Talk:Gender transition/Archive 1

Comment
Transitioning from one sex to another does not always include any gentital reconstruction. This topic should be kept seperate.


 * It does not always include genital surgery, but that is a big part of it for many people. So we would be remiss to not include it. That is, insulin is not always a part of the treatment for type II diabetes. But it is certainly a big part for many type II diabetics. So any article that discusses treatments for type II diabetes should include a discussion of insulin. Just because every type II diabetic does not use insulin, that does not mean that it should not be included.


 * Moreover, more to the point, I don't think there is ANY aspect to transitioning, that every transperson does. I know at least one prominent transgender man who is an activist who hasn't changed his name legally or changed his gender markers. Nor does he want to. So should we not include these topics because some transpeople who consider themselves fully transitioned may not do them?NickGorton 08:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Tranisitioning can also be in the spiritual sense of change and as such is not actually a change of sex. DaveM


 * Oppose merge, as per above comments. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The beginning of this article speaks of transsexuals transitioning as a process of changing gender to match assigned birth sex. It is in fact the reverse. Gender is a relatively fixed construct. In transitioning for a transsexual the goal is to 'change' the birth assigned sex to match the identified gender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.166.104.13 (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

 * This is such a short article, and someone recently created a new article called Transgender transition, which needs a lot of work right now, but it is essentially on the same topic as this one. I think the articles should be merged in to one, which I would like to title Gender transition.  But I am open to discussion as to the title of the article following the merger.  Andrea Parton 02:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A merge would be useful; I think that the name should remain along the lines of 'Transitioning (transgender)'. WP:NAME suggests using the gerund of a verb where possible (transitioning is the verb, as I understand it). Transition as it's used in the transgender sense is probably still a verb. If we went for 'Gender transitioning' I think that might be clearer as 'Transitioning (gender)'. I'm not sure what the naming policy for the brackets is - it seems to crop up a bit in transgender studies, though (e.g. Hormone replacement therapy (trans), Access to amenities (trans))
 * The two articles are addressing exactly the same thing - I think the other article is not named as accurately as this one. We should try to get feedback as to why it was made seperately - couldn't find this article, perhaps? do we need to link it more in the wiki?
 * Cheers, Lwollert 09:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Perhaps the (trans) tag is less useful if we want to include gender transition for intersexed people?? Lwollert 10:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with above statements. Transitioning seems to be the phrase currently in use and I wonder if Transgender transition was created to refer to the same thing as a component of this article. in any case having two articles is more confusing. suggest redirect that article here and merge articles. Benjiboi 21:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the merger, and prefer Gender transition as a title (and note that that is already a redir to Transitioning (transgender)). This allows the article to cover intersex, plus all variants of trangender. I do think that transition in this context is a verb, and sounds more encyclopedic (to me at least) than transitioning. --AliceJMarkham 02:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I think more on it I do prefer the main article titled "Gender transition" with the various previous titles weaved into the lede to explain the terms used. Benjiboi 03:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-transgender people who transition?
As the article mentions, not all people who undergo gender transition identify as transgender/transsexual, such as people who are genderqueer or intersex. So shouldn't the article be named something else such as "Gender transitioning" or "Transitioning (gender)", rather than "Transitioning (transgender)" which focuses only on transgender people? Vis-a-visconti (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A definition of transgender from Merriam-Webster: "of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth". A genderqueer person meets these criteria; an intersex person may meet them. On Wikipedia, the Transgender sidebar puts genderqueer and intersexuality under the transgender rubric. Ringbang (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

For discussion: purpose and justification for breaking out Real-Life Experience (transgender) from this article
User:El3ctr0nika has taken it upon themself to break out the section on the Real-life experience from this article into a separate article titled Real-Life Experience (transgender), and I really don't see any compelling reason for doing so… particularly not without some discussion beforehand.

This is a brief article, and though for many transitioning does not involve medical treatment obtained through going through qualification under the rules of The World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the brief discussion that was included here is pertinent, and I think a relatively brief discussion will suffice… unless all the standards that currently apply in different nations are going to be added to the article? (For example, in Germany, a prolonged RLE is required - a year or two, I believe - before one can qualify for hormonal therapies?

Anyway, I've been closely involved in preventing vandalism to this article and making minor improvements, and the edits made in the course of this move to Real-Life Experience (transgender) don't seem all to be improvements to me… and they still leave the text referring to the SOC v6 as a source, when that's been superseded by the SOC v7?

So, User:El3ctr0nika, do you have any comments on this? Or anyone else? - thanks,- bonze blayk (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the somewhat late reply, I don't log in to my account on Wikipedia much so I didn't see your message until today.


 * The RLE is a complex topic that in my opinion is well-deserving of its own comprehensive article. Just because the content of the article is relatively brief at present does not mean that it should merely be included as a subsection of another article. We have stubs for a reason, after all. In addition, placing it as a subsection under the Transitioning (transgender) makes it more difficult to find than it needs to be. That is what motivated me to move the subsection to its own article in the first place in fact; I had a difficult time finding it myself and initially assumed that Wikipedia didn't have any content on the RLE at all; luckily however I kept looking and in the end managed to find it.


 * "particularly not without some discussion beforehand" — My mistake. I did not expect doing so to be a controversial action.


 * WPATH no longer requires an RLE before hormone therapy, and has not for some time now to my knowledge. Instead, either a three month RLE or three months of counseling may be undertaken. Since most mental health professionals require the patient to undergo extensive counseling before writing them a referral letter for either hormones or surgery however, most go down the counseling route instead. However, in contrast to hormone therapy, WPATH requires at least one year of RLE for bottom surgery, hysterectomy/oophorectomy/orchiectomy, top surgery, and breast implants (though many professionals require an RLE of at least two years, especially in Europe). In addition, virtually all surgeons (in first-world countries, anyway) follow the WPATH SOC and require at least one year of RLE to be completed. Only in third-world countries like Mexico or Thailand can one get transgender-related surgery without meeting the WPATH criteria to my knowledge (and even in Thailand many require that the SOC eligibility and readiness criteria for surgery be met). Hence, the "RLE" is not merely something transgender people decide to do, it is in almost all cases a medical requirement for treatment. Furthermore, for those lucky enough to have health insurance that covers transgender-related surgical costs in countries without universal healthcare such as the United States, fully meeting the WPATH SOC criteria for surgery — including completing the RLE — is essentially always a requirement for coverage as well.


