Jump to content

Talk:Transgender sexuality/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ZaidenSowle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 12 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): OfficeOlives.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Recommend Deletion

This article contains a mishmash of information, much of which is outdated, while confusing and conflating issues that have nothing to with transgender sexuality, specifically for one being the entire section on third genders. Judging from the talk topics below, I am not alone in noting this. Please delete.

NPOV issues

This article has extensive NPOV issues and needs cleanup. It calls trans lesbians heterosexuals (and later on calls them lesbians, confusing much?), it says "true transsexuals" don't derive erotic pleasure from their penis, and that anyone else is likely to be emotionally unstable, it acts as if bisexual trans people don't exist, the language marks transsexuals sexualities as distinct from cis peoples sexualities (yeah, trans people face different issues, but a trans lesbian's sexuality isn't inherently different from a cis lesbian's sexuality). I could go on, but that's the most glaring stuff, could we please get some material cited in here besides ancient 70's heterocentric transphobic style thoughts? 71.209.11.90 (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, many of the claims in this article are offensive and do not take into account what we know about transsexuality in light of modern neurological research. I've attempted to clean up some of the problematic statements regarding 'emotionally unstable' trans people who dare to derive erotic pleasure from their penises. 4lyest (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Starting this article

Ok I have created this article to act as an umbrella for articles that deal with issues of transsexual and transgender sexuality. I have also thrown in issues of race and transsexuality for compleatness. It is rough. Probably ugly to read but that is where you come in. Edit this. Nominate it for deletion or merger. Get involved! If you are reading this and you are transsexual realize the next time one of us makes news somewhere and a lazy reporter googles this topic this webpage will be near the top of the list.

I realize that much has been written on transgender and homosexuality but there is a problem with that. "Transgender" includes many many people who are not transsexual. This article is to focus on the issues relating to the sexuality of transsexuals. The way pychoogist try to categorize transsexuals by their sexual preference. The way race plays a role in the manifestation of GID. They way class plays a role in the expression of GID. Basically I envision writing a short blurb, or abstract, about each article linked to this one.

This is in an effort to separate transsexuals and transsexualtiy from the discussion of braoder TG issues. Issues which while largely the same as TS issues are not identical to them. --Hfarmer 14:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I will have to very much agree. While on the surface someone would see a crossdresser and me as both entirely masculine, and wearing the other gender's clothing (I haven't had a change to start hormones at this time.) I entirely do not relate to their experience, or expectations. At first I got on a forum for CDs, and I was just like, "Um... yeah... so, most of this doesn't really sound like anything I'm interested in at all..." So, it's good to have a base to start from for a fledgling TS to look through, and find a group of people who they actually DO fit in with, whether they are a "classic" transsexual or not. And it's great for us to dispell many of these myths and legends about us that are spread intentionally, or unintentionally by others. If knowledge and truth is power, then I want to make everyone powerful on this topic! --Puellanivis 17:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article was full of typos and bad grammar, and unobjective language. I've edited most of it, and made a ton of changes here and there. I couldn't get to the last paragraph before I had an appointment, so it hasn't been editted yet.

Hopefully, the content is now more clear, readable, closer to a quality article, and more objective. Oh, and I toned down some sentences and/or paragraphs to make them less harsh. --Puellanivis 17:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! Forgot to log in. 207.108.217.94 was me. Andrea Persephone 22:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I added back the cleanup tag. This is still a poorly referenced, incoherent mess. Most of the information on different cultures and ethnicities has nothing to do with sexuality, but is about social roles and historical context of gender variance. I'll try to work on this periodically. It needs to be a historical overview of the clinical literature and the various terms and taxonomies that have been proposed. Jokestress 19:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What did I intend with this article

What i did not intend was a article about clinical things. What I wanted was just that an article about the way the sexuality of transsexuals has been percieved currently, historically and racially. I should also not forget the FtM's and how they are percieved. There are important. The heart of this matter this "TS sexuality" is that it is what makes people so uncomfortable with us as a whole. I have tried my best to capture that.

