Talk:Transgender history/Archive 1

Chevalier d'Eon
The section on the Chevalier d'Eon was by with the summary, "Chevalier d'Eon is not widely recognised as transgender in the modern sense."

What sense is that? The Chevalier d'Eon lived 49 years as a man and 33 years as woman, while claiming to have been assigned female at birth, although that was fiction. He was transgender by the definition in the first sentence of Transgender. By what justification do you feel he should not be included here? Please revert this change, or explain. Mathglot (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, nothing that came before "modern" times would count as "transgender in the modern sense" by definition. But this is an article about transgender history, and history starts in the past with ancient and less developed concepts than the ones we are used to.  The modern concept of transgender didn't spring forth in our time with no antecedents, in fact, it goes back centuries or millennia, as near as we are able to determine.  That the word did not exist before 1965, or the modern concept did not exist before some recent point in time, is not an argument for excluding the historical developments that led to the modern concept, any more than it would be in the history of other ideas.
 * That would be like excluding from an article about "The History of Banking" people trading cowrie shells or salt for other goods because this is "not banking in the modern sense." Of course it's not, but it was an ancient precursor which led eventually to banking, after many changes and evolution over time.  In the same way, there are ancient precursors to the modern concept of transgender, and they are fully appropriate to include in an article entitled Transgender history, including the case of the Chavlier d'Eon, as well as that of Herculine Barbin who also deserves a mention.
 * If there is no objection, I plan to restore text about these two individuals to the section on France in a couple of weeks. Mathglot (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comprehensive response; it is genuinely appreciated. Some worthwhile points are made, and I think we might reach a consensus for some inclusion here. One particular issue, however, is that there is currently no mention of Transgender in the main portion of the Chevalier d'Eon article; there is categorisation, but nothing supportive of in the article text. From some initial research, I think there is likely sufficient reliable sourcing to address this at that article, which would then support an inclusion here. I do, however, think it likely that we would need to couch such inclusions (both here and there) in a "modern interpretations are ..." or "modern scholars consider ..." framework to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I would be immediately supportive of an addition here covering Havelock Ellis' term "eonism", and/or covering The Beaumont Society, both with specific reference to the Chevalier. As a side note, I'd also be interested in including more in this article on the experiences of non-famous transgender persons, perhaps with some information on legal status & cultural acceptance over time; and also more on the experiences in various cultures. Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Chile
Expanded section with some information about Marcia Torres. It could probably be tightened up a bit, and needs another citation. Pinging SusunW. Mathglot (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * added Carvajal citation. SusunW (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Restructuring
This article was divided into a coarse binary of ==Ancient history== and the ==Modern period==, specified as beginning with The Enlightenment, which were then subdivided into geographical sections, in which content was then ordered chronologically again. However, many groups the article discusses stretch across that arbitrary dividing line, like American categories (two-spirits; muxe, etc), Balkan sworn virgins, hijras, some African categories, etc, which existed from the pre-European-Enlightenment period into the modern period or even present day. As the article became more complete, content about these would end up fragmented or duplicated in each L2's L3 section (e.g., both in ==Ancient history== ===India=== and ==Modern period== ===India===, or else one or the other L3 would be incomplete). I restructured the article so it simply looks at the chronology of each area all in one section [per area]. -sche (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This makes good sense. It’s somewhat at the expense of an overall chronological view