Jump to content

Talk:Transgender

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 09:23, 25 August 2015 (→Basic definition is not correct). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Genderqueer section

Isn't this article a bit outdated? I've seen genderqueer most often being a synonym for non-binary gender identity i.e. everything that is transgender, but not transsexual.

Together with binary transgenders (as is nowadays seen as the increasingly politically correct form to refer to a transsexual, much like the term homosexual was superseded by gay and lesbian), intersex people, and IIRC cisgender people of very nonconformist gender expressions (e.g. transvestites and cross-dressers), they are known as trans* people in online environments like Reddit, Tumblr and Twitter. People generally don't name all the various kinds of the new umbrella term sense of genderqueer when explaining the concept.

Should this article group the narrower sense of genderqueer inside a wider one, making it specific that agender, demigender, intergender-demigender (yep, being not fully neither a thing nor another and not caring a lot about either "side" – but more about your own uniqueness and expression and your shared personhood with all the other people in the world – is kind of a gender identity in itself, isn't it?), intergender (a shared bubble of androgyny as gender), bigender (two or more individual bubbles for each different "genderness"), "third gender" (e.g. hijra, travesti), two-spirited (I think this concept kind of mostly or completely overlaps third gender in an Indigenous North American context, but anyway), genderfluid and maybe gender abolitionist people often identify as this too?

But I think this would also be controversial. Blurred lines between sexual orientation and gender identity while identifying with the gender you were assigned at birth is actually not a very properly transgender thing and thus the original genderqueers seem to be increasingly alienated from this "umbrella term for non-binary gender[ identitie]s" definition.

But of course, I need second opinions, and even more so, I wouldn't do original research about it. A main issue with this article in my opinion, though, is that it does not make a clear defined line between the narrower sense of transgender (solely about gender identity, irrespective of gender expression) and the wider one (part of what is now known as trans* i.e. including those who are cisgender but have a nonconformist gender expression).

I mean, I've even heard that in some places of North America, there is a transgender (transsexual + genderqueer) vs. nonconformist cis (transvestites + cross-dressers) rivalry. Not that I think we should allow coverage for some limited anti-outsider/us vs. them sentiment in some subcultures/communities, but if that's true, then the description of transgender as it is now (one that is not compatible with the views of the community itself about themselves and their defining point) is to some extent problematic. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came back here just to say that I couldn't understand the Genderqueer section as it is, and all of the above comment is just more confusing. If one of the goals of this article is to clearly explain what these politically correct terms actually mean to people outside of these communinities, then it is failing miserably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.21.128 (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the distinction between gender and sex evolving i.e. a "moving target"?

Hi Flyer 22, Thank you for your recent edits in the Transgender vs: Transsexuality section. I just wanted to clarify for you why I tried to remove the "Benjamin material". It seemed to me that that material, which was written approximately 50 years ago, was written before some current distinctions have arisen. I am somewhat new to all of this, and have only an academic interest in it. I have been attempting to understand the terminology being used, and to the best of my understanding, there seems to be an "evolving" phraseology and set of definitions. As best as I can tell, the most current, most widely used, and academically accepted phraseology distinguishes between sex and gender, (and therefore between transsex and transgender) by defining sex as something physical or material, and gender as something essentially psychological. Would you say that is accurate? I look forward to knowing your view on this. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just spent some more hours trying to read up on "current" definitions, and these too seem to me to be somewhat muddled and with no one single definition gaining prominence over all of the others. I give up, and I agree with your edits. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scott P. is referring to these edits that we made: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. He invited me to this discussion. Scott P., I don't have a lot to comment on regarding your query, except to state that it was inappropriate to remove the entire section and replace it with that one view; that's why I reverted you, as noted in that first diff-link shown above. I see that you also noted the interchangeability of the terms at the beginning of the section. While there have been different views expressed on the sex vs. gender topic over the years, I have not seen the evolving distinction between sex and gender that you suggested above. Someone who might be able to help on this matter is EvergreenFir, who has studied gender extensively, possibly more than I have. Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see some attempts by some individuals in the academic, psychiatric and psychological communities to standardize the terminologies, but not yet with any great measure of success. Until then, I suppose we will have to muddle along with whatever it is that we have. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender vs. Transgendered

