tubes. The question is what makes someone a female? Is it their chromosomes and genes, their physiology, their hormones, the presence of gonads in the abdominal cavity as opposed to outside the abdominal cavity, the kind of hormones produced by their gonads, without regard to their location, the presence of a uterus or not? I'm simply arguing that genetics is the defining factor. That's my opinion. You can hold another opinion if you want. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong with my tone.And who cares about my tone, anyway? What is important is what I denote. Connotation is subject to wide interpretation; denotation is interpreted more narrowly, more precisely, more usefully. Denotation can be clear, but it is not always clear whether connotation is a result of the way an individual wrote something, or of the way an individual reads it, given their background and amount and kind of knowledge of the reader. One reader may see one connotation, one another. A writer can often succeed in providing everyone with nearly the same denotation but can less often succeed in providing everyone with the same connotation as everyone else.Nomenclator (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
She Male Transformation Theory
The article might have included more topics relevant to the she male state, its physiological basis, and its history and politics.
Transformation from a male to a she-male lady with both breasts and male genitals may come about merely by absorbing the right strokes in a stirring human passion sequence, repeatedly, over a period of time. There are also popular nutraceutical and pharmaceutical aids to she-male transformation. Inverse transformation seems to be possible with exercise, assuming the testicles are not removed, or if one has testosterone or DHEA supplements at hand.
What is sometimes overlooked is that stirring human passion may continue until the penis is transformed into a vagina, which may happen before or after the lady gets pregnant. Unless she males desire to bear, they may prefer to limit the volume of sexual activity so that the penis remains, unless (for instance) their dread of being drafted as males at war leads them to prefer a completely female style. This may happen even when prophylactics are used to block pregnancy. In other words, she males may be quite difficult to distinguish from women, althout the karyotype seems not to be XX, but XY or XYY.
There are also pharmaceutical aids and procedures for arresting transformation phenomena with medicines, preventing pregancy with ovulation inhibitors, and preventing undesirable side-effects such as HPV warts with HPV inhibitors. Adenocarcinoma should also be inhibited with medicines or blockers such as prophylactics.
Ladies and gentlemen as parents must face the dillemas of infant extraction.
I think for she male ladies the best choice may be C-section under general anethesia. Then with elevated testosterone or exercise, the penis may come down and recover without being enlarged, particularly. I get the impression that specific uterine material must be removed properly in order for the lady to get back into a corset with a slim waist and a scar that might be removed with scar cream. Infant extraction from she male hips may involve episiotomy cuts that are worrisome, and the hips may break, after which they may heal properly with correct handling. She male children may exhibit the XYY karyotype, which leads to more male children being born than female children. Eventually, this can lead to a situation in which an entire tribe or nation is really all male at birth, finally, composed entirely XYY karyotype ladies (she males) and XYY gentlemen, which in some territories becomes entirely XYY karyotype ladies or visibly entirely men, with ladies hidden away. There are many variants and mixtures that have been observed in Indian tribes and various nations. I get the impression that territories east of the Danube featured more she males, including USSR territories. Indeed the term "USSR" suggests busty endowment with the "SS" being put into place by "UR" activity, as Lenin must have known, although in RuSSia we found "CCCP", resembling necktie bait. On the western side of the Danube river, men struggled rather more to obtain children from conventional XX karytype women and less from XYY or XY karyotype she males, partly because of possible loss of consort in difficult childbirth and transformation anxiety, or a desire not to allow the XX karyotype women to vanish, leaving one with no Old Time women. Whispering artifacts built into the words of languages reflect the history of communications concerning the matter, as do visual heiroglyphic formations in words such as the busty "SS" heiroglypic or "eo" and "oe" glyphs connected to reflexive winks of male and female types in English. In the USA, ladies and gentlemen have mostly peacefully coexisted with men and women, although some states made sodomy illegal, which was a barrier to transformation requiring an elopement or a marriage in another state of the Union. The supreme court opinion recently was in favor of relative liberty in the matter, and more states have been dropping sodomy laws. The political history of reproduction from males and inherent limits in reproduction from males due to physiology and how these may be overcome by multiplet technique and state support for mothers (who may affect a male professorial air) also are gradually becoming apparent to students of Internet. Indian tribes have joined other indian tribes in history to recover from the dillema of bearing children from males, when that is considered preferable. There seem to have been historic cases in which women were sufficiently distrusted to motivate males to flee to the alternative, however. Also, women have fled from men to safer ground when war was impending, leaving men to satisfy themselves as they may in the meantime, which may finally lead to rolling your own. Men or women may make affairs so difficult for men that they become tabboo or even repulsive and ghastly, which also leads to more togetherness between males. This might come about by requiring women to reproduce vastly to improve the volume of troops available for warfare when warfare is unpopular. I might add that even soldierly-looking males can be found in pregnant condition.
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Male+Pregnancy .
See http://greenray4ever.com/lifexnotes6.html. JamesAGreen (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- The reason that this article does not contain discussion of what you are describing is that what you are describing is not based on reality, but is an amalgam of various fetish depictions from the Internet.
- I am sorry to have to tell you this, because it seems like you genuinely believe that what you describe is true.
- The article that you cite does not come close to being an appropriate source. If you have more appropriate sources, feel free to share them.
- Please do not make edits to the article based on the material that you are suggesting; I will revert them until you can get a consensus here that they are reality-based. Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Really?
" the term emphasizes the biological sex of a person and neglects their gender. "
Sex and gender are synonymous. I thought Wikipedia was a neutral and unbiased source of information! Here you are displaying a bias towards that absurd "gender theory" nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.218.192 (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Labeling the term a "slur" throughout article, straying from the sources, etc.