 * Another reason that I moved the section to its own article is because I was planning on rewriting/expanding it myself. I have just not had the time lately.


 * The RLE requirements for hormone therapy and surgery are more or less identical in versions six and seven of the Standards of Care — an optional three month RLE before hormones and a mandatory one year RLE before surgery. Take a look for yourself if you'd like. The reference for the SOC v6 should be replaceable with a reference for v7 with no other modifications necessary.


 * If you are concerned about vandalism, why don't you request protection of the page and/or add it to your watchlist? I do not feel personally that concern about potential vandalism is a valid reason to object to an, in my opinion, necessary and valid split.


 * Thus, I oppose merging the content of the RLE article back into the Transitioning (transgender) article. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 21:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Edit: I've expanded the article quite a bit. How do you feel about it now? el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 00:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have several points I feel I need to get across here:
 * 1) You state, quoting from my objections:
 * "particularly not without some discussion beforehand" — My mistake. I did not expect doing so to be a controversial action."
 * Almost all edits within trans* and gender-related topics that are nontrivial are controversial. I now have plenty of experience in this area; please see my X!'s Edit Counter report.  And yes, I monitor this page:  see Transitioning (transgender) - Contributors on toolserver.org.
 * 2) I happen to be a pre-op transsexual myself, and I am reasonably familiar with the Standards of Care enunciated in v5, v6, and v7. I'm quite unclear on why you seem to assume I'm clueless… the standards themselves in regards to qualifiying for Sex reassignment therapy are not particularly complex… what they are, is vague:  "The SOC are intended to be flexible in order to meet the diverse health care needs of transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people."  They are.
 * The social context within which they are interpreted by mental health clinicians, endocrinologists, and surgeons, which generally influence the interpretations of the standards applied in "transitioning", and the steps usually taken in Transitioning (transgender), are an essential part of any discussion of the RLE. One noteworthy aspect to the SOC is that since v6, there are exceptions allowed for many of the standards, and some standards of crucial importance are incorporated by reference (e.g., mental health standards by reference to "Eligibility and Readiness Criteria for Sex Reassignment Surgery: Recommendations for Revision of the WPATH Standards of Care" - Griet De Cuypere & Herman Vercruysse Jr.).
 * 3) Are you aware that endocrinologists now have their own formal documents governing treatment of transsexual persons? Well, since 2009, they do, and those also require mental health evaluations and judgments of fitness for treatment - "Endocrine Treatment of Transsexual Persons:An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline"..
 * 1.0. DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE
 * 1.1. We recommend that the diagnosis of gender identity disorder (GID) be made by a mental health professional (MHP).
 * 3.0. HORMONAL THERAPY FOR TRANSSEXUAL ADULTS
 * 3.1. We recommend that treating endocrinologists confirm the diagnostic criteria of GID or transsexualism and the eligibility and readiness criteria for the endocrine phase of gender transition.
 * 4) Which brings up the fact that the SOC in versions prior to v7 have incorporated a requirement that there be a diagnosis of Gender identity disorder or Transsexualism… while v7 states: "WPATH released a statement in May 2010 urging the de-psychopathologization of gender nonconformity worldwide (WPATH Board of Directors, 2010)." - SOC v7, p. 3. Though v7 does not refer explicitly to making a diagnosis of GID, the truth is that all of the mental health professionals involved in the process are going to have to make that diagnosis - in order to obtain treatment from any endocrinologist who follows the Endocrine Society guidelines, if for no other reason.
 * 5) Which brings in again the topic of Gender identity disorder, soon to be renamed "Gender dysphoria" with somewhat different standards, and how those standards are met.
 * 6) And… finally… the SOC v7 does not employ the phrase "Real Life Experience". Not even once, in the body of the text, and only once, among the references.
 * At which point I'm choosing to leave off here, because the array of issues that are brought into play here are not something dealt with "simply" by breaking out an article for RLE, separate from the existing article on Transitioning (transgender) and other articles on discussing Transsexualism, Standards of Care, Gender identity, etc. Breaking out a separate article for the "RLE", under the supposition that what a "Real Life Experience" constitutes can be determined simply by consulting the standards expressed in the SOC, is a Bad Idea.
 * Finally, you state: "I do not feel personally that concern about potential vandalism is a valid reason to object…".  It is.  Period.  This is not an appropriate subject for argument; you aren't maintaining articles in this particular warzone on Wikipedia:  I'm trying to do so in a reasonably objective manner, given that I do have my own point of view and personal attitudes on various subjects.
 * Thank you, - Bonze Anne Rose Blayk - bonze blayk (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally, you state: "I do not feel personally that concern about potential vandalism is a valid reason to object…".  It is.  Period.  This is not an appropriate subject for argument; you aren't maintaining articles in this particular warzone on Wikipedia:  I'm trying to do so in a reasonably objective manner, given that I do have my own point of view and personal attitudes on various subjects.
 * Thank you, - Bonze Anne Rose Blayk - bonze blayk (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I seem to have hit a nerve. Doing so was by no means my intention, but oh well. I apologize if I came across as condescending or anything of the sort. Again, not at all my intention.




 * Then why bother editing them at all? This statement implies that every single [nontrivial] change should be discussed beforehand. That is simply impractical and unnecessary. Only if there is spoken opposition to a change (such as in this case) do I think that it is necessary for any discussion to take place; that is, unless it's a relatively major and/or obviously potentially controversial edit such as extensive content deletions, etc. Again, I do not feel that moving the RLE content to its own article was/is a controversial change; if anything, it's a logical and pretty straightforward one.