I note that "Transgendered" redirects to "Transgender". I've encountered people who have very strong opinions on both sides of that question, and it seems to me that picking one side over the other without even a mention that there is a dispute over the terminology seems a little out of character for Wikipedia. I'd at least have expected some kind of mention of the fact that there is a question of terminology to be had there. (Note: I have no actual sources I could cite on that; all I know is that for most of my life everyone I know, including trans people, has said "transgendered", then a year or so back I started encountering tumblr people who were utterly devoted to the eradication of anyone who said that.) So I'm not sure what to do here. But it seems like a redirect over a disputed piece of terminology ought to at least mention why it's a redirect, rather than being a different page, or how the decision of which name was "canonical" was made. Wikiseebs (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article can only have one name, and that's how redirects work. If terminology is disputed it can be mentioned in the article along with the source. Bhny (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Transgendered" is a fake past participle. "Misgendered" is a past participle, because it is the adjective form of the verb "to misgender". For example, a news article might read "The misgendered employee filed a sexual harassment suit". In this case, we understand that the employee was a victim of misgendering. If someone were to write about a "transgendered person", I'd wonder about the mythical process of "transgendering" by which one might "transgender" someone, as if "transgender" were a verb (it isn't). There is no "transgendering" process. Someone is transgender regardless of medical intervention. Not every trans person needs medical treatment for transition. For reference: http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/03/13/a-transgender-manual-of-style/ 108.246.17.225 (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McHugh article

Former Johns Hopkins psychiatric chief Paul Mchugh published an un-paywalled piece in the Wall Street Journal questioning recent political and media treatment of the transgender issue. He concludes:

"Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder."

Among the author's claims:

  • that transgenderism is a mental disorder that "does not correspond to physical reality" and "can lead to grim psychological outcomes", comparable to bulimia, anorexia, and body dysmorphic disorder.
  • that the considerable majority of children reporting transgender feelings subsequently stopped having those feelings when not given medical treatment or sex-reassignment surgery.
  • that after observing results from its pioneering sex-reassignment surgical program in the 1960s, Johns Hopkins stopped performing such procedures in the 1970s because they did not appear to improve the patients' ability to adjust socially. (But note: this decision was quite possibly taken at his direction, if he was chief of psychiatry at the time.)
  • That administration of puberty-delaying hormones to children having feelings of transgenderism or gender confusion is close to child abuse:

"Then there is the subgroup of very young, often prepubescent children who notice distinct sex roles in the culture and, exploring how they fit in, begin imitating the opposite sex. Misguided doctors at medical centers including Boston's Children's Hospital have begun trying to treat this behavior by administering puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous—even though the drugs stunt the children's growth and risk causing sterility. Given that close to 80% of such children would abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated, these medical interventions come close to child abuse. A better way to help these children: with devoted parenting."