I will not say that the article is perfect but it is not a incoherent mess either. --Hfarmer 14:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see the part that links this topic to BBL theory and that whole mess that is psychology. As for the historical/ sociological part that seems ok. to me. It is referenced by way of the wikipedia articles it links to. Those are just as valid references as anything else in wikipedia. My hope is someone searching that term will hit this article and find that TS-sexuality is not a universally condemmed thing. That it is not a new post WWII invention of self hating gays either. Simply presenting some facts about a misunderstood phenomena. Nothing more than what the wikipedia is supposed to be about.--Hfarmer 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Religious beliefs on transsexual sexuality

Moving this original research here for discussion:

For as long as there have been people with sharp cutting objects there have at least been transsexuals. Due to this almost every religious belief system has had to deal with the subject. In most those who are born with ambiguous genitalia and those who's sexual ambiguity only shows latter through behavior are lumped together in a third sex. Well known examples would be the hijra of south Asia, the Two-Spirits of Native American culture, and the Mukhannathun of Arab/muslim society. Unlike the more modern scientific theories on gender identity these religious beliefs attribute the phenomena to the will of god or many gods. This is not limited to oriental or pre-Colombian religions. Islam and Christianity take basically the same , accepting view of Transsexuality as these other religions (see Matthew 19:12. [1].[2] Acceptance of a given transsexual in these religions is usually dependent on behavior which is normative to their new gender. Acceptance of anyone by any religion is conditional on certain behavior, so religion requiering gender normative behavior would not be surprising.

None of this is specifically about transsexualism. Many religions have indeed specifically discussed transsexualism, but ancient cultures were not defining them as such. To conflate eunuchs and transsexuals is inaccurate and POV.

Europe: Vatican: A Ban On Transsexuals By JASON HOROWITZ (NYT) February 1, 2003 Catholic news agency Adista publishes what it says is confidential Vatican document, signed by Cardinal Eduardo Martinez Somalo, banning transsexuals from religious orders and forcing any clergy members who undergo sex change to be expelled

Kajillions more specifically about transsexuals and sex. We need to stick to this and not original research. If you have a reliable source that says the Bible or Koran specifically mentions transsexual sexuality, let's see the citation. Matthew 19:12 is not about transsexuals or sex. Jokestress 01:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually what you are looking for is written in to the section by way of a pointer to the word used to refer to transsexuals in the era of muhammad. Come on now asking for the english word transsexual to appear in a 1500 year old Arabic text would be unreasonable. This word is referenced in the hadiths two of which can be easily found online but there are many others. USC-MSA compendium of Muslim Text: Partial Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 32:Clothing (Kitab Al-Libas),Number 4095 and USC-MSA compendium of Muslim Text: Partial Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 41:General Behavior (Kitab Al-Adab),Number 4910
It is noteable the various translations given for the word "Mukhannath" in one place it is given as hermaprodite in antother "eunuch" Which in my opinon, the Ayatollah Kohmeni's opinion, and the opinion of the Scholars at the Al-Azhar in Cairo, is misleading. Meant to not offend the modern American "Judeo-Chrisian" evangelical ethics. Arabic has a different word for a simple eunnuch and a different word for an intersexed individual. While the word " Mukhannath" well this link gives a better discussion than I do and even cites Muslim religious sources Trust Islam message board by "al-Rumiyah" Who cites "*Taken from Al-Jinn by Ahmad H. Sakr, but I have read this from several other sources as well including Ibn Taymiyyah."
Most useful to this discourse "al-Rumiyah" who I cited above qotes the following and gives sources...
"Ibn `Abd al-Barr said, probably in reference to the two types of mukhannath also mentioned by An-Nawawi : "The Mukhannath is not only the one who is known to be promiscuous. The mukhannath is (also?) the one who looks so much like a woman physically that he resembles women in his softness, speech, appearance, accent and thinking. If he is like this, he would have no desire for women and he would not notice anything about them. This is one of those who have no interest in women who were permitted to enter upon women." (Al-Mughni, 7/463; al Sharh al Kabeer `ala Matan al Muqni ´, 7/347 - 348)
And Ibn Qudaamah mentioned : "[...] or a mukhannath who feels no desire (towards women) , the ruling that applies to such a "man" is the same as the ruling that applies to close relatives (mahram) regarding looking at women, because Allah says (the scholar cites Surah 24:31)..." (I added links to the articles on wikipedia about "An-Nawawi" and the "munkhannath".)
Looking in my Quran Sura 24:31 Translates to.... Tell the believing women to lower their eyes, guard their private parts, and not display their charms and cover their bosoms with their veils and not to show their finery except to their husbands or their fathers or their fathers in law, their sons or step-sons, brothers, or their brothers sons, or thier women attendants or captves, or male attendants who do not have any need (for women), or boys not yet aware of sex. They should not walk stamping their feet lest they make known what they hide of their ornaments. O believers, turn to God, every one of you, so that you may be successful. ("Al-QUR'AN, A Contemporary Translation" by Ahmed Ali).
God sure speaks in long sentences. Sounds much better in Arabic.
So there you have it, references to the Munkhanath in the Hadiths from wich Sunni muslims get their information on the soona (the prohpets way of life) and alusions to the same in the Qur'An. I have also provided sources for the literal translation of the word "Munkhanath" which seem to make pretty clear that it means transsexual Like I said it would be unreasonable to find the word transsexual in 2006 english in the Arabic Quran from ~650 AD. Given what I have shown here I feel satisfied that there is sound reason to reinstate the paragraph. If nothing more is done by the time I wake up in the moring I will do so. --Hfarmer 03:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC) (edited for clairity --Hfarmer 04:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC))
Such is the way the Islamic text mention transexuals and deals with their sexuality. These are some of the Kajillions of sources that I got that paragraph from. I cited the Wikipedia article on the topics so there is no need to replicate the links here.
It seems that what you call original research I call a summary or secondary research as defined in the link just given. Tell me that such does not sound like what the creation of a wikipedia article is. This is above and beyond the simple collection of quotes from others. It should be a synthesis of informaiton gathered by others "original researhers" which the secondary researcher composes into a (hopefully) coherent, and brief topical review. I hope you see what I mean. --Hfarmer 04:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The concept of original research is discussed at WP:NOR, where I have referred you many times already. This sentence is a textbook case of original research: "For as long as there have been people with sharp cutting objects there have at least been transsexuals." What is your source for this statement? If you wish to include information on the Quran in this article, you need to cite sources like the Salon article above which makes direct reference to transsexualism and Islam. Not eunuchs and Islam, not a third sex and Islam, but transsexualism and Islam, particularly transsexual sexuality. Same goes for any other faith. Here's more original research: "Islam and Christianity take basically the same , accepting view of Transsexuality as these other religions." Are you kidding me? What's your source for this easily refutable original research? Jokestress 07:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I will post the following version of this article at ~8AM CDST