 * If we're going to go by edit count, by that measure, I have some 25x as many edits as you. In addition, I have created over 100x as many articles as you have. Finally, I have earned autopatroller and reviewer privileges, whereas you do not appear to have earned any privileges here on Wikipedia. So please, let's not make this about status.


 * Note that I mention all of this not to assert that my opinion is any better or more valid than yours or anything of the sort, but rather merely to convey that you are by no means above me, which is what I picked up from your statement (if that is not what you were implying though and were merely trying to convey adequacy (or something of the sort), then I apologize again). Anyone's opinion or stance here on Wikipedia is equally valid regardless of editing history/privileges/status otherwise in my opinion.




 * I meant the RLE page. Sorry, I guess I should have made myself more clear.




 * Back to status it seems... Well, I would've preferred to have kept this private for at least a bit longer here on Wikipedia, but I suppose it's pretty obvious to those that watch my edits now that something is up; I, too, am transgender. A young, mid-transition (i.e., hormones), pre-op MTF, to be precise. So we are equivalent again in such regards, not that it should matter.




 * In accordance with the whole fact that am transgender too, the reason I looked up the RLE on Wikipedia in the first place is because I'm preparing for surgery and wanted to get more information on it. I, too, have read the WPATH v6 and v7 SOC several times over myself, and indeed, as you say, they are... a bit vague on the matter; hence, I thought Wikipedia might provide a bit more information on the subject, so here I am. In any case, just giving a little more background.




 * Again, I did not mean to come across as if though I thought of you as clueless or anything of the sort, and I apologize for doing so.




 * I do believe that I touched on this in my expansion of the RLE article: "[...] However, the seventh version of the SOC appears to be less stringent, [...] In addition, WPATH emphasizes that the SOC are merely clinical guidelines, and that they are intended to be both flexible and modifiable to meet the circumstances of the patient and the preferences and judgement of the clinician.[2]"


 * In any case, I get the impression that you are saying all of this namely because you feel that I implicitly insulted your knowledge in my original post. Once again, that was not my intention. My purpose for including that paragraph on the RLE in my original message was not to assert my knowledge as superior to yours on the subject (not at all, for that matter), but rather to convey my reasoning for why I felt that the RLE was a subject of great enough significance to necessitate having its own article.




 * Yes, I am aware of the Endocrine Society's guidelines, and have read them several times over. They are a very nice alternative to WPATH's SOC as they go into far deeper detail on the subject of hormonal therapy and surgery. I feel that WPATH's SOC are wholly inadequate in such regards.


 * In any case, I'm not entirely sure why you bring any of this up; much of it seems to be rather off-topic. Perhaps in part to argue that WPATH's SOC are not the definitive authority on what the RLE is and may consist of (as you touch on below)? If so, I agree, and there are, of course, other standards which have their own take on the RLE. A notable one is Vancouver Coastal Health's take, which is far more concrete and definitive than WPATH's. So yeah, I would very much like to include some of the alternative interpretations of the RLE in the RLE article, but alas, I am very limited on time for the time being. That being said, when I do have more time, I do plan to revisit the issue.




 * I am aware. However, most people know the RLE as, well, the "RLE", and to use WPATH's terminology of a "12-month experience of living in an identity-congruent gender role" could have the potential for confusion. In any case, I did consider mentioning that there is not a single instance of the term "Real-life Experience" in the v7 SOC, and it is probably something that should be done. I may revisit that one as well.




 * Again, I feel that a subject deserves its own article on Wikipedia based not on the content of the current material for the subject, but rather based on the fundamental notability of the subject itself/as a whole. Hence, again, I disagree that the RLE should not at present have its own article, regardless of how limited or insufficient the content of the article currently may be. In any case, I do completely agree with you that solely discussing the SOC's definition of the RLE is inadequate; other standards with differing views should be covered as well. That being said, the SOC are, as you are almost assuredly quite aware of already, by far the most widely used clinical guidelines for transgender medical care, and are followed by the vast majority of clinicians specializing in the field (I would imagine probably in the range of 80%+). So, while I think improvements can certainly be made, at the same time I feel that the article in its present state isn't half bad at all. Further, hiding the content of the article away in a subsection of another article rather than allowing it to have its own page would not actually do anything to address the issues you mention; it would merely sweep them under the rug, so to speak. If anything, doing so would be actively detrimental, as it would decrease the chances of someone expanding the content due to diminished visibility.




 * I disagree. I am not particularly active on Wikipedia anymore as I am just so busy nowadays, but I have made extensive contributions to transgender-related articles in the past, especially those related to endocrinology. The spironolactone article is almost entirely my work, for example. Further, anytime that I do happen to see vandalism, naturally, I remove it. So no, I do not at all agree with you that my opinion on this subject is invalid. Nor should anyone's be considered as such for that matter.


 * Anyway, I continue to adamantly stand by my stance on the vandalism issue for the following reasons:


 * I do not feel that fear of/vigilance towards vandalism should get in the way of progress.
 * I see no reason why the content of the RLE article would be any safer from vandalism as a subsection of the transitioning (transgender) article than in its own article.
 * There are many editors that monitor Wikipedia articles for vandalism, and it is almost always removed very quickly whenever it occurs.
 * If absolutely necessary (which is rare), an article may be granted semi-protection, and that would go a long ways in limiting vandalism in most cases.


 * Perhaps we should consult WikiProject LGBT on this matter, as we do not appear to be getting any closer to a resolution. In fact, I think I'll just go ahead and do so (i.e., link them to this thread and invite them into the discussion) right now.


