Talk:Shemale/Archive 6

Edits by Jokestress
I reverted much of the changes by User:Jokestress because they were not very neutral and are quite misleading. Please discuss proposed changes here, adding reliable sources. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.6.205 (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your changes in the body of the article are fine, but if you want to revise the lede, please cite a reliable source. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources do not need to be repeated in the lede when they are included in the article. It would be more helpful to interested editors if you are more specific regarding your criticisms.— James Cantor (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 124.82.42.202
I reverted the edits by User:124.82.42.202 because the proposed definitions are original research not backed by a reliable source. Please provide a source regarding the proposed definition. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two issues with the edits that keep getting added from the Malaysian IPs:
 * "fully transitioned": this is an inaccurate and loaded term. It represents a fixation on penises. Many trans women have no intention to get vaginoplasty, so they are "fully transitioned" without it.
 * "shemale" does not equal "transsexual woman without vaginoplasty." In the definition that keeps getting inserted, you're making an assertion to that effect. I propose we use this quotation: "The term shemale is used in this setting to denote a fetishized sexual persona and is not typically used by transgendered women outside of sex work. Many transgendered women are offended by this categorization and call themselves T-girls or trans."

Please do not re-insert your definitions without a similar reliable source. Jokestress (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE attention by mis-ordering connotation section.
Putting the connotations section first is a bizarre violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:MEDMOS; doing so is an example of an article written to convince readers of a POV (not to use the term) rather than merely to describe the term (however it is used). It makes no sense whatsover for connotations of a term to precede the actual definitions. Moreover, the difference in the quality/reliability of the sources is extreme: The medical/scientific section contains multiple references from the highest-end, peer-reviewed scholarly RS's in print (such as the journal Nature) whereas the connotation section is a collection of personal opinions expressed by individuals in fields not of their own expertise. As I said previously, the connotations are relevant, but must be used solely descriptively for readers, not pursuasively such as by pride of place. — James Cantor (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If the lede is only containing one use, the connotation should be next to that use. One can just as easily claim your clear attempts to downplay the reality of how this term is used are a POV move to align this article with the views of your friends. Jokestress (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you have not been reading my edits thoroughly or are confusing me with the IP editor. I have indeed included, and re-included (I may be up to three times now) the connotations in the lede.  My objection has been, and remains, to state that connotation as fact rather than as opinion when there is no RS to justify it.— James Cantor (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV violations by expressing sources' opinions as facts.
There does not exist any source capable of justifying statement about what "nearly all" transsexuals think nor what "most" transsexuals think. Individuals authors (writing outside their expertise) may certainly have their opinion, and such opinions (when coming from bone fide experts) indeed merit mention. As I have expressed several times, however, such opinions cannot be written as if they were facts. Consensus regarding an NPOV description of connotations should be achieved before re-adding it to the lede. I propose this text:
 * The term is innaccurate and has been called derogatory when applied to transsexuals who have completed sex reassignment surgery.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, then we need to name and describe the "experts" who are under the impression this is value-neutral language. The term is derogatory when used for any transsexual woman. This notion that it is acceptable to call anyone this term needs to be backed up with a secondary source. Jokestress (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No. What we need is to stick to WP style.  Whom you deem an expert (with or without passive-aggressive scare quotes) and what you declare as is are both irrelevant.  WP guidelines are very clear on these points, and the contents of high-end, peer-reviewed journals are preferrable to opinions expressed in low end docs lacking editorial review.— James Cantor (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Olsson reference
I don't see any use of "she-male" in the text of the Olsson paper referenced in the article: Olsson, S.-E., & Möller, A. (2006). Regret after sex reassignment surgery in a male-to-female transsexual: A long-term follow-up. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 501-506. I have removed it since we have other better sources for the same thing. Jokestress (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The term appears on page 505, column 2, line 27.— James Cantor (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me be more clear. It doesn't appear in the body of the paper. Jokestress (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the body of the paper. Olsson and Möller are clearly acknowledging the use of the term as it appeared previously (in Blanchard, 1993).  I suggest you post the question to a relevant noticeboard for input from non-involved editors.
 * Moreover, your use of "other better sources for the same thing" appears inconsistent to the point of hypocritical. Removing sources in favor of "better" sources when you disagree with them, but leaving (and adding more) sources despite the existence of "better" ones when you agree with them will not convince uninvolved editors of your NPOV.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Citing someone else's paper title does not mean they are using the term in a sentence in their own paper. Right? Jokestress (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone else's paper title? You sound as if you are confusing the relevant text of the article in the body (p. 505) with the reference section (p. 506).  Olsson and Möller described the concept, provided readers with the term for that concept, and provided readers with the reference for their use of the term.  The RS is strongly valid and should be re-instated.— James Cantor (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They are simply repeating Blanchard's terminology: "Her ideal condition, confirmed from the medical records and at follow-up, is living as a female, feminized by hormones, but with male genitals, ie, she-male status (Blanchard 1993)." I don't think that really adds much. Jokestress (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You make my point for me. A scientist using the terminology as used by another published scientist is exactly how to show the acceptance of the term by topic experts.  To remove "repeats" in the section you don't like and to leave them (and even enhance) the same "repeats" in the section you do like is about as obvious evidence of a failure of WP:NPOV as can be had.— James Cantor (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