Given the author and source, IMHO his opinions on the subject of transgenderism would warrant a fair bit of weight, so I wanted to start a conversation. There will probably be rebuttal pieces in the very near future that also warrant a close look. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's been a transphobic hate-speaker for a long time. His evidence is very selective and about as authoritative as scientists who are skeptical of global climate change. His opinions run counter to multiple major medical organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association. Trans people are beaten to death and dehumanized into widescale suicidality. It's transphobia that causes early deaths for trans people, not "mental illness". It's transphobia that causes mental illness---not being transgender. http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/wall-street-journal-runs-op-ed-from-longtime-anti-trans-psychiatrist-paul-m 108.246.17.225 (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody else want to weigh in? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paul has shown over the last few years that he wants to undermine the LGTB community. So I say he has little to add to this article. Especially considering that mainstream Psychology and Psychiatry does not agree with him. At least not anymore. So no I do not think this article needs to be mentioning anything about a guy that is trying to push a certain pov. Just like Alex Jones or Fox news their stuff is not put in the Barrack Obama article. NathanWubs (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't think an alleged failure to be supportive of the transgender movement has any bearing on his stature as a source, which seems to be rather formidable. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As said below his views are rejected by the majority of the medical establishment, which has a bearing on his stature as a source. Meaning its small, that its fringe at best. Also its not failure to be supportive or anything. Its actively trying to undermine the LGTB community and its rights. But even if that was not the case, his views are rejected by the majority. NathanWubs (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A minority view from a renowned physician is not WP:FRINGE, so please don't refer to that policy again. And however you want to phrase his supportiveness or lack thereof, that isn't something that prevents his notable views from being reflected in a WP article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter how notable a person is and their expertize. Their view can still be considering WP:FRINGE. A good example of this is Michael Behe a biochemist pretty notable in his field. But he has the fringe ideas that support Intelligent Design . In this case the majority of the medical establishment does not support his views. The normal fringe mostly does not even support his views on these matters. So his views are WP:Fringe. Also please show notablity besides the primary source (his writing) that you have given. NathanWubs (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Expertise" is spelled with no Z's.
And just to be clear, we're talking about a former majority view in the medical community that did not cease to be so until quite recently. The APA only declassified transgenderism as a mental disorder about a year and a half ago. A former majority view that is currently in the process of becoming disfavored is not even in the same ballpark/league/sport as WP:FRINGE. So again, please stop citing to that policy as it's a waste of our time. A quick look at the examples offered under the policy will confirm this — intelligent design and other lunatic fringe stuff after which the policy is named. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering when your annoying Grammar Nazi side would come out. You are using the right word: "former". But I will drop the fringe and make it simple. His views are not the majority anymore. (Even if you were right about 1 1/2 half year which you are not. edit: See below) So if you want to add anything to this article it would be in a minor way. As the weight of his opinion piece is small. NathanWubs (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we were able to reach an understanding. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
McHugh's contrarian views on transgenderism, much like his views on homosexuality ("an erroneous desire") and post-traumatic stress disorder (manufactured by "antiwar psychiatrists"), are rejected by the vast majority of the medical establishment. His viewpoint is only noteworthy in that he's responsible for the Catholic Church's position on such issues; it might be worth mentioning on the "transgenderism and religion" page. --Fran Rogers (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notable views, even purportedly contrarian ones, generally get reflected on WP. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Contrarianism itself isn't the issue, but weight, and McHugh's views today are well on the fringe. (On the contrary, his historical role is significant, and no history of gender transition therapy would be complete without mentioning his opposition to and eventual closing of the Johns Hopkins clinic; the sex reassignment therapy article does just that.) --Fran Rogers (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments to Nathan Wubs above. I believe you are badly misunderstanding WP:FRINGE, which does not refer to views like McHugh's. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your fear of that policy is telling. 😉 In response to your reply to Mr. Wubs, I'll note that the APA and AMA's views on gender transition are quite a bit older than the publication of the DSM-5, and that the debate is over the efficacy of gender transition, not whether the condition it's treating is "a mental disorder." You may want to read the APA's literature on the issue. --Fran Rogers (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not afraid of that policy, which, as I've just amply demonstrated to you and you seem to implicitly acknowledge, has absolutely zero to do with this distinguished medical expert's notable views published in an extremely high-quality RS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you propose what you would like to add, so there could be a more clear discussion about it. And make sure that you add that this is his opinion and that he is in the minority. I would add also that he cherry picks the study he uses, but that would be WP:OR so that could not be done. NathanWubs (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will withdraw from this discussion and further discussions about this man. NathanWubs (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The piece is now paywalled, complicating things somewhat. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mental illness

Transgender is defined as the "state of one's gender identity or gender expression not matching one's assigned sex". It was described by psychiatrists. Is this not then a mental illness, or was it regarded as a mental illness? Should not there be a section on this aspect of it - the psychological?Royalcourtier (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royalcourtier (talk · contribs), the aspect you mention is covered by the gender identity disorder topic, which is addressed in the Transgender healthcare section. There is debate among psychiatrists and psychologists as to whether or not gender identity disorder, or gender dysphoria as it's called in some texts, is truly a mental disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The American Medical Association agrees with with other national and international medical organizations that "Gender Identity Disorder" is a "serious medical condition". It is not a mental illness. While dysphoria is psychological, dysphoria is a condition that is very successfully treated with medical intervention. 108.246.17.225 (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a mental disorder in the sense that it's not a physical disorder. That said, for the sake of context, "A mental illness is a medical condition that disrupts a person's thinking, feeling, mood, ability to relate to others and daily functioning." Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being born transsexual isn't primarly a "gender"-topic