 * Thanks. — el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 20:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Edit: Here's the link to the WikiProject LGBT discussion invitation: clickie. Let's try to keep the important discussion here though if you don't mind so as to avoid it from becoming fragmented between two different pages. — el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 20:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * El3ctr0nika, why haven't you made your arguments in the WP:AfD about this? That is where your arguments for Keep should go. Do you not know where to click to get to that area of Wikipedia? You and Bonze blayk clearly are not going to agree on this matter, so it's better to let others weigh your arguments on this. But keep in mind WP:Too long; didn't read. I agree with Bonze blayk that a WP:SPINOUT article is not needed to cover this topic. Not yet anyway. And I will now state similar in the Real-Life Experience (transgender) AfD. Flyer22 (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops, my bad. Thanks for the heads up. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 00:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * el3ctr0nika - I've reverted your deletion of yet more content in this article, which you had already revised…seriously, if you're not satisfied with your own rewrites performed a week ago, what on earth will satisfy you?
 * And I think you should avoid statements, such as the ones I list here, implying that I'm not sincere here, or am just being "touchy" about all this. - WP:NPA -


 * "I seem to have hit a nerve. Doing so was by no means my intention, but oh well. I apologize if I came across as condescending or anything of the sort. Again, not at all my intention."
 * "… I have some 25x as many edits as you. In addition, I have created over 100x as many articles as you have. Finally, I have earned autopatroller and reviewer privileges, whereas you do not appear to have earned any privileges here on Wikipedia. So please, let's not make this about status."
 * "Back to status it seems... "
 * "In any case, I get the impression that you are saying all of this namely because you feel that I implicitly insulted your knowledge in my original post. Once again, that was not my intention."


 * This ain't a pissing contest regarding status: it's about background knowledge:  I have a lot (for a lay person) in the fields relating to TG/TS/gender/anthropology/etc, which I believe are fairly evident in my edits and in Talk, where I try to engage in reasonable discussion of the issues - including citing relevant material.  If I were engaging in a serious "status contest", you would be hearing about my totally awesome friends (they are!), or my awesome wardrobe (it is - OMG!  "AGP cred!" - lol), or ''I was a punk rocker - and you're not.  ;-)


 * "In any case, I'm not entirely sure why you bring any of this up; much of it seems to be rather off-topic."
 * That's because you seem determined to miss my point: the standards that are laid out in the SOC documents are very brief and, now, in Version 7, terribly vague, and their interpretation relies wholly on the clinicians who provide treatment.  The "RLE" component is supposed to document a period of successful adjustment to a new gender role… but that's really left up to the judgment of the clinicians… who will be using a general sense of what "transitioning" successfully is… and doing the "RLE" still will not obtain approval for hormones or therapy unless the other standards are met.  The "RLE" in isolation is almost empty as a concept without all those related concerns being conceptually linked:  without that context, it's just a duration.


 * As examples of the vagueness in the Criteria laid out on p. 59 of the SOC v7 for breast modifications for both MtF and FtM patients:
 * 1. Persistent, well-documented gender dysphoria;
 * Define "persistent"; define "well-documented"; neither are specified in the SOC v7.
 * 4. If significant medical or mental health concerns are present, they must be reasonably well controlled.
 * Define "significant medical or mental health concerns" - what on earth is "significant"? Particularly with respect to mental illness:  any DSM Disorder that is diagnosed is by presumption "significant" … but is that what they really mean?  Would a diagnosis of "Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder" be significant" here?  (I should hope not!)  Or is that only Axis 1 Disorders, or Personality Disorders judged to be severe?  "Minor" depression is still "significant" enough to draw a diagnosis… And what does "reasonably well controlled" mean, in practice?


 * These are not "operational definitions", instead they just pass along the interpretation to the clinicians. It's totally vague, nebulous, and indeterminate until it gets worked in to a Letter of Recommendation - and a prescription for hormones, or a date for surgery.  When I saw the V7, it was a cringe-inducing experience, quite frankly, because of the breadth of scope they took on - "transsexual, transgender, and gender-nonconforming" patients - and the revisions in the treatment criteria for sex reassignment therapy were… well, again, very vague, while the standards set out in Version 6 were fairly clear.  I think one of the reasons knowledgeable editors haven't worked on rounding articles discussing the SOC standards is because it's extremely difficult to come up with accurate generalizations (especially in countries such as the US, where there are no organizations built on the "gender clinic model", and treatment is "catch-as-catch-can".).


 * And, finally, as a "reality check", among post-op transsexuals, who seem to uniformly loathe the whole concept of the requirement for an RLE as an unreasonable imposition - "anytime anyone wants to impose any sort of RLE as a precondition for anything, I start looking around for sharp objects" [from a personal communication from a post-op acquaintance], there is the frequently expressed opinion that what's required to Get'Er'Done is: 1) determination 2) a pile of money and 3) a willingness to tell the clinicians what they want to hear so they will approve surgery.  BINGO.  My bringing up my pre-op status is not because it's a "status symbol", but because (thanks to a unique situation) I have to understand the rules very well in order to comply with them - including the aspects that have been part of the "unwritten canon" governing access to surgery - especially because I am absolutely unwilling to lie in order to obtain treatment.


 * Anyway, again, you really ought to discuss changes you want to make in this article before just gutting it or subjecting it to a total rewrite, particularly given that your proofreading skills are not that great. I'd have had no problem adding what you have and more, in what I believe would be a cleaner prose style, if I weren't taking time dealing with your (to me) rather odd insistence that the subject of the "RLE" simply must have its own "island article", and trying to make sense of your lengthy disputations in that regard.


 * And yeah, dealing with all the vandalism, which you just can't seem to take seriously. I checked your revert history: you've done very few… there are not "many editors" dealing with problems in the areas related to "gender" and "transgender issues"… - what do you think of this dumb "parody" on Ken Zucker (?) I nailed today? (a WP:ELNO violation) - sheesh - or trying to make sure the lead for Gender is not gutted, an ongoing challenge BTW - and trying to make improvements to edits which can be phrased better, and working cooperatively on improving articles, and also "real life", to which I shall return immediately…
 * Sincerely, - bonze blayk (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I can see now that my original approach to this discussion was not a beneficial one. It's well-apparent I think that this discussion has done nothing but escalate into a more and more heated state. As a result of that, but also because it is quite obvious that you have not appreciated the way I have been coming across, and because this conversation has started to take its toll on me, I regret the manner in which I have been going about all of this, and I'll be trying a different approach from this point onwards.