For as long as there have been people with sharp cutting objects there have at been people we would now describe, in English, as transsexuals. At first before synthetic hormones and modern surgery castration at a young age was all that could be done (see: Wikipedia:Castration). Which would make one a " eunuch" Due to these facts almost every religious belief system has had to deal with the subject of gender variant people. In most those who are born with ambiguous genitalia and those who's sexual ambiguity only shows latter through behavior are lumped together in a third sex. Well known examples would be the hijra of south Asia, the Two-Spirits of Native American culture, and the Mukhannathun[3][4] of Arab/muslim society. Unlike the more modern scientific theories on gender identity these religious beliefs attribute the phenomena to the will of god or many gods. This is not limited to oriental or pre-Colombian religions. Islam and Christianity take basically the same , accepting view of Transsexuality as these other religions (see Matthew 19:12. [1].[2] Acceptance of a given transsexual in these religions is usually dependent on behavior which is normative to their new gender. Acceptance of anyone by any religion is conditional on certain behavior, so religion requiering gender normative behavior would not be surprising.

Now I have focused on the Muslim text because it is what I am most familliar with. For the two spirits the tie in is self evident I hope. Not to mention for the hijiri. We have to write every article onthis subject matter as if it would be the first and last thing the reader will see on them mater.--Hfarmer 04:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You are conflating a lot of things that are not strictly transsexualism. Since transsexualism as a concept did not exist until about 100 years ago, it's not really accurate to conflate earlier forms of gender variance. What is the definition you are using for the term "transsexual"? Jokestress 05:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
To me a transsexual is simply one who was presumed to have one gender and wants to be a member of antother gender. This transsexual would then use the best medicine available to make that transition happen.
Until 100 years ago that best medicie was castration at or at least before the end of puberty. So that the eunnuch will remain soft, voice will not break, no facial hair etc. Castration when young was basically the only way to go untill 100 years ago. Technology changed wich changed everything about this subjet. The state of mind of the people who had themselves castrated and then lived as females could not be so different from ours.
To me the only difference is that these days we chemically castrate then live as females. Then only latter do we have the SRS operation to physically castrate us.
Do you see where I, and others who use such groups as examples of transsexuals though history, are comming from on this one?--66.92.130.180 23:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
If you want to use that definition, you need to cite a source first. Otherwise, as you note, that's your personal definition and not one based on a published source. What you describe is usually classified as transgenderism, and not all castration was carried out in the service of gender expression. Transsexualism is generally considered by historians to have begun at the start of the 20th century, with the advent of endocrinology and plastic surgery. It is a medicalized concept. What you describe are generally considered social constructions and not transsexualism. See Meyerowitz' 200 book How Sex Changed for the best overview of transsexualism in the United States. Jokestress 23:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I actually can cite a source for considering those individuals to be transsexual several in fact. First there is "The Transsexual Phenomena by Harry Benjamin, Appendix C by Richard Green M.D." in which he says...
Evidence for the phenomenon today called transsexualism can be found in records backward through centuries and spanning widely separated cultures. Classical mythology, classical history, Rennaissance, and nineteenth-century history along with cultural anthropology point to the widespread pervasiveness of the transsexual phenomenon.
The term "transsexual," being of comparatively recent origin, cannot be found in historical sources. Therefore, many inferences must be made in interpreting reference material. Even specific mention of "change of sex" may only imply a "change of dress" or the practice of genital homosexuality, the fuller assumption by the individual of cross-gender identity not being apparent. In the following references, the criterion of cross-gender identity is met.
Then Dr. Green goes on to list many many examples. Now as far as I am concerned I see no reason that the secondary research of Dr Green in compiling his listing is any more valid that mine. But If you must I will place a link to this in the paragraph as a supporting reference. Ok. --Hfarmer 14:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned, an overview of cross-gender identities and expressions already exists at transgender and doesn't need to be duplicated here, except to the extent that it explicitly discusses sexuality. You are welcome to start transgender sexuality for a less specific overview, but this should stick to transsexuality per the article title. Jokestress 18:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Wikipedia July 2006 (wikipedia) (2006). Mukhannathun
  2. ^ a b Dennis Prager (2005) (Townhall.com) (August 2nd 2005). [1]
  3. ^ USC-MSA compendium of Muslim Text: Partial Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 32:Clothing (Kitab Al-Libas),Number 4095
  4. ^ USC-MSA compendium of Muslim Text: Partial Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 41:General Behavior (Kitab Al-Adab),Number 4910