— James Cantor (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated the Olsson ref.
 * I have also reinstated the Dixon ref which user:Jokestress also removed for the definition of the term (and somehow neglected to mention when saying she removed the Olsson ref).
 * I have posed to RS/N whether the given refs are sufficient to justify claims about what "most transwomen" think rather than convey the opinion of the authors.

"Some biologists" as a failure of NPOV.
It is a failure of WP:NPOV to treat a field's use of a term as an individual's use of a term. Activists may prefer a field use another term, of course, but such changes in tone/text are merely POV attempts to discredit what one doesn't like...and it's not even a particularly graceful attempt.— James Cantor (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Most biologists use different terms. Further, some biologists have noted that the term as used by some biologists is problematic and explained why they don't use it. I recommend that you calm down a bit and try to work out as much of this as we can here before escalating to third parties. Jokestress (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

— James Cantor (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly fine that other biologists use other terms. This article is about this term.
 * A biologist is perfectly free to give her opinion. I contest only citing opinions as facts.
 * Given the circular edits already going on for several days now, seeking the opinion of non-involved editors is exactly the appropriate thing to do. Your hesitation in seeking out the uninvolved is best interpreted by others.

Get Some Help
Your statement about my use of what you perceive as loaded term is based on an unclear understanding of word elements (as deconstructed in the previous paragraph) 'shemale' term is made up of. This could be due to your likely coloured perception from a refusal or inability to acknowledge something which you have turned into a personal crusade to justify your handicap with.

Are you consulting a clinical psychiatrist who has preconceptions of a body image tailored to her understanding of any term that does not fit what you really prefer? If so, you better get a second opinion WITH a copy of this discussion page before you become even more confused (and hopefully not hostile as well?) . It will likely be helpful to unravel all that knotted up logic you are displaying. YOur floundering about here on WP is starting to be of concern to me and other users too I think. Alternatively, it could be an issue related to a low Linguistics Intelligence Quotient. You could try a proper linguist who could help you understand context and implied use of word elements in relation to this discussion.

Hope you try either or both. And soon. To wrap things up, this article is about the term 'shemale' which is a subset covered by the term 'transwoman'. WP's goal is to clarify what a 'shemale' is to the layperson not force other users to accommodate inadequacies in linguistic perception or logic displayed by any WP contributors. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.41.31 (talk • contribs)


 * I agree with the IP editor regarding unclear use of vague terms resulting in an obfuscating instead of clarifying WP article, but I would caution against making personal attacks against specific editors.— James Cantor (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of 'Transwoman' term, use of transsexual and shemale only
I am using more accurate terms than 'transwomen' which User:Jokestress seems to prefer somehow. I am removing the term because the term is not very clear and suggest that ambiguous terms like 'transwomen' be no longer used for the 'shemale' article as the 'shemale' article should be about making clear the differences between shemales and transsexuals, which mainly lie in the presence of male genitalia. Transwoman obfuscates the distinctions. Thanks.60.49.44.11 (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is not encyclopedic to define a term using even more vague, slang terms.  Indeed, it is the use of exact and explicit definitions that makes the scientific/medical sources superior sources, and it is the use of ambiguous terms that makes low-level sources ripe for abuse by individual editors' POVs.— James Cantor (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Trans women" is used in reliable sources, we have an article on the term, and it can be used while still explaining how this term is used without causing any confusion. This mythical distinction between "shemale" and "transsexual" is not reflected in how the term "shemale" is used in reliable sources. You are both making assumptions that the way you use the term in relation to sex work is the only way the term is used. It has been used since Janice Raymond's book to describe any trans woman. The article needs to reflect all uses and connotations, giving appropriate weight to each. Any changes need to reflect a reliable source, or else we are into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Jokestress (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 60.49.44.11
I just reverted all edits by User:60.49.44.11. Those edits removed one-third of the reliable sources. Please do not remove sourced material without discussing it here first. Jokestress (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Jokestress
I just reverted all edits by User:Jokestress. Reliable sources cited only qualify as original research. Please do not add sourced material without discussing it here first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.46.122 (talk • contribs)
 * If you continue to be disruptive, I am going to take steps to have the article protected. If you'd like to discuss changes, please do so here. Jokestress (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are being disruptive, and I too am going to take steps to have the article protected and inform all the necessary contacts I have access to about this un-WP-like article being coloured by your perception. If you'd like to discuss changes, please do so here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.46.122 (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

comment:protection will mean you won't be able to edit, jokestress will. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then they should rename Wikipedia as Jokestress-Pedia then. I'm going to try to put a stop to this (i.e. get Jokestress and CardinalDan's accounts suspended) via the official route instead. Wish me luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.47.100 (talk • contribs)

Reply on Why Keep Adding
'Trans women' (a vague multiple use slang term which should not be used in the 'shemale' article, as it is a loaded term that can describe transvestites, transsexuals or any persons in any stage of transitioning (with or without vaginoplasty) as well as those who have fully transitioned.