 * I'll avoid going into a detailed explanation of why I made that change and simply say that I felt that the article was better with it.




 * I'm sorry. I didn't mean for those to be personal attacks. Rather, those statements were my (likely poor) attempt to do several things:


 * Let you know that I could tell that you did not appreciate the way I was coming across, and to try to convey that I didn't mean to come across in a condescending way, but also to apologize to you nonetheless as I probably did.
 * Defend my own ego, which I interpreted (either correctly or incorrectly) as having been implicitly insulted by you starting namely with your second reply to this thread (note that I do not mention this to criticize you or anything of the sort, but merely to explain myself). There were many things you said in that response (such as the status-related stuff I brought up) that I felt were both condescending and invalidating (whether intentional or otherwise), and I admit, they made me feel insecure. As a result, I responded in large part with my feelings rather than in the more constructive way that I should have.




 * I completely agree that this isn't a contest regarding status (and that's what I've been (probably poorly) trying to convey for a while now, but I digress..). However, I disagree that it's necessarily about knowledge either. Knowledge can, after all, be considered another form of status (think of how it can related to an argument from authority as an example). What this all should really be solely about, of course, or in my opinion at least, are the bases and quality of our reasoning; not our personal status, knowledge, or anything of the sort. That being said, I think that that's actually what you may have just meant, as one's knowledge, naturally, is usually reflected by the quality of their arguments, and that is certainly the case here. I have not looked at your edits or your talk page, but I can tell simply from this conversation alone that you are impressively knowledgeable about the subject of transgenderism, likely easily outweighing my own knowledge of the subject in certain areas (like anthropology, which I know almost nothing about), and probably easily comparable to my knowledge of the subject as a whole. I have not had the pleasure of speaking with (or arguing with, no less :-P) many people with a knowledge of this subject as rich as your own.




 * It's not that I missed your point, but merely that I disagreed with it. I do very much agree with much of what you say about the vagueness and such of the seventh version of the SOC. I remember thinking to myself after reading the v7 SOC section on the RLE for my own transition the other day something along the lines of "so... what the heck do they want me to do exactly?" And in addition to the fact that so many medical professionals and establishments (including my insurance provider) haven't updated to the v7 SOC yet, that's why I decided to include the RLE criteria from the v6 SOC in the RLE article as well. I just disagree that because of the vagueness of the v7 SOC on the criteria of the RLE, the subject of the RLE as a whole should not have its own article (which I believe is your point; correct me if I'm wrong).




 * Alright; fair enough. I interpreted your mentioning your trans status as invalidating at the time because I was under the impression that you brought it up merely to infer that your opinion was more valid than mine because of it. Now that I think about it a little more however I can see that it was probably pretty obvious to you that I was likely to be transgender as well, and hence, you would not have brought it up if that was your sole reasoning for doing so. My mistake.


 * By the way, it's not really relevant I know, but I feel completely the same way as what you touch on here: "[...] among post-op transsexuals, who seem to uniformly loathe the whole concept of the requirement for an RLE as an unreasonable imposition - 'anytime anyone wants to impose any sort of RLE as a precondition for anything, I start looking around for sharp objects' [from a personal communication from a post-op acquaintance] [...]" I would even go so far as to say that I feel that any duration of RLE for anything (in regards to trans medical care I mean) is not only unnecessary but is even so much as unethical. So I sympathize with you in regards to your difficulties in attaining treatment. I certainly know what that's like.




 * Well, admittedly, I still do feel that that was not a particularly controversial change. Hence, I still disagree that any discussion was necessary beforehand. And I still think that the subject of the RLE/the current content on it should have/be in its own article. Further, because you've read my long posts on the matter (which I have to apologize for by the way; I have an extremely bad habit of writing messages that are way too long), I would imagine that you should be able to and probably do understand (though, of course, by no means necessarily agree with) why I hold the "rather odd insistence[(s)]" that I do. All that being said, please do keep in mind that those are merely my own opinions. Anyway, I would also like to say on the other hand that I do appreciate you saying "I'd have had no problem adding what you have and more [...]" (though not so much some of the other things you said in the quote, naturally), as I believe you meant it in a positive (albeit understandably frustrated) way, so I'll go ahead and say thank you for that.




 * My stance on the vandalism concern specifically in regards to this issue (i.e., the RLE article) has still not really changed either, regardless of how much or little vandalism I have reverted in my time here on Wikipedia. In any case, despite my stance, please do not think that I don't appreciate the work editors like yourself do to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism; I very much do. It is editors like you who do the important work of this sort that others like me do not have the time to, and for that, I am thankful. That being said, again, I just do not feel that the fact that I do not partake in it myself invalidates my opinion on this particular matter. It seems that it is just one of the many things by my count that we will have to agree to disagree on. Sorry.


 * Well, I feel a lot better after having written all this. I hope you do too after reading it, despite the fact that we still may not agree on just about anything. :-P