results of an automated peer review. stuff to do if you care.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hfarmer 20:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC) --Hfarmer 20:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Severe NPOV issues with this article, although I suspect they were well meaning. Almost all the sources cited are 30-40 years old and views have changed a lot since then. I'm not sure much can be done without removing large portions of the article however, which I'm reluctant to do without discussion. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Resolved

A discussion to merge four articles into this one is at Talk:Gynephilia and androphilia#Multi Merge discussion. -- Banjeboi 13:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Merged. -- Banjeboi 18:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Change the title of this article

It is mentioned at the beginning that this article deals specifically with transsexual sexuality as distinguished from the transgender, androphilia and gynephilia articles. The title itself, "Transgender sexuality", is misleading, as it implies the sexuality of all individuals falling under the transgender umbrella, a rough synonym being "gender variance". For this reason, the article would be more aptly named "Transsexual sexuality" or perhaps "Transsexuals and sexual orientation". To name the article "Transgender sexuality" and then object to inclusion of topics dealing with gender variance is a contradiction in terms. As has previously been mentioned, transsexual and transgender are not synonymous. Please discuss. Cheddarisbetter (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is the result of a lot of unsatisfactory compromise surrounding the term "homosexual transsexual." Perhaps Gender identity and sexual orientation? That way we can discuss the controversy driving all of this. One school of thought (social construction) sees the concepts as distinct but related, while another (reductionism) explains these distinctions away as essentially useless. Biological reductionists see trans people as a kind of sexual minority rather than a gender minority, and they seek to define and categorize trans and gender-variant people within a sexualized paradigm. Precedents for this kind of naming scheme covering the contested relationship of two things would be Race and intelligence or Abortion and mental health. Jokestress (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

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

More neutral now?

I've made a bunch of changes to this article, which I hope have addressed some of the NPOV concerns first brought up in November 2008. It still needs work, but I think we might be able to remove the POV tag. Thoughts? Opinions? Objections? --Alynna (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I will work through this as I get time.
First, the first two sentences of this section have sources (& it is not accurate to suggest HSTS was widely used before Bailey tried to promote it), the rest has nothing. Needs sources to verify.Mish (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Bracket re Pauly

The bracket in the quote from Pauly is necessary because otherwise the quote (referring to trans men attracted to women as "homosexual") is confusing. - Montréalais (talk)

Oh sure… sorry about the revert to your edit, but without a closer look at the context, it looked like a drive-by personal insult kind of vandalization?
All of the trans- related articles are targets of such vandalism, so it's a really good idea to make the purpose of the edit clear in an Edit Summary to avoid misunderstandings.
And yes, the homo/hetero terminology Pauly is using is quite confusing when applied to transfolk… and becomes worse than useless when discussing the sexuality of intersexed folk!
"Gynephilic" would make it perfectly clear, but the andro/gyne- philic terminology still hasn't come into widespread use. (sigh) -- Thanks! -- bonze blayk (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Confusion between transgender and transexual

This article is using the term transgender as a synonym for transexual. This article seems to be about transexual sexuality, rather than transgender sexuality as a whole. It is clear that not all transgender people want to change their sex. Any thoughts.(Masculinity (talk) 08:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC))