Partial transitioning can refer to :

1) breast augmentation 2) testiculation 3) vaginoplasty

Any combination of the above only counts as partial transitioning.

It is only when all 3 are applied that there can be no more transitions which logically means 'full transitioning'. How is "fully transitioned" inaccurate or loaded then?

Transitioning can only refer to full SRS with vaginoplasty or partial SRS (testiculation) and nothing else. How can you consider a transwoman to be "fully transitioned" without vaginoplasty? Doesn't make sense.

An alternative explanation to clarify your apparent confusion follows in the next paragraph.

She-Male has two word elements which indicate Breast-Penis(Optional with Testicles). Woman-He, She-Man and She-He are clumsy variations which are not used but also all refer to the same thing. But without breast augmentation or presence of penis said person cannot qualify as She-male. Thus by logical progression, 'fully transitioned' (not loaded at all) refers to 'all three elements being completed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.41.31 (talk • contribs)


 * "Full transition" and "partial transition" suggest that a person's decision to take certain steps but not others means their transition is incomplete. That's a very loaded supposition. Many people only take certain steps and have no interest in other steps. It's loaded in the same way that terms like "pre-" "post-" and "non-operative" suggest that an operation is the be-all and end-all of a transition. It places emphasis on surgeries which have nothing to do with whether someone has completed transition. Transition isn't about what surgeries someone has had. Jokestress (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Their own opinion
Did not this article once state that the persons in question (female-bodied but with male genitals) did not want to be called so because they consider themselves women?

2010-08-16 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.


 * If not, it probably should at least mention that most transsexual women have that opinion. Currently it states that this is because transsexuals don't want to be associated with the "sex trade", but it's at least as likely to offend them because they don't want to be considered "not women". TricksterWolf (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the term seems to be very widely used, for a man trying to convert to a woman, how accurate can the statement be that the use of the term "she-male for a transsexual woman would be considered highly offensive, for it implies that she is working 'in the (sex) trade"? The term does not imply activity in the sex trade at all, though I suspect that a high proportion of shemales are actually prostitutes.203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Desire for NPOV inclusion of self-labeling
This is an article which evokes a lot of emotions for people. I need to preface my comments below by saying that I know what it's like to be considered "less than a woman", I understand that this is not something any woman wants to experience on a general basis, and people should be aware that the vast majority of transsexual women who have transitioned to live full-time in the female gender find the label "shemale", or any label which does not identify them as a woman, to be invalidating and offensive.

That being said, I think it is inauthentic that the article suggests it is impossible for a woman to self-identify as a shemale outside of the professions of sex work. I am a non-operative female transsexual. When I say that, it is generally assumed that non-op refers only to GRS, as GRS and/or plans for GRS have been the traditional marker of transsexuality for most transsexual women. Non-operative isn't actually accurate, mind you: I've had many cosmetic operations, just not specific operations on my genitals in order to make them look or behave like an approximation a typical woman's vulva. But I find "shemale" non-offensive when applied to me personally, and I know several other trans-women of like mind.

The landscape of gender has changed substantially over the past few decades. As transgender acceptance grows, the diversity of gender presentation will continue to grow. There already exist a number of subcultures which, while sexually oriented, are not limited to "sex work": BDSM, furry, Japanese manga, and even certain dating communities, to name a few. The term "shemale" is embraced by a small subset of transsexual women, particularly non-ops such as myself, because it is an unambiguous description of their gender (female) and sex (male genitalia). Certainly, there are many men and women out there who are preferentially attracted to people with male genitalia and female appearance, and if these individuals are looking for a long term relationship, a pre-op transsexual (one taking hormones and planning to have genital surgery) may not at all be what they are interested in. There are also other world cultures which have words with identical meaning to "shemale" that lack the stigma, as the public existence of women having men's genitalia is a part of the culture (e.g., some countries in East Asia).

I realize that I am in the distinct minority, but I know enough transsexual women to know I am not alone in self-identification with other-gendered terms. The connotations section is the same message repeated a dozen times: shemale is offensive to transsexual women, and it is only used by transsexual women in the context of sex work. I agree that the word shemale is less often used outside of sex work, but there are many people who self-identify with "shemale" who are not sex workers. The fact that people can and do self-identify with "shemale" without selling their bodies, particularly in certain subcultures which are more open to sexuality, should be something the article does not exclude with its language. The way it is currently written it seems like this is not possible, but all you need to do is go on alternative dating sites or log on to MU clients or IRC or read transgender-specific fiction online to see that there is a rather wide use of this term outside of the context of blatant pornography or intentional insult.