 * Sincerely,


 * Alyssa, or el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 01:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, just reading over this, I must say: thank you, Alyssa/el3ctr0nika I sincerely appreciate your show of consideration here.
 * I'll keep this brief, because dang it's time for bed… ;-)… but anyway, I'll add some more content in response to your thoughts. It's not like branching off the Real-life Experience article is totally god-awful and a true horror… but it's an annoyance, among a sea of worse.  Concern over issues relating strictly to medical treatment branch out into concerns for related concepts and articles that deal with them, which may foster major misunderstandings of TS and TG identities, and promote conflict both within and without Wikipeda.  For example?
 * See the newly-created article Binarism. It's mostly based on WP:SPS blogs, except for the inclusion of incorrect statistics re:  "and be get treatment such as hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery simply to avoid discrimination as opposed to wanting it (36% vs. 27%) as compared with binary trans identities…" from the NCTE report "INJUSTICE AT EVERY TURN" on the extent of the social problems facing trans* folk, which isn't even linked as a cite?  This is WAY wrong, as far as I know:  I can find no such statistic in that report, it's true that the "radfems" object strenuously to lesbian women turning to live as trans men… but they object to everything?  ha.    (That's 1/2 "haha", FYI.)  This may or may not be a "real problem".  But whatever… this is bad.  This qualifies as a Very Bad Idea!  It's part of a broader political/identity war (from my perspective) that's raging outside of Wikipedia, and this article is based on a pure neologism, and should have been canned immediately by somebody else… but it's not happening.  "Binarism" is now linked under multiple categories as a type of "discrimination"… "Categories: Gender, Sex discrimination, Sexism, Sexual and gender prejudice, Transphobia"
 * Phooey. The vast majority of people believe in "Binarism", and that's not likely to change; it's not a form of "bigotry", it may qualify as what some Marxists  called "false consciousness" … maybe.  But it happens to be mostly correct, for most people.  I think it's important that people become more tolerant of "difference" in others, but… I don't believe, for myself, that it will be easy to bring about social evolution in attitudes here, and ranting about transsexuals who are pure binary… a minority, IMO, though they are a significant minority… and intolerant of genderqueer folk, which is actually not all that common as far as I can see, unless they're otherwise "socially unacceptable"?
 * Whatever, I hope you have a good Labor Day or whatever kind of weekend you're scheduled for.
 * PS: my own transition has been purely amazing for me… it's been 99% WIN! which is VERY ATYPICAL! -Thanks again, sincerely - bonzie anne - bonze blayk (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Heya. Sorry for the way too late response. I've been painfully busy lately. :\




 * Aw. It was a few days ago, but when I first read this, it made me tear up a little. Darn estrogen. :P




 * Wow. I completely see what you mean with that article. It's appalling at almost every turn (e.g., severely opinionated, citations seem to be mostly or completely invalid (blog posts? seriously??), etc). In fact, I think I'm going to do something about it. I don't think deletion is necessarily what should happen, but I definitely think that it should be revised by quite a bit. In any case, feel free to join me if you'd like. I figure that there's a very good chance that any of the edits I intend to make to that article will result in conflict, so it'd be nice to have someone else like yourself around in the event that that were to happen.




 * Well, although I certainly see what you mean with the binarism article, I still fail to see how branching off the RLE content into its own article could in any way be bad in these respects. That being said, it may just be best to put the matter behind us at this point.


 * No hard feelings on the result of the AfD by the way. ^^




 * Thanks. It's a little late of course, but I hope yours was good too. :)




 * Same here. It's the best thing I've ever done for myself. Glad to hear that yours has been great too. :)


 * – Alyssa (el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 21:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC))


 * Edit: On second thought, I decided to nominate the binary article for deletion (here). I tried to clean it up at first but my changes were quickly reverted. That and the multitude of problems with the article made me decide that you were probably right, deletion would be the best course of action. Feel free to join the discussion if you'd like. – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 09:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Edit2: Whoooops. I was mistakenly under the assumption that "binarism" and "gender binary" were basically synonyms (which they are, but the article is (rather inappropriately in my opinion) using a different and less common definition for "binarism": discrimination towards those who fall outside of the gender binary). So I redact what I said about the article being opinionated. In any case, there are plenty of other problems with it still (e.g., very confusing name (due to it being used as a synonym for gender binary so often), poorly cited, unnecessary content fork from gender binary, etc), so the nomination for deletion still stands. – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 13:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of article's purpose
I was about to delete this article but I see a significant number of links to it. I find it unclear, though: Transitioning is an extraordinarily vague term. This article begins with a definition of "gender" (which suggests it is only a social construction: "the idea of what it means to be female or male"). The first paragraph also describes drag kings and queens as transitioning, and I have not heard the word used in this context. I wondered if someone from the Wikiproject, or anyone really, might be able to substantiate this use of the word, or advocate for this article generally. Ipsenaut (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking, but drag queens and kings and gender transitioning are somewhat interrelated although certainly not mutually exclusive. -- Banj e  b oi   20:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Most biologists, physicians, biomedical scientists, religious clergy/leaders (whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc.) and the vast majority of laypeople and other human beings on this planet would not agree with the proposed concept of gender as a "social construct" or a whimsical choice. LGBT activists and proponents of such theories and concepts are free to propose and present them as possibilities, but without solid scientific evidence it's simply disingenuous and misleading to imply that this idea is anything more than a fringe theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred perkins (talk • contribs) 14:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
The article opens with a controversial and unreferenced statement: "Transitioning is the process of changing genders." Many people conceptualize transitioning not as changing genders, but as changing one's external social and/or physical manifestation to correspond with one's internal gender, which is unchanging. Of course, it would be helpful to add sources to this article, as then various definitions of transition could be referenced, all with appropriate citations. Anything by Patrick Califia, Jamison Greene, or Julia Serano would be a good place to start looking. I'm not sure I have time, but am adding this note in the hopes that someone else will be inspired to revise this article in a way that can be substantiated with sources, and that documents a debate rather than taking part in that debate. SparsityProblem (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, SparsityProblem, on viewing this article and seeing your note here, I decided to fix the (egregiously incorrect) introduction, and cite "True Selves", which supports the assertion that transitioning involves bringing presentation into accord with one's concept of one's internally-felt gender. (BTW, it's often cited, but I personally didn't care much for that particular book:-)  bonze blayk (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because bonze blayk changed the introduction, can the disputed neutrality tag be removed? Lady-Natalya (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * After reviewing SparsityProblem's POV tag of December 2010 referring to their hir note in this section for an explanation of hir objections, I'm removing the tag, since my edits in May 2011 seem to adequately address the problem sie brought up. - bonze blayk (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The proposed concept that "one's gender" is simply "THE IDEA of what it means to be a man or woman" is, at this point in time, not widely accepted by psychologists, physicians, biomedical research scientsts. The vast majority of our human population do not view gender simply as an idea! If one wishes to present this as a theory then someone in the scientific community will undoubtedly step forward and start testing the vailidity of such a theory. Until such testing proves successful to the satisfaction of the majority of professionals with expertise in related fields, it is simply misleading to imply such an idea as a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred perkins (talk • contribs) 15:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * One's internal sense of gender is indeed based around "ideas"… which are representations of self, and which are accepted by every professional who investigates the issues honestly as influenced strongly in the sense of sexual self-representation and other-orientation - that is, "gender" - as being very strongly influenced by the development of brain structures during fetal development, which vary according to hormonal floods that may (or may not) lead to the masculinization of the brain.
 * ALL of the people possessing expertise in sexology now accept this as a fact; they differ on how to make diagnoses of transsexualism, on typologies differentiating between homosexuals (who also have variant brain structures) and various types of transsexuals who present for treatment, and to what the correct approach for treatment may be in different cases. Note that the American Psychiatric Association has recently issued a statement supporting treatment, including SRS, for transsexual persons… see the "APA Official Actions Position Statement on Access to Care for Transgender and Gender Variant Individuals".
 * thanks, - bonze blayk (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, "sexology" is a type of interdisciplinary focus for studying certain questions. As of October 2012 it is not considered a distinct field of study at any accredited university that I know of. The arbitrary reference to "ALL of the people possessing expertise in sexology" implies that it is an accepted scientific field. This may be wishful thinking.