This is a reasonable point... I think part of the problem here is that almost all of the research is conducted on transsexuals, simply because they have to make themselves available to clinicians as part of the process of transitioning (if they do so in accordance with the WPATH SOC at least). The section on "Trans-feminine mixed gender roles" does provide some alternate perspective on folks who do not seek to obtain SRS...
On the other hand, the blanket term "transgender" gives you a swath of the population so broad that it's difficult to say anything meaningful about it... except that they are all gender-variant in some way? I mean, if a person identified as genderless and asexual ... well, I guess that would qualify them as "transgender", given the scope of the definition. (The article starts out in just his fashion!)
But yes, it would be good to clarify the point somewhere in the introduction of the article. Unfortunately, I can't bring to mind a WP:RS source which supports this assertion. (*sigh*) -- bonze blayk (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent removal

Von Karma, regarding this edit, I'm failing to see how that edit is beneficial. There is nothing wrong with this article talking about what non-transgender people find sexually attractive about transgender people. Furthermore, you removed one bit about gay trans men.

WP:Pinging Auric, Shiningroad, Equivamp and Funcrunch to weigh in on this matter since I see them in the article's edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, but this is way, way out of my league. My edits were to citations, not content. Thanks for thinking of me, though.--Auric talk 12:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me Flyer22. I agree, this edit removed information about trans male sexuality, including information by a trans male author. It should be reverted. Funcrunch (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I definitely think the removed information should be restored. It should be noted that the paragraph about the attraction of cis men to trans men seems to be copied-and-pasted from Attraction to transgender people#Social aspects. Not sure if that affects its standing for inclusion in this article, but I certainly don't see the harm in it. Thanks for the ping. --Equivamp - talk 19:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Old research

A lot of what is talked about in this article is stuff from the 70s and 80s. Aren't there more up to date studies and polls? Hammerfrog (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Transgender sexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Trans women segment needs attn

The trans women segment under Sexual orientation distribution is very weak. The first two sources cited are from the over 40 years old. Please send any potential sources my way. Miffedmess (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Forbes for reference

National Transgender Discrimination Survey

The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey

Transgender Transitioning and Change of Self-Reported Sexual Orientation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miffedmess (talk • contribs) 01:37, January 26, 2018 (UTC)

Body terminology edit by student editor

Student editor ZaidenSowle (talk · contribs) added some good content in this edit regarding naming of body parts, but I think it needs some adjustment in several areas. First and foremost, verifiability is not well-served by simply by citing a book; page numbers are needed in order to be able to reasonably verify it. Secondly, it may be unduly long, unless there are sufficient sources that discuss this topic. Third, a section about body terminology should not be a subsection of section "Sexual practices", unless it can be documented that the naming is a sexual practice; however, you won't be able to find any sources that say that, so the section needs to go somewhere else. Fourth, calling the section "Naming the body" seems a bit unclear to me; perhaps "Body terminology" or "Alternative terms for body parts" or some such would be better. Finally, since the terminology is not about sexual practices, I'm not sure that this section belongs in this article at all, although it might be a good addition to some other article.

ZaidenSowle, please fix the verification problem by adding page numbers to every citation you added. Everything else mentioned above needs to be looked at as well, but is secondary, so please do the footnotes first. Also: transgender topics are a controversial area in Wikipedia. I will add a DS alert notice to your Talk page, explaining this. Mathglot (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead needs a rewrite

The lead is in bad shape and needs a complete rewrite. I removed the redundant first sentence, which added nothing. What's left is confused, contains dubious assertions, and does not summarize the body adequately.

The current lead sentence now reads:

Historically, studies assumed that transgender sexuality might be distinct from traditional human sexuality.

I have no idea what this means, from "distinct", to "traditional" sexuality, or what studies are alluded to. "Traditional sexuality" sounds like it might be a marginalizing term, although since I don't know the intent, it's hard to know for sure. I don't see anything in the body of the article that this sentence might be an attempt to summarize. The next sentence,

For much of the 20th century, what was described as "transsexualism" was believed to be sexual in nature,...

suffers from the same problem; I don't know what this means, thus am at a loss to "improve" it. The next sentence ("Like other people...") sounds like an attempt to define the distinction between gender identity and sexual orientation, but if it is, does a poor job of it.