The main problem with most of the "research" quoted in this article is that it is supported by little more than a slew of self-contradictory POV among psychologists, sociologists, feminists, nonfiction authors, sex researchers, etc, spanning several decades. These opinions attempt to characterize the nature of the word to most trans-women, and they are largely correct, but not exhaustive. Additionally, a lot of the quotes seem to call transsexual women "women" if they are planning GRS, but call them "men" if they are not planning it, which reinforces the traditional view that "you're not really transsexual unless you can both afford to, and wish to, pay a doctor to mutilate your genitals".

The bottom line is this. If someone comes to this page what they probably want to know is: "What does shemale mean?" Shemale is a term used most frequently in sex work; it means someone with outward female appearance, usually including breasts, and male genitalia; and most transsexual women (especially pre and post-op) find the term offensive. The long diatribe over and over by various researchers about how trans-women are always offended by it and it's never used outside of sex work, is inaccurate when taken in its entirety. TricksterWolf (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding personal unpublished opinions and fringe beliefs. The small number of people who consider the term shemale scientific or unproblematic constitutes a tiny minority. The article needs to reflect consensus: this is a term that emerged from both anti-trans feminist ideology and pornography. In fact, one reason people like Janice Raymond used it is because it was so closely connected to pornography, which they consider an industry created by men to subjugate women. Their rhetoric states that "shemales" are part of a larger assault on womanhood, and that trans women "rape" non-trans women's bodies by their very existence. The article cites a Kate Bornstein report of someone who uses it as a value-neutral identity, and there may be others in books and papers. That was the only one I found at the time. However, it's clear from the vast majority of reliable sources that the word is closely tied to sex work, and it's primarily used in that manner by both the sex industry and its second-wave feminist opponents. If we have additional published citations that reflect other uses, we should include them. I'm happy to help with finding others. Jokestress (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything you say about encyclopedic content. Just to be very clear, I don't want to introduce fringe content (and I know that few women identify with the term shemale; the only times I do are within those groups which are accepting of the term).  My concern is more that parts of the article, especially the Connotations section, sound like a soapbox by quoting widely disparate groups in an attempt to prove (or get the point across) that "shemale" is largely a slur.  Granted, it IS largely a slur, but the purpose of an article is to inform, not convince.  If you had seen this article in past years then you know it used to be much less encyclopedic.  I think given the sensitivity transsexual women often feel about being perceived as female this article will probably always be tempting to soapbox on.


 * Your response has been very enlightening, and I think it would add something to the article. Before I saw your response I didn't really get the relevance of including anti-trans feminist opinion in a paragraph with sex researchers, psychologists, transsexual activists, etc.  All the quotes are saying similar things, but they're from different times and perspectives.  I think the "Connotations" section is a loose and somewhat incoherent jumble of quotes and it is the part that bothers me the most about the current version.  Mightn't it be better to separate it into categories based on "opinions in feminism", "opinions in research", etc.?  Or perhaps separating the opinion by era would be good enough, because historical perspectives (in feminism, for example) are often quite different from current perspectives.  I don't think it merits headers, but separating the quotes out with a brief comment in text would make it more digestible (for me at least).