Furthermore, as a university-trained neurobiologist, I must remind our fair readers that, to date, NO SCIENTIFIC DATA has been published to definitively prove any of the various theories supporting CAUSAL biological bases for homosexuality (i.e., genetic, neuroanatomical, hormonal, or other physiological factors that CAUSE homosexual traits or gender disorders). Simon LeVay, one of the most famous neuroscientists who persued and studied such theories, was very careful to point out that his data did not prove any genetic basis or biologic basis for homosexuality from the time of birth (or earlier). He simply measured differences in brain structures in POSTMORTEM brain tissue (mainly AIDS patients) and found some very tiny differences between gay and straight men's brains. LeVay was quick to point out, however, that such anatomical differences in adult brains do not prove anything. So please don't try to pass off this old data as magic proof! Any neuroscientist, biologist, physician, and even most psychologists and psychiatrists will call you out on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred perkins (talk • contribs) 05:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read Causes of transsexualism and Transgender; considering that transsexual persons comprise a very small percentage of the population, and an unpopular one to boot, there's a lot of research aimed at analyzing differences in brain structures - I suspect it intrigues some researchers because it provides hints as to how more ordinary brain development makes a difference in gender identity…
 * LeVay's research on homosexuality is pretty much irrelevant to transgender phenomena, since the development of structures in the brain related to gender identity is not necessarily congruent with those relating to sexual orientation. - thanks, - bonze blayk (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Legal issues
Article is missing discussion of legal status of gender. Someone who transitions may refer to him/herself as a specific gender different than from birth, but what is the threshold legally? When are they legally allowed to declare themselves a specific gender on census forms, when applying for insurance, etc.? Or are they required to register as a third option, which of course is problematic as most legal forms where gender is indicated offer only the M/F option? This is particularly of interest with regards to those who chose the holistic route of transitioning as opposed to surgery or hormone replacement. And if this is a major issue for advocates - the fact the law doesn't cover these scenarios - that's worth noting. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Transitioning (transgender). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://androgyne.0catch.com/terms.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Rough consensus IMO, and certainly no chance of consensus to move. Andrewa (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Transitioning (transgender) → Transitioning – Transitioning has redirected to the transgender sense of the word since this page was moved from that spot in 2004. The hatnote on this page only indicates one other dab target. Either "Transitioning" was located correctly before it was moved in 2004, or we need a disambiguation page. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support undabbed titles should never redirect to dabbed ones; this title is over-WP:PRECISE. P p p er y 19:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose no matter who has redirected it to what this isn't the only or main use of the verb, it should be pointing at Transition. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per In ictu oculi. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and retarget transitioning. In ictu oculi is right, this isn't the main usage. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article Format
I know that this is a loaded topic but I was reading through this article for a class assignment and I was wonder whether you think that this article should focus more on actually informing people on the aspects of transitioning or if it should continue to serve as more of a laundry list of transition-related topics that it is right now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucytheDiclonii (talk • contribs) 04:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