An IP came along to change the article's material from its neutral state of recognizing that the term is simply a categorization in sex work (a categorization that some transgender or transsexual-identified people embrace, and some people who work as "she-males" but do not identify as transgender embrace as well) while others consider the term offensive/derogatory. The IP changed "term" to "slur" throughout, misrepresented sources, etc. I reverted (followup edit here), stating, "Revert. Non-neutral and straying from the sources. The term is mainly used in pornography, and it's not used there as a slur. We already note well enough in the article that the term is considered a slur/offensive by LGBT people.other people. [...] WP:Dummy edit: I meant 'sex work' more so than I did 'pornography.' My point is that it's a category more than it is a slur in sex work. It can be a slur regardless (including in sex work), but we already note this." I gave the IP a warning. The showed up again, stating, "moved GLAAD quote to the first paragraph and fixed its citation. slight terminology fixes (transwomen to trans women, 'male-to-female transsexual people' to trans women) added a link to the TERF wikipedia page, & time period to medical section for context)." I reverted again, stating, "This is NOT what the sources state. STOP YOUR POV editing."
My issue is clear: This term is offensive to many, especially to transgender people. That stated, as noted in the "Connotations" section of the article, it is also embraced by some transgender people who work in sex work and by those in sex work do not identify as trans/transgender. In sex work, the term is simply a category, usually without the intention of being a slur. It's also a term that has been used by some researchers who seemingly did not consider it a slur (at the time at least). So I do not think we simply categorize the term as a slur. Many LGBT are offended by the term queer, while many other LGBT have embraced the term queer; we cover both sides in the Queer article. It's neutral. This article should be as neutral as it can be as well.
Jim1138, Oshwah and Materialscientist (a few editors seen on the latest page in the edit history), any opinions on this? I would want to hear from RobinHood70, but I just saw that RobinHood70 retired earlier this year, which explains why the IP's second edit stood for a day. Rivertorch/Rivertorch's Evil Twin, as a number of people know, you edit LGBT topics. Do you have any opinion on this? Trystan, TechBear and EvergreenFir, since you all edit the Queer article and other LGBT articles, do you have any opinions on this? I will contact the IP again to let the IP know that I have started a discussion here on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- If I'm going to be dragged into this.... It is frequently used as a slur. Some of my trans* friends get called this regularly. It has been used as a slur on diverse television programs, from Family Guy to L&O:SVU. Trying to limit this article ONLY to the context of sex work is not neutral and thus is a violation of Wikipedia policy and practice. I've never looked at this article before, but now that I have, I think more consideration should be given to the experience of people who are targeted by the word, as that is probably far more common than you might think. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- TechBear, thanks for weighing in. I am well aware that the term is frequently used as a slur. The article is also clear about that. I have not argued that we should limit this article ONLY to the context of sex work. The article is not limited in that way. Like I just told the IP on the IP's talk page: "IP, we are supposed to go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. WP:Due weight is a part of the WP:Neutral policy. Yes, many transgender people consider shemale a slur; other transgender people, especially those in sex work, embrace the term. In sex work, the term is simply a category, usually without any intention of being a slur. And regardless of your feelings about the term transsexual, the terms transgender and transsexual are not always used interchangeably. Some people you would categorize as transgender do not identify as transgender, but rather as transsexual. The term transsexual is not offensive to all, as made clear in the Transgender and Transsexual articles, and in past discussions on those talk pages. And when sources state "transsexual," that is usually what they mean, and we should usually follow their lead, not change the term to "transgender," which, these days, is commonly used as an umbrella term for all gender-nonconforming people. All of this is why I've had issues with your edits to the Shemale article." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's also important to me, for any Wikipedia article, that we use the LGBT term that the person identifies with. This is why I just changed the Kate Bornstein mention from "transsexual" to "gender non-conforming." The IP, as seen in the IP's contributions, dislikes the term transsexual, but we should be sticking to what the sources state and/or self-identification (per MOS:IDENTITY). The Relationship of transsexual to transgender section of the Transsexual article addresses the transgender vs. transsexual matter. And, as noted, so does the Transgender article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am naive on the matter. I don't believe I have heard the word spoken: TV and films included. If a word was considered offensive to one group and embraced by another only discussing one case might be offensive to the other group. i.e saying a word is a slur being offensive to the group that embraced the word. So, I think context important here and that both cases be discussed - embrace and slur. Jim1138 (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- The only context where I recall ever seeing the term was in porn, years ago, so I have essentially zero personal knowledge of it. From my position of blissful ignorance, I'll say this much: I think Flyer's insistence on following the sources is perfectly correct at present, but I think that if TechBear is right about its frequency of use as a slur, then the article's weight absolutely should be shifted to reflect that. Obviously, finding the sources comes before changing the article, and since the IP's edits are disputed they need to join the discussion here and achieve consensus before attempting more changes of the kind. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for commenting, Jim1138 and Rivertorch's Evil Twin. I agree with your statements about how the article should be formatted. It covers both the slur and sex category aspects. If we give one aspect more weight than the other, then this should be based on the how the term is covered in the literature. I am very open to examining the literature and weighing the sources with regard to both aspects of the terminology. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Another thing: There's this comment in the Connotations section: "Chloe Rounsley said, 'She-males are men, often involved in prostitution, pornography, or the adult entertainment business, who have undergone breast augmentation but have maintained their genitalia.'" I have read similar sources in the past, and those sources were usually clearer about the self-identity of the sex workers. Fom those sources, it's clear that some who identify as she-males do not identify as women/trans women. So we should perhaps reword the WP:Lead sentence so that it doesn't limit the term to trans women. I'll look over some sources at a later date. These days, I'm very busy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)