I don't see much worth saving in the current lead. I think it should just be rewritten from scratch, following basic principles at WP:LEAD to summarize the content of the article. When written properly, there will be no need to add footnotes to the lead, as everything in the lead will summarize existing body content, and the footnotes should already be in the body. Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

No improvement since. Blanked the lead, moved refs into WP:LDRs, and tagged the article for {{missing lead}}. Mathglot (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to attempt to develop a lead section. OfficeOlives (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
ok here goes

Transgender sexual orientation is the romantic or sexual preference that transgender people have for their partner. Until the 1980's most non-heterosexual orientation was not available. Since the 1980's transgender peoples orientation has been measured to vary as widely as cisgendered peoples sexual orientation. There are reports of transgender peoples orientations changing as they get gender confirming care, to separate this from sexual fluidity more information is needed on the topic. Haefele-Thomas, Ardel,. Introduction to transgender studies. Combs, Thatcher,, Rains, Cameron,, Stryker, Susan,, Clifford, Jo, 1950-. New York, NY, USA. pp. 107–110. ISBN 978-1-939594-28-0. OCLC 1048658263. Gill-Peterson, Julian,. Histories of the transgender child. Minneapolis. pp. 80–90. ISBN 978-1-4529-5815-6. OCLC 1027732161. "Wonky Wednesday: Trans people & sexual orientation". National LGBTQ Task Force. 2013-06-05. Retrieved 2021-02-03. Lehmiller, Justin J.,. The psychology of human sexuality (Second edition ed.). Hoboken, NJ. pp. 157–161. ISBN 978-1-119-16471-5. OCLC 992433913. OfficeOlives (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"Sexual orientation and transitioning" section?

I am raising some concerns about this section. First, I think it needs to split MtF's and FtM's based on the research. Second, it needs reputable secondary sources and to clarify that these are self-reports not lab studies. No primary research on something so controversial should really be used, which is almost entirely what this section relies upon.

With regards to transmen (FtMs) there is reference to to this piece of primary research: David et al (2014), which can be accessed in full here on ResearchGate. It is used in this article indiscriminately to refer to "transgender people" seeing changes in their sexual orientation, yet only applies to FtM's and should only be used in that manner. The paper also highlights previous research indicating that many FtM's (most?) are either gynephilic or bisexual in attraction, so any report of change in sexual orientation could also be attributed to the societal expectations of who women/men are 'supposed' to be attracted to. Additionally, they point out that the power of testosterone to increase sex drive, resulting in sexual orientation changes, but as I understand, this often dissipates if testosterone dosing is reduced. I think that this whole area of FtM sexual orientation needs to be expanded/clarified, and it might pay for editors to read the source in full (and find a secondary source to replace it?)

With regards to transwomen (MtFs), there is reference to this piece of primary research (needs to be replaced with a secondary source?) which reports that 6 gynephilic (female attracted) MTFS saw a change in their sexual orientation after transitioning and beginning estrogen. As is known, some MTFS do say they now have attraction changes based on societal pressure of what it is to be a woman... or because they were bisexual and now feel at liberty to reveal this. There is also the fact that 3 of them who attribute this change to estrogen (a very small sample and a very unscientific way to measure the impact of hormones), which is at odds with the body of research on all of the boys who were sex-reassigned at birth under the John Money doctrine, and who were prescribed estrogen from the age of 8, developed breasts... and still grew up to be attracted to women – not men (most famous case, see David Reimer, and this table has a summary of some cases). It is not established in any scientific manner that gynephilic MtF's have seen changes in their sexual attraction attributable estrogen. I would buy the point about females because they are more sexually fluid and there's all sorts of confounding factors in female sexuality. It would actually be easy to test MTF sexuality change in a lab since genital blood flow arousal tests work for both MtF's who haven't had bottom surgery and for those who have had bottom surgery. In the case of those who have had bottom surgery, this is achieved by shining a light into the skin of the vagina and measuring blood flow, which has been shown to exhibit the same blood flow response that males have in their penises. Even a pupil dilation test would do. You may think my point is excessive, but it is on par with ex-gays claiming they are now attracted to women, yet wouldn't submit to Bailey's lab for a brain scan, penile arousal or pupil dilation test to prove it (I'm not saying no trans person would do such a test, or that they've ever been asked to – this is only to highlight the difference between self-reports and actual lab tests).