RLT
RLT redircts here, but the abbreviation does't occur in the article. From http://tarasresources.net/terms.htm, this may be synonymous to RLE, which used to be a section in this article, to which the redirect still attempts to link. Can someone in the know please fix both the coverage in this article and the redirect? ◄ Sebastian 13:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mathglot (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Gender transition
Gender transition, which redirects here, is a better title in my opinion. I've always seen the process as a whole referred to as a gender transition, with to transition simply being the corresponding verb. Transitioning sounds oddly colloquial, and gender transition would be a much less clumsy title than transitioning (transgender). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Transitioning (transgender) → Gender transitioning – Suggest using natural disambiguation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NATURALDISAMBIG. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joce121.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Short description
The current Short description is too long at 109 characters. The current guidelines at WP:SDSHORT advise a limit of around 40 characters. Any suggestions? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted 's good faith proposal of "Process of changing gender presentation" because I felt it was too close to cross-dressing, but I think if we can find something similar that wouldn't cause that confusion that'd be great. I think that the current short description is also wrong, as "internal sense of one's gender" means gender identity. Perhaps "Process of changing gender presentation to one's gender identity" would be better? My only concern is repeating gender twice there and while not as short as 40 characters (64) it's an improvement on the current one. Pinging and  as their writing ability in this topic area might be helpful here. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 10:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * - that sounds apt and perfect. I wouldn't see it so much as repeating 'gender' twice, so much as making a distinction between gender presentation and gender identity.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 11:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that is still too long. It renders on the iOS app to me as "Process of changing gender presentation to one's g..." How about just "Process of changing one's gender"? Firefangledfeathers 14:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * - I wouldn't say that's an improvement; most trans people don't consider transitioning to be 'changing' one's gender per se, merely the physical representation of one's gender. I don't exactly feel I changed my gender when transitioning, more that I just started presenting as it, yknow?
 * Perhaps "Process of changing gender presentation" would do? It's short, it's accurate, and I'd say it fits the bill.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 14:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * that looks great to me. Thanks. Firefangledfeathers 14:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * While it is not inaccurate, in my view it is too broad as it includes cross-dressers and drag queens. The term itself is kind of a misnomer, or at least confusingly abbreviated, because as Fff pointed out, one's gender isn't transitioning at all. The shortest I can come up with, is "Aligning gender expression with one's identity" (or presentation), but that may lose a lot of people unless they're somewhat familiar with the topic already. Part of the problem with my suggestion (and the others) is that for the naive reader, we haven't used the word transgender anywhere and that central point may be entirely missed. "Transgender alignment of expression with gender identity"? But that's still very jargony (and 56 characters). Trying to target the naive user makes it less precise but maybe more friendly(?) "Transgender person's change of presentation" but still doesn't drop all of the jargon. Mathglot (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What about something along the lines of "Process of changing gender presentation" or "Process of living as a different gender" (both 39 chars)? --Equivamp - talk 20:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * - that sounds nice. "Transgender alignment" is odd wording - not the wonkiest I've ever heard but odd. "Process of changing gender presentation" is what it already is;, I wouldn't consider the wording to include cross-dressers or drag queens, to be honest? The article's title of "gender transitioning" should clue readers in as such; maybe a distinguish tag at the top, if one already doesn't exist, for both drag and cross-dressing?--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 21:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think process is the key word that helps differentiate this topic from individual acts such as crossdressing. --Equivamp - talk 21:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * you wouldn't consider it to include cross-dressers (and neither would I) because we already know what gender transition means; but read it like a Martian: "Process of changing gender presentation" is precisely what a female impersonator does before they go on stage, what a cross-dresser does when changing attire, and what a drag queen does when getting ready (unless they're 24/7). You/we already know that none of them are transitioning, so we've kind of factored that out when reading the words, but a careful reading will show that it does include them, and someone not already familiar with the topic only has the words to go on. As for a distinguish tag: maybe, maybe not; but that's a separate issue and we can't use that as a crutch for getting to a proper short description. Mathglot (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"Long-term change in gender presentation" (39 chars) then? It's slightly clunky but may get the point across better. An issue is that this topic area has a lot of overlap and there's not really a brief way that sources distinguish them. Equivamp - talk 22:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That's a nice proposal. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 22:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I hate to be pedantic, but "change in presentation" or "change to presentation"? --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 13:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pedantic is good when we only have 40 characters, . I like "in" more than "to" in this case. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 14:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Change in" also seems like the more idiomatic phrase in my opinion. "Change in" to me the act or process of changing, vs "Change to" which I feel more describes the modification itself. --Equivamp - talk 03:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

What about a completely different approach? Recalling that it is an explanation of scope, and not a definition, so it does not have to be complete, and circular words are okay. So what about this: "Transitional period for transgender people". Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, a two-word title by itself, is at least as good as a five-word attempt at description. If we find a better way, let's go with it, but for the time being, I've removed the short description while we work this out. Mathglot (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "process" works better than "period", but I don't have an issue with your proposed description. I also agree with removing the short description for now. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 14:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer "process" to "period" myself, but this definition at least defines who is transitioning and what that transition is.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 13:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed: process is better than period here. Mathglot (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Virginia Prince- Transgender Pioneer
In Prince's essay "Sex vs Gender" they state that the difference between sex (physical and biological) and gender (social non-biological) renders the idea of "gender reassignment treatment" an impossibility as a gender change is based on a purely social decision. Prince declared that trans-sexuals were members of a totally different social grouping and that the attempts to conflate the two are misguided. Indeed, if transgenderism was to become more socially accepted the need for any form of surgical physical sexual adjustment would be rendered redundant. The early social clubs Prince established in the US excluded trans-sexuals for that reason. Just as they (along with the Beaumont Society in the United Kingdom) excluded homosexual cross-dressers as they did not want to be seen as being associated with that social grouping.

I think the time is well past when the three categories of "trans" put forward by Prince were re-stated and treated as seperate groupings. Trans-vestites/Drag queens are those who dabble in gender play on a non-permanent basis without any desire to either make it a life long thing or seek surgery for. Trans-genders are (in Prince's eyes) heterosexual males (though Prince recognizes there are females who adopt masculine personas, these latter are largely seen as reaching towards a higher ideal that society has no issues with, totally unlike a male adopting feminine characteristics) who freely choose to adopt a feminine persona 24/7, again without either the desire or need for a surgical transition. Trans-sexuals who are driven by a desire to change their biological sex class to resolves some inner psychological tension that is non-voluntary.

Prince also declares in that same essay that it is impossible for any male with a penis to claim to lead a female life whether they are cross-dressed or not and that only full trans-sexuals should be accorded such a privilege.

I think this entry should be re-edited to match these verifiable facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.36.45 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not happening. I don't think anyone would consider an essay by Prince to invalidate the rest of the citations we have on this article, nor is anyone going to be undertaking the redefinition of what it means to be transgender based on one artist's opinion. (I'm not going to even address the pretty offensive characterisation of transgender men and women in this block of text.)
 * Information on Prince's views of gender and sexuality could go somewhere, though an article about Prince would likely be the only place where it would have enough notability to stay.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 22:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 11 October 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Gender transitioning → Gender transition – A participle here just feels weird. Gender transition clearly is the common term for this, see for instance Ngrams:. Madeline (part of me ) 21:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nomination. We could remove "ing" from "transitioning" in the current lead sentence without changing any of the other words and it would still work. Funcrunch (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as more WP:NATURAL. The proposed title also feels like it better fits the spirit of WP:NOUN (even though, strictly speaking, gerunds are nouns as well). ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:GERUND. I think the current title is more natural. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, as the proposal is more natural and concise. WP:GERUND would apply if "transition" weren't already a noun. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom – I can't think of a sentence which uses "gender transitioning" well; "my gender transitioning", "he was undergoing gender transitioning", etc. all sound clunky and it's not something I've ever seen used elsewhere but here.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 10:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)