One of the main misconcepts about transsexualism is, that some lobby-groups (many of them are so called psycho-sexologists) argue, that being born with body-parts that differ from the birth sex (being born transsexual) is a gender-topic. But that isn't true. It would be good that wikipedia includes not only a single view onto the topic. As good journalism has to be objective (but often isn't) it is much more important in wikipedia to include more than one view (cause it's an encyclopedia). You can start with analyzing the thesis of some people who 1974 invented the term "gender dysphoria" (Norman Fisk) and what people are the followers of this thesis (they use words like "gender dysphoria", "gender incongruence", "gender expression" to describe transsexual people - what many transsexual people do refuse) and to search for people who do stand in opposite to that. And think logically: body-parts who differ from the birth-sex do not have to do with "gender", cause they are there before someone comes out as transsexual person. Maybe the trigger for transgender persons to come out as transgender is gender-related, like clothing for e.g., and maybe some transsexual share this experience but it would be wrong to generalize, that all transsexual people do have a gender-related trigger. Many transsexual people do have a body-related (sex!) trigger for coming out as transsexual. So a transsexual girl for e.g. could have played with cars and "boyish" things but nevertheless being a transsexual girl. Please think about it. It doesn't males sense to use wikipedia as lobbying-platform for a single-edge worldview. --5.56.218.103 (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear to me what change you are proposing in the article. Could you possibly state more concisely and specifically what you would like to change? Thanks, BenLinus1214talk 15:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5.56.218.103 if you have a point of view that you feel is missing from this artificial, one you think will help improve it, one you can backup with reliable references, do go ahead and add it. --Devin Murphy (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is born transsexual. You are thinking of a hermaphrodite. It is very different — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hermaphrodite is not an appropriate word for describing humans. Intersex is the preferred term. And I don't believe that's what the OP is getting at, but that's getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Funcrunch (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox request?

I couldn't help but notice that there was an infobox request at the top of this talk page, despite the fact that articles of this type tend not to have infoboxes. Should this request be removed? If not, could someone tell me why it needs an infobox, what type of infobox it should be, and what information would be included in it? BenLinus1214talk 15:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, per this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks. BenLinus1214talk 21:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another wikipedia starts the (article of this) topic with the following sentence: "Transgender[ness], also referred to as transsexualism, is a gender identity disorder where an individuals gender identity is opposite av the individuals biological sex."

If someone can change the language link from our article, to Norwegian bokmål: Our article should link to Transkjønnethet. --Omegaslug (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New leading section

Hey All, the current leading section seems a bit POV (with the first sentence and definition being from an advocacy group) and also quite long. I think we can do better. Here is a working draft. I recognize that this is a sensitive and controversial issue for a lot of people so I'm proposing these changes on the talk page to start a discussion. I would love some constructive comments:

Transgender is one of a myriad labels given to or accepted by people who do not identify with their biological sex. This is not to be confused with people who are Intersex. This label also does not imply any information about sexual orientation.[1]

The psychiatric label for people who experience this and significant dissatisfaction that might motivate them to make changes such as sex reassignment surgery is Gender dysphoria. Many transgender people do not identify as having a mental disorder and so the association with transgender people and gender dysphoria is controversial.[2] [3]

Because the term transgender implies information about the self-identity of the individual in question (identities that may be nearly as varied as the number of individuals themselves) definitions are varied. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Johnathlon (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad attempt, but honestly I don't think the lead is too long at all (see WP:LEADLENGTH). It could use some wordsmithing and maybe even another paragraph though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Johnathlon, I don't see a WP:Neutral violation with the current lead. I prefer the current lead, and, per WP:Lead, it's more accurate and summarizes the article better than your version does. And, for the record, many transgender people prefer that people state "sex" or "assigned sex" instead of "biological sex." Flyer22 (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

___

References

  1. ^ "Answers to your Questions about Transgender People, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression". American Psychological Association. Retrieved 27 June 2015.
  2. ^ Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. "GLAAD Media Reference Guide - Transgender glossary of terms", "GLAAD", USA, May 2010. Retrieved on 2011-02-24.
  3. ^ McHugh, Paul. "Transgender Surgery Isn't the Solution". Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones. Retrieved 27 June 2015.
  4. ^ Author unknown, (2004) "...Transgender, adj. Of, relating to, or designating a person whose identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender, but combines or moves between these..." Definition of transgender[dead link] from the Oxford English Dictionary, draft version March 2004. Retrieved on 2007-04-07.
  5. ^ "USI LGBT Campaign - Transgender Campaign". Retrieved 11 January 2012.
  6. ^ Stroud District Council "Gender Equality SCHEME AND ACTION PLAN 2007"
  7. ^ "Layton, Lynne. In Defense of Gender Ambiguity: Jessica Benjamin. Gender & Psychoanalysis. I, 1996. Pp. 27–43". Retrieved 2007-03-06
  8. ^ Kozee, H. B., Tylka, T. L., & Bauerband, L. A. (2012). Measuring transgender individuals' comfort with gender identity and appearance: Development and validation of the Transgender Congruence Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 179-196. doi: 10.1177/0361684312442161