 * Either way, I'll look into additional sources later. TricksterWolf (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW: My own feelings about "shemale" parallel TricksterWolf's (and personally, I'm hoping to undergo SRS):  the term may be intended by some as an insult, and may be associated in some people's minds solely with pornography, but I always thought that "shemale" was... descriptive.  Interestingly enough, the #1 definition in my non-WP:RS crowdsource for all things slang (Urban Dictionary) has shemale : A woman with a penis. (1532 up, 308 down).  So Mildred Brown and Chloe Rounsley said "She-males are men" in True Selves back in 1996?  Fascinating.  Could it be the case that the "connotations" of the term are evolving?  Offhand, however, I am not aware of any WP:RS sources supporting this contention.
 * I was only prompted to look over the current entry on "connotations" by TricksterWolf's comment, but it does read a lot like a rant to me... how much hammering is really required to nail this term down as a pejorative (in many people's eyes... though surely not those of the consumers of "shemale porn")? -- bonze blayk (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The term is almost exclusively used in sexualized depictions of trans women, like porn, pageantry, transgender fiction, and other formats where it's part of a sexualized (often masturbatory) script. Shemale is indeed descriptive. It describes a very specific type of sexualized body configuration, designed to appeal to those who wish to have sex with someone with that configuration or embody that configuration themselves, often as part of a masturbatory fantasy. The former are informally called transfans; the latter are informally called wannabes. Jokestress (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree this is how the term is most commonly used, but the fact that it appears in sex-related media is an artifact of how gender is yoked to sex culturally. The term "transsexual" also is used in sexualized depictions of trans women, and that has "sex" in the word itself.  Whether you view the construct as sexualized comes down to one person's specific take on it.  I mean, not everyone who is open to a relationship with a non-operative female transsexual is a "tranny-chaser" or a "masturbatory script fetishist".  Some of them are just bisexual or label-resistant (or straight, or gay...).  Either way, it certainly helps to have a label of some sort to describe yourself to potential intimate partners, whether or not sex is what you're looking for.  I don't think this is endemically a "sex" thing anymore than being gay is a "sex" thing or one's gender is a "sex" thing.  How the term is used in porn is irrelevant, just as it is with "transsexual", except for the fact that it is not commonly used elsewhere.  TricksterWolf (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this is not a forum, let's stick to discussing published sources. Here's a recent book: "This idea of undergoing a sex-change without going all the way is something very much eroticized in the sex industry, with an abundance of 'shemale' porn and associated sex workers available." Source: Lauren Rosewarne (2011). Part-Time Perverts: Sex, Pop Culture, and Kink Management. If you have something to cite that makes your points above, please add it for discussion. Jokestress (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm mainly concerned about the organization of the Connotations section (which seems to ramble) and to a lesser extent, some of the wording of the introduction (Lena makes a good point, above). I'll open a new section this weekend to propose some minor changes in structure, and see if we can reach a consensus. I have no interest in trying to "redefine" the term, but this article needs to be encyclopedic rather than "preachy". TricksterWolf (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as an addendum: the header here is somewhat misleading as my intent is not currently to add "self-labeling" to the article, unless sources for that sort of thing turn up. Although it may be appropriate to include popular dating sites as an example of places where people looking for relationships rather than sex-work can and do identify with "shemale", I don't know if that's something that's easy to cite or worth mentioning. TricksterWolf (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Joke?
That "artist's rendering" seems to be the woman image with an MS Paint penis. That's not very interesting. It doesn't suggest anything unintuitive about shemales. If they were really just women with penises, there wouldn't really be anything for a picture to elucidate. There are possibly some other characteristics that might be reasonable to display. A photograph would be fine for that, but the current image is just a ridiculous waste of space.72.84.187.95 (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is probably a simple line drawing rather than a photograph in order to make the article look encyclopedic rather than pornographic (though the distinction is arbitrary). While there are public sources for images of nude men and women that are not taken from pornography, there are few of non-op transsexual women outside of that domain (due to rarity...just as it's harder to find nude images of people with dwarfism or amputations that aren't pornographic in context).  I mean I could do it, but I wouldn't be willing to have my photograph on the Shemale page; would you?  TricksterWolf (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Op what do you wish for them to show the under side of the genital area?( to make things clear unless your using women in politeness, the term transwoman would be a better technical term or pre-op trans woman.) If you want a Woman with a Phallus go to Futanari. Oddly enough out of all the articles on WP the futanari article could be considered pornographic even though it is in a section for such subjects in sexuality and fetishism I mean it's the least sexual way to represent such an image of a transwoman. -anonomans.


 * I agree that the "artist's rendering" is absurd, reminiscent of Rubington's illustrations to "Fuzz against Junk" and similar absurdist essays. I am in favour of its removal even though its presence here does make me smile. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, that image is a an amalgam of the images from the pioneer plaque. I agree that it's not particularly interesting in this article.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's also inaccurate; transwomen don't have a waist and hips like that - this isn't a criticism as I LOVE transwomen aesthetically and they can be curvy in other places... but it's not accurate; they don't have a womb or 'birthing hips'. groovygower (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Language of Article
In the Academic Use section, someone has place the sentence "The term is also used by some psychologists to refer specifically to male-to-female transsexual people who have transitioned to female at least cosmetically, such as with breast augmentation, but have not undergone genital surgery."

I believe this sentence can cause confusion in the reader. It seems to me that many, if not most so-called transexuals, are people whose surgery has been "cosmetic." Exceptions would be those who whose surgery has been done in order to improve urinary function, for those people who have malformed genitals, or injured genitals, or whose surgery has been done to improve sexual functioning, for those people who are intersexed and have ambiguous genitalia, or who have injured genitals.

That is, their surgery has not actually changed their sex: they are still the same sex because they still have the same chromosome set in each cell. Therefore this is cosmetic surgery in many cases, and not surgery to improve functioning.