These citations should be treated as original research and removed, replaced with a reputable secondary source, and clarified that these are self-reports. If nobody is interested in making these changes to the article I will attempt to do so. If there is more recent research which is covered in secondary sources, please bring it to my attention. I only take issue with the original research (which also relied on tiny self-selecting samples) and the application of the papers to both transwomen and transmen as 'transgender people' when sexual orientation between the sexes display themselves in very different ways. Sxologist (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I made this edit to at least fix the glaring overgeneralization going on. But I tend to think we should remove those primary sources entirely. To make the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that sexual orientation can actually be changed in that way requires, well, extraordinary sources. I know there have been studies on the sexual orientation of trans women who have had SRS. We'll have to look for secondary sources on this topic. On a side note, don't forget to refer to primary sources as such, not as original research, so other editors don't get confused or say "it's not OR". Crossroads -talk- 20:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Crossroads, I have also corrected my original talk page post to read 'primary' sources. Sxologist (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
To repeat what I stated here at Talk:Environment and sexual orientation: Without getting into all of that other stuff, the thing is that some (not all or most) transgender people report changes in their sexual attraction/sexual orientation after going on hormones, which actually strengthens the arguments about hormones affecting sexual orientation. Others don't mention hormones. As long as we have secondary and tertiary sources reporting on this (which we do), we can report on this as well. It's not WP:Undue to do so. And self-report is not an issue when being clear that transgender people are reporting this. As is clear by the Demographics of sexual orientation article, the vast majority of that demographic information is based on self-report. We can't just exclude the "transgender people sometimes report a change in their sexual attraction/sexual orientation" aspect because of personal doubts or other personal views on the matter...any more than we can suppress the overall sexual fluidity literature (which, as I've stated times before, is more so about sexual identity than actual sexual orientation changing and includes people conflating sexual identity change with sexual orientation change).
Some sources reporting on the changes aspect with regard to trans people is this 2012 (reprint) "When The Opposite Sex Isn't: Sexual Orientation In Male-to-Female Transgender People" source, from Routledge, pages 65-68, this 2018 "Transgender Mental Health" source, from American Psychiatric Pub, page 170, and this 2018 "LGBTQ Divorce and Relationship Dissolution: Psychological and Legal Perspectives and Implications for Practice" source, from Oxford University Press, page 296. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
As I highlighted, I'm happy if its in a secondary source and explained properly. In the MTF 1998 study used, one of the MTF's say "I couldn't be attracted to a guy, because that would make me gay" (according to this article which refers to it). I think as long as the dynamics of sexual orientation change are spelled out with secondary sources then it's totally fine. Sxologist (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"History Section"

Hi all, I have some proposed changes to this section. Adding more from the various editions of the DSM, and adding some historical context. Depending on how that goes, it could be merged with the sexual orientation section. OfficeOlives (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is the proposed changes

Historically, transgender people were unable to access gender affirming care unless they would be considered heterosexual post surgery. For much of the early 1900's transgender persons were conflated with being either an invert or homosexual such non-heterosexual sexual orientation data for transgender people is limited. For transgender people of all genders in the 1980's Lou Sullivan was instrumental in allowing non-heterosexual transgender people access surgical care and hormones.

Distinctions of sexual orientation for transgender people varies depending on if sex assigned at birth is used to determine orientation, or the gender identity. Using birth sex is generally considered to be affiliated with gender critical movements. Within the transgender community sexual orientation based on identity is the most common and orientations include; lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, queer, and many more. In literature the terms gynesexual and androsexual are sometimes used to describe attraction to women and men, respectively.

In the DSM-II, released in 1968, "transsexualism" is within the "paraphilias" category, no other information is provided.

In the DSM-III-R, released in 1987, category of "gender identity disorder" created, "transsexualism" was divided into "asexual", "homosexual", "heterosexual" and "unspecified" sub-types.

In the DSM-IV-TR, released in 2000, "transsexualism" is now "gender identity disorder". Attraction specifications are to male, female, both or neither. With specific variations dependent on birth sex.

In the DSM-V, released in 2013 which is currently used in the United States and Canada. "Gender identity disorder" is now "gender dysphoria", attraction specifications are either gynephillic or androphillic.

