Talk:Transgender

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2024
The part of some identifying as transexual is depreciated and redundant. Transsexual was replaced by transgender to remove sexual annotation that Gender Identity relates to sexual orientation. It has been depreciated as a derogatory term: similar to Asperger's being replaced with ASD in the DSM5 because if the negative history for it as well. StonyPonyAmy (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * A reliable source would be needed for such a change (also, edit requests should include an exact change). Its true that broadly describing trans people, transness, or medical transition as transsexual(s/ism) has largely fallen out of favor, but this sentence is about the minority of trans people (mostly older people, or subscribers to transmedicalism) who identify with the term as an individual identity label. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 01:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Counterpoint: Buck Angel  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2024
Change the visual anchor for the transfeminine to not include the transmasculine anchor.

Change the transmasculine definition to include a visual anchor.

This can be seen in the diff-like below: <  is a term for any person, binary... --- >  is a term for any person, binary or non-binary...

< Transmasculine refers to a person, binary or non-binary... --- >  refers to a person, binary or non-binary... Serxka (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Raladic (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Dead link
The "main article" link in #Pride symbols doesn't work. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It looks like the LGBT symbols page doesn't sort based on identity but based on type of symbols (gender symbols, flags, plants & animals, etc.). I imagine the best fix may be to put LGBT symbols as a see also, without a section tag? Or just call it a main page even though it discusses other pride symbols?
 * --Malvoliox (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Text about Thomasine Hall
Currently the article states that One of the earliest recorded transgender people in America was Thomas(ine) Hall, a seventeenth century colonial servant. I cannot verify the source this is cited to as I do not have access to it. However, our article on Thomasine Hall does not describe them as a transgender person. I'd suggest either removing the reference to Hall or rephrasing. Maybe to "one of the earliest recorded gender nonconforming individuals in America"? Or some other sort of phrasing indicating that Hall was intersex? I'm not sure what the best solution is here. Other people's perspectives are welcome. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think Thomasine Hall warrants a mention in the article, but did not identify as transgender, so the wording likely needs to be changed. Perhaps begin with description of their abnormal gender expression, then add that some have drawn connections to modern trans identities? Love, Cassie. (Talk to me!) 01:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've changed the text to read "gender nonconforming" for now.  Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

International Journal of Transgender Health
Maybe it's just me, but the content about the International Journal of Transgender Health changing its name feels slightly out of place no matter how I rearrange it. I think it's because the terminology section is otherwise focused. Highlighting this specific example feels like it breaks the flow but I don't want to remove it without further feedback. One possible alternative would be listing other journals that have changed with the times so it isn't the only example. Alternatively, a general statement that LGBT+ journals/organizations have changed their names to reflect modern use, if that can be cited to a good source. Thoughts? Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I can't find a citable RS for an example other than the one used. I would suggest either striking it (which would make me sad) or specifying it as an example. For instance, As an example, the International Journal of Transgenderism changed its name to the International Journal of Transgender Health in 2020 "to reflect a change toward more appropriate and acceptable use of language in our field." I just don't have a better idea. The flow is still a bit stilted no matter what. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the Transgender article and the quote about the Journal of Transgender Health having changed its name is importantly in this terminology section as the journal is considered the core of research on transgender health and highlighting the change from the now outdated term of Transgenderism.
 * It’s specifically about the terminology as the first sentence of that section explains since the now outdated term is nowadays often used pejoratively. Raladic (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I know that this is the transgender article and that this section is about terminology. My point is that this example stands out and doesn't easily fit with the rest of what's written in the section. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We could move it up closer to the start of the section that explains why the outdated term is no longer used, so it will stand closer to the context for which it is in the section to begin with. Raladic (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I just moved it up now and I think in that paragraph now it reads more contextual, which was the point of it’s inclusion. Raladic (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I don't think this solves the problem at all. It breaks up the chronological history about terminology to put undue emphasis on a specific example. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You know what? I've changed my mind. Somehow reading it a third time sounds better. The next section is about the transgender community more broadly so I suppose it doesn't break the flow. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Discrimination Section.
I noticed that the source on the opening paragraph of the Discrimination and Support section dates back to 2011, 13 years ago. I feel as though this may not be up to date enough for users who are looking for rough figures of transgender discrimination. It states that 26% of trans people have been fired on the grounds that they were transgender, however I feel as though this is no longer accurate

I am not trying to compromise the neutrality of the article - by updating the paragraph to include statistics above or below the current ones in the article, but I am wondering if anybody has an up-to-date source to better the article's accuracy? I'm sure there is one out there. ChillyDude153198 (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)