You might argue that hormone therapy has changed someone's sex more than cosmetically, since hormone therapy affects their functioning on a cellular level, in addition to affecting their superficial appearance, but surgery by itself only produces cosmetic changes. Nomenclator (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've revised that sentence to reflect your suggestion. Jokestress (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the sentence is confusing, and I'm okay with the edit, but I respectfully disagree with your statements about the cosmetic/functional boundary, and I want to caution you on your tone (e.g., "so-called transexuals").
 * First off, I don't think that there is a clear line to be drawn between functional and cosmetic surgeries. "Top" surgeries (breast enhancement or removal) could be described as cosmetic, but it also serves a very strong function for reducing gender dysphoria, both directly and indirectly (i.e., by making the person's body more in line with their identity and by encouraging others to identify them with the gender with which they self-identify).  "Bottom" surgeries (genital surgery) are often done to improve sexual functioning, as the person using the genitals is not able to use them sexually without dysphoria.
 * I'd also like to point out some errors in your argument which I would like you to address:
 * • "...still the same sex because they still have the same chromosome set in each cell." It is not the case that chromosome sets determine sex, additionally, it doesn't matter if there is sex-chromosome variety in a single person's cells.  Specific humans may be described as "chromosomally male" or "chromosomally female" without being male or female.  "Sex" does not necessarily mean "chromosomal sex."  There are many examples, but XY gonadal dysgenesis should be enough for now.  There is an argument to be made that "sexual reassignment surgery" is a misnomer, and that it should be something like "what-pronoun-people-use-when-they-can-only-see-your-groin-reassignment surgery," but this article is not the place to change that.
 * • "Therefore this is cosmetic surgery in many cases, and not surgery to improve functioning." This is a non sequiter; your conclusion does not follow your reasoning.  Just because a surgery does not reassign chromosomal sex does not mean it is cosmetic surgery, and does not mean it doesn't improve functioning.  Note that surgeries can have cosmetic components (which just means that they affect the way you look) without being cosmetic surgery.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Though you are correct, this is not a forum for enlightening editors about human sexual diversity. You are welcome to have a discussion on your respective talk pages. Also agree that Nomenclator's tone is unfortunate, which can also be discussed via User talk or more serious remedies. Jokestress (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what is wrong with my tone. I respect the right of any adult to do anything they want, to their own body. That is all I feel obligated to convey, in my tone. I think that "transsexual" is a misnomer. I would remind you that a male who has his testicles removed and has his scrotum used to construct labia, etcetera, and who take female hormones, does not have a uterus, fallopian tubes. The question is what makes someone a female? Is it their chromosomes and genes, their physiology, their hormones, the presence of gonads in the abdominal cavity as opposed to outside the abdominal cavity, the kind of hormones produced by their gonads, without regard to their location, the presence of a uterus or not? I'm simply arguing that genetics is the defining factor. That's my opinion. You can hold another opinion if you want. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong with my tone.And who cares about my tone, anyway? What is important is what I denote. Connotation is subject to wide interpretation; denotation is interpreted more narrowly, more precisely, more usefully. Denotation can be clear, but it is not always clear whether connotation is a result of the way an individual wrote something, or of the way an individual reads it, given their background and amount and kind of knowledge of the reader. One reader may see one connotation, one another. A writer can often succeed in providing everyone with nearly the same denotation but can less often succeed in providing everyone with the same connotation as everyone else.Nomenclator (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

She Male Transformation Theory
The article might have included more topics relevant to the she male state, its physiological basis, and its history and politics.

Transformation from a male to a she-male lady with both breasts and male genitals may come about merely by absorbing the right strokes in a stirring human passion sequence, repeatedly, over a period of time. There are also popular nutraceutical and pharmaceutical aids to she-male transformation. Inverse transformation seems to be possible with exercise, assuming the testicles are not removed, or if one has testosterone or DHEA supplements at hand.

What is sometimes overlooked is that stirring human passion may continue until the penis is transformed into a vagina, which may happen before or after the lady gets pregnant. Unless she males desire to bear, they may prefer to limit the volume of sexual activity so that the penis remains, unless (for instance) their dread of being drafted as males at war leads them to prefer a completely female style. This may happen even when prophylactics are used to block pregnancy. In other words, she males may be quite difficult to distinguish from women, althout the karyotype seems not to be XX, but XY or XYY.

There are also pharmaceutical aids and procedures for arresting transformation phenomena with medicines, preventing pregancy with ovulation inhibitors, and preventing undesirable side-effects such as HPV warts with HPV inhibitors. Adenocarcinoma should also be inhibited with medicines or blockers such as prophylactics.

Ladies and gentlemen as parents must face the dillemas of infant extraction.