sources: Haefele-Thomas, Ardel,. Introduction to transgender studies. Combs, Thatcher,, Rains, Cameron,, Stryker, Susan,, Clifford, Jo, 1950-. New York, NY, USA. pp. 107–110. ISBN 978-1-939594-28-0. OCLC 1048658263. Gill-Peterson, Julian,. Histories of the transgender child. Minneapolis. pp. 80–90. ISBN 978-1-4529-5815-6. OCLC 1027732161. Skidmore, Emily,. True sex : the lives of trans men at the turn of the twentieth century. New York. ISBN 978-1-4798-7063-9. OCLC 982435476. First, Michael B., 1956- (2002). DSM-IV-TR handbook of differential diagnosis. Frances, Allen, 1942-, Pincus, Harold Alan, 1951-. Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Press. pp. 576–582. ISBN 1-58562-265-6. OCLC 256500600. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders : DSM-5. American Psychiatric Association., American Psychiatric Association. DSM-5 Task Force. (5th ed ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association. 2013. pp. 452–459. ISBN 978-0-89042-554-1. OCLC 830807378. Zanghellini, Aleardo (2020-04). "Philosophical Problems With the Gender-Critical Feminist Argument Against Trans Inclusion". SAGE Open. 10 (2): 215824402092702. doi:10.1177/2158244020927029. ISSN 2158-2440. "Wonky Wednesday: Trans people & sexual orientation". National LGBTQ Task Force. 2013-06-05. Retrieved 2021-02-03. DSM II. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. 1968. p. 44. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders : DSM-III-R. American Psychiatric Association., American Psychiatric Association. Work Group to Revise DSM-III. (3rd edition, revised ed.). Washington, DC. pp. 71–78. ISBN 0-89042-018-1. OCLC 16395933. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders : DSM-IV-TR. American Psychiatric Association., American Psychiatric Association. Task Force on DSM-IV. (4th ed., text revision ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. 2000. pp. 576–582. ISBN 0-89042-024-6. OCLC 43483668. (Apologies for the massive wall of citations, first time on a talk page) OfficeOlives (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation Distribution Section

Hey all,

Thinking of cleaning up this section by merging the cultural status section in with it. Transgender women and transgender men are relatively western terms already and the trans-femme and mixed gender roles are already getting into culturally relevant content. OfficeOlives (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Mathglot, thank you very much for rewriting the lead paragraph. It's a tremendous improvement. My only quibble is with psychological aspects of expressing sexuality in a new body--maybe "after medical transition" instead? Cheers, gnu57 05:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Genericusername57: Go for it; this was literally me typing without thinking while watching a film on tv. I'm sure it could be improved ten different ways. My main worry is what I left out; that's harder to see. User:Crossroads will probably spot it, and fix it up. Mathglot (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Gynephilia/gynesexual, androphilia/androsexual

Back to the way it was in February 2017, namely: "...the terms "gynephilia" and "androphilia" are sometimes used to describe attraction to women and men, respectively before IP 2600 altered it to the way it's been ever since. Although it was unsourced then, and still needs a source now.

In the interim, it was sourced to DSM-5 by OfficeOlives recently in this edit (I'd like to see the DSM quotation that supports that, if someone has access), and then that reference was broken later the same day in this edit. So now we're back to original (Feb 2017) wording, and it's unsourced again; but I'm sure it's sourceable as it stands, we just need to find it. Gynephila/androphilia has some frequency of usage going back decades; *-sexual is more recent, and gaining in frequency but if we're going to say anything about these terms, it should be the *-philia forms for now imho, until there's a clear trend to the more recent terms.

The section title back then, "Sexual orientation labels", was also better then than it is now, although "Terminology" or some such, would perhaps be clearer. But I think the prominence of the section at the top is not optimal; in an article on sexual orientation, that section would be well-placed there, but given that the topic of this article is not limited to sexual orientation of transgender people, it seems out of place there, or at least too confined in scope, discussing only sexual orientation, which just leads to confusion or muddiness about what this article is about; which in turn, imho, is perhaps not unrelated to the confused lead sections that have appeared here before. Mathglot (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Nonbinary Sexuality

I'm AFAB Nonbinary and for the very most part, I am attracted to cis males. Where are folks like myself featured in this article? Also, I don't see an article for Nonbinary Sexuality at all on Wikipedia, or anything referring to Nonbinary genders in this particular article. A lot of Nonbinary folks don't see themselves as Trans, particularly if they are more Agender, but it seems as though this article would refer to gender identities outside of the binary, rather than simply focus on binary transgender. 2601:98A:400:8910:7923:E962:759:F169 (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you, we need a section on non-binary people. Talking about proportions of non-binary lesbians, gynephiles, androphiles, gays, gais, androsexuals, gynesexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, polysexuals, omnisexuals, ceterosexuals, skoliosexuals, multisexuals, monosexuals, queers, abrosexuals, fluids, pomosexuals, straights, heterosexuals, strayts, enbyhets, trixics, torics, feminamorics, viramorics, enbians, diamorics, aces, aros, asexuals, aromantics, aspecs, neptunics, trixensexuals, torensexuals, uranics, uranians, vincians, veldians, mascsexuals, femsexuals, aceflux, gray-aces, demisexuals, etc... However, the problem is, where can we find the sources? Most of these are considered microlabels/neolabels and MOGAI/LIOM/microdemographic/neologistic labels/buzzwords/conlangs/slangs. Tazuco (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

"Trans fag" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Trans fag and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 7#Trans fag until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transgender_sexuality/Archive_1&oldid=1137264949"