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2015

Your definition of transgender repeatedly defines gender identification as taking place "at birth". This is obviously and conspicuously inaccurate and may reveal intentional biases that render the definition lacking or intentionally inacurate. Without reference to who or why this biased definition is written and in the interest of medical, anatomical, genetic etc. accuracy, please correct this definition to show that physical gender is determined at conception based on the 23rd chromosome. This in no way detracts from the discussion of transgender but accurately defines when the physical and genetic determination of assigned gender is made. Very sincerely; Dr. Mark Carr


207.119.122.202 (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about sex, not gender. There is no "physical gender". And sex is not determined solely by chromosomes. Funcrunch (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definition is wrong and not supported by the rest of the article

Transgender does not necessarily have anything to do with how the person identifies themselves. That is what gender dysphoria is. Transgender is a blanket term that includes all kinds of things. For instance someone with transvestic fetishism is transgender even if they don't have gender dysphoria. This is already in the article. The definition at the top does not match up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk • contribs)

From what I can tell, the article says it includes many things according to the bullet points in the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a WP:HAT to Transsexual and vice versa

Would people particularly object or support the introduction of a hatnote to Transsexual and vice versa from Transgender? Perhaps the "See also" or "Further information" template, though I am open to suggestions. I have posed this question on Talk:Transsexual. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I replied here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Part of speech

In diff, I tweaked the first line of the lead to reflect the fact that transgender is usually an adjective and not a noun meaning "the state of...". This is what the cited GLAAD reference says regarding the word's part of speech, and it matches how the word used in the very next sentence and how the related word transsexual is used (part-of-speech-wise) in the lead of its article. Most dictionaries, e.g. Oxforddictionaries.com and Cambridge, have transgender as only an adjective, and the few like Dictionary.com which do have a noun sense have only an "a person who..." sense, not a "state of..." sense (such a sense does exist, to be clear, but it's very rare). -sche (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basic definition is not correct

The whole article has many problems but let's start with the basic definition. It currently reads "Transgender people expeience [SIC] a mismatch between their gender identity or gender expression and their assigned sex." But that is not how the APA defines transgender. They define it like this "Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth" http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx The difference is that the wiki definition leaves out most transgender people and only includes people with identity issues. It is a definition for gender dysphoria or transsexual not for transgender. Transgender includes all kinds of other things besides people with gender dysphoria such as transvestic fetishists. Like I said the whole article is bad but let's start there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your concerns:
  • Are transvestites not people expressing a mismatch between gender identity and assigned sex, even if only in a potentially sexual context? At any rate, there is a section further down the page detailing the relationship between transgender and transvestite as words.
  • Are there other concerns?
Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This IP has posted about this before; see the IP's contributions, and the #Definition is wrong and not supported by the rest of the article section above. As for your question, Drcrazy102, transvestites commonly do not have a gender identity that is at odds with their assigned sex. As is known, many men dress up in women's clothing and still identify as men. If they identify as women at any point while cross-dressing, it is usually temporary.
IP, the rest of the lead is clear that the term transgender is also used as an umbrella term. The lower part of the article is also clear about that. But as recently noted at Talk:Transsexual, the term transgender is commonly used to the exclusion of genderqueer people and especially to the exclusion transvestites/cross-dressers. When people state that they are transgender, they usually don't mean that they are genderqueer and/or a transvestite/cross-dresser. I know this from what sources state, and not just from experience. If anyone wants sources for what I've stated in this section, look on Google Books and/or look to the sources in this section of the Gender variance article. Also, the term transvestite is offensive to many in the LGBT community; in the case of those who find it offensive, they prefer the term cross-dresser. Flyer22 (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per this, this, this and this, the lead has been updated. Flyer22 (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transgender&oldid=677754930"