I think for she male ladies the best choice may be C-section under general anethesia. Then with elevated testosterone or exercise, the penis may come down and recover without being enlarged, particularly. I get the impression that specific uterine material must be removed properly in order for the lady to get back into a corset with a slim waist and a scar that might be removed with scar cream. Infant extraction from she male hips may involve episiotomy cuts that are worrisome, and the hips may break, after which they may heal properly with correct handling. She male children may exhibit the XYY karyotype, which leads to more male children being born than female children. Eventually, this can lead to a situation in which an entire tribe or nation is really all male at birth, finally, composed entirely XYY karyotype ladies (she males) and XYY gentlemen, which in some territories becomes entirely XYY karyotype ladies or visibly entirely men, with ladies hidden away. There are many variants and mixtures that have been observed in Indian tribes and various nations. I get the impression that territories east of the Danube featured more she males, including USSR territories. Indeed the term "USSR" suggests busty endowment with the "SS" being put into place by "UR" activity, as Lenin must have known, although in RuSSia we found "CCCP", resembling necktie bait. On the western side of the Danube river, men struggled rather more to obtain children from conventional XX karytype women and less from XYY or XY karyotype she males, partly because of possible loss of consort in difficult childbirth and transformation anxiety, or a desire not to allow the XX karyotype women to vanish, leaving one with no Old Time women. Whispering artifacts built into the words of languages reflect the history of communications concerning the matter, as do visual heiroglyphic formations in words such as the busty "SS" heiroglypic or "eo" and "oe" glyphs connected to reflexive winks of male and female types in English. In the USA, ladies and gentlemen have mostly peacefully coexisted with men and women, although some states made sodomy illegal, which was a barrier to transformation requiring an elopement or a marriage in another state of the Union. The supreme court opinion recently was in favor of relative liberty in the matter, and more states have been dropping sodomy laws. The political history of reproduction from males and inherent limits in reproduction from males due to physiology and how these may be overcome by multiplet technique and state support for mothers (who may affect a male professorial air) also are gradually becoming apparent to students of Internet. Indian tribes have joined other indian tribes in history to recover from the dillema of bearing children from males, when that is considered preferable. There seem to have been historic cases in which women were sufficiently distrusted to motivate males to flee to the alternative, however. Also, women have fled from men to safer ground when war was impending, leaving men to satisfy themselves as they may in the meantime, which may finally lead to rolling your own. Men or women may make affairs so difficult for men that they become tabboo or even repulsive and ghastly, which also leads to more togetherness between males. This might come about by requiring women to reproduce vastly to improve the volume of troops available for warfare when warfare is unpopular. I might add that even soldierly-looking males can be found in pregnant condition. http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Male+Pregnancy.

See http://greenray4ever.com/lifexnotes6.html. JamesAGreen (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not general discussion of the topic. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason that this article does not contain discussion of what you are describing is that what you are describing is not based on reality, but is an amalgam of various fetish depictions from the Internet.
 * I am sorry to have to tell you this, because it seems like you genuinely believe that what you describe is true.
 * The article that you cite does not come close to being an appropriate source. If you have more appropriate sources, feel free to share them.
 * Please do not make edits to the article based on the material that you are suggesting; I will revert them until you can get a consensus here that they are reality-based. Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Really?
" the term emphasizes the biological sex of a person and neglects their gender. "

Sex and gender are synonymous. I thought Wikipedia was a neutral and unbiased source of information! Here you are displaying a bias towards that absurd "gender theory" nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.218.192 (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Labeling the term a "slur" throughout article, straying from the sources, etc.
An IP came along to change the article's material from its neutral state of recognizing that the term is simply a categorization in sex work (a categorization that some transgender or transsexual-identified people embrace, and some people who work as "she-males" but do not identify as transgender embrace as well) while others consider the term offensive/derogatory. The IP changed "term" to "slur" throughout, misrepresented sources, etc. I reverted (followup edit here), stating, "Revert. Non-neutral and straying from the sources. The term is mainly used in pornography, and it's not used there as a slur. We already note well enough in the article that the term is considered a slur/offensive by LGBT people.other people. [...] WP:Dummy edit: I meant 'sex work' more so than I did 'pornography.' My point is that it's a category more than it is a slur in sex work. It can be a slur regardless (including in sex work), but we already note this." I gave the IP a warning. The showed up again, stating, "moved GLAAD quote to the first paragraph and fixed its citation. slight terminology fixes (transwomen to trans women, 'male-to-female transsexual people' to trans women) added a link to the TERF wikipedia page, & time period to medical section for context)." I reverted again, stating, "This is NOT what the sources state. STOP YOUR POV editing."

My issue is clear: This term is offensive to many, especially to transgender people. That stated, as noted in the "Connotations" section of the article, it is also embraced by some transgender people who work in sex work and by those in sex work do not identify as trans/transgender. In sex work, the term is simply a category, usually without the intention of being a slur. It's also a term that has been used by some researchers who seemingly did not consider it a slur (at the time at least). So I do not think we simply categorize the term as a slur. Many LGBT are offended by the term queer, while many other LGBT have embraced the term queer; we cover both sides in the Queer article. It's neutral. This article should be as neutral as it can be as well. Jim1138, Oshwah and Materialscientist (a few editors seen on the latest page in the edit history), any opinions on this? I would want to hear from RobinHood70, but I just saw that RobinHood70 retired earlier this year, which explains why the IP's second edit stood for a day. Rivertorch/Rivertorch's Evil Twin, as a number of people know, you edit LGBT topics. Do you have any opinion on this? Trystan, TechBear and EvergreenFir, since you all edit the Queer article and other LGBT articles, do you have any opinions on this? I will contact the IP again to let the IP know that I have started a discussion here on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If I'm going to be dragged into this.... It is frequently used as a slur. Some of my trans* friends get called this regularly. It has been used as a slur on diverse television programs, from Family Guy to L&O:SVU. Trying to limit this article ONLY to the context of sex work is not neutral and thus is a violation of Wikipedia policy and practice. I've never looked at this article before, but now that I have, I think more consideration should be given to the experience of people who are targeted by the word, as that is probably far more common than you might think. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 23:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * TechBear, thanks for weighing in. I am well aware that the term is frequently used as a slur. The article is also clear about that. I have not argued that we should limit this article ONLY to the context of sex work. The article is not limited in that way. Like I just told the IP on the IP's talk page: "IP, we are supposed to go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. WP:Due weight is a part of the WP:Neutral policy. Yes, many transgender people consider shemale a slur; other transgender people, especially those in sex work, embrace the term. In sex work, the term is simply a category, usually without any intention of being a slur. And regardless of your feelings about the term transsexual, the terms transgender and transsexual are not always used interchangeably. Some people you would categorize as transgender do not identify as transgender, but rather as transsexual. The term transsexual is not offensive to all, as made clear in the Transgender and Transsexual articles, and in past discussions on those talk pages. And when sources state "transsexual," that is usually what they mean, and we should usually follow their lead, not change the term to "transgender," which, these days, is commonly used as an umbrella term for all gender-nonconforming people. All of this is why I've had issues with your edits to the Shemale article." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It's also important to me, for any Wikipedia article, that we use the LGBT term that the person identifies with. This is why I just changed the Kate Bornstein mention from "transsexual" to "gender non-conforming." The IP, as seen in the IP's contributions, dislikes the term transsexual, but we should be sticking to what the sources state and/or self-identification (per MOS:IDENTITY). The Relationship of transsexual to transgender section of the Transsexual article addresses the transgender vs. transsexual matter. And, as noted, so does the Transgender article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I am naive on the matter. I don't believe I have heard the word spoken: TV and films included. If a word was considered offensive to one group and embraced by another only discussing one case might be offensive to the other group. i.e saying a word is a slur being offensive to the group that embraced the word. So, I think context important here and that both cases be discussed - embrace and slur. Jim1138 (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The only context where I recall ever seeing the term was in porn, years ago, so I have essentially zero personal knowledge of it. From my position of blissful ignorance, I'll say this much: I think Flyer's insistence on following the sources is perfectly correct at present, but I think that if TechBear is right about its frequency of use as a slur, then the article's weight absolutely should be shifted to reflect that. Obviously, finding the sources comes before changing the article, and since the IP's edits are disputed they need to join the discussion here and achieve consensus before attempting more changes of the kind. Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for commenting, Jim1138 and Rivertorch's Evil Twin. I agree with your statements about how the article should be formatted. It covers both the slur and sex category aspects. If we give one aspect more weight than the other, then this should be based on the how the term is covered in the literature. I am very open to examining the literature and weighing the sources with regard to both aspects of the terminology. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Another thing: There's this comment in the Connotations section: "Chloe Rounsley said, 'She-males are men, often involved in prostitution, pornography, or the adult entertainment business, who have undergone breast augmentation but have maintained their genitalia.'" I have read similar sources in the past, and those sources were usually clearer about the self-identity of the sex workers. Fom those sources, it's clear that some who identify as she-males do not identify as women/trans women. So we should perhaps reword the WP:Lead sentence so that it doesn't limit the term to trans women. I'll look over some sources at a later date. These days, I'm very busy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Very late to the party (sorry). I'm torn on this. I understand that from Wiki's perspective, the notable part of "shemale" is its use in sex work. Since wikipedia is not a dictionary, it doesn't focus on the term itself, but rather the porn and sex work genre. That said, it does mention its use as a term more generally and it's generally a slur, even when used in the context of sex work. I don't think it incorrect to add the category, but at the same time, it would be minor compared to more defining categories. I'm leaning toward "include the cat" though. Or perhaps add a "for the slur, see this_wiktionary_definition" at the top.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, EvergreenFir. This isn't a WP:Category matter, not in the strictest sense at least. See the edits by the IP. It was a matter of the IP calling the term a slur throughout, no matter what the sources state, and changing other sourced wording. This article actually is about the term. It's a WP:WORDISSUBJECT article. And, as noted above, I don't mind us noting the derogatory aspect of the term. We should and already do that. What I mind is what the IP did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. In that case I agree with your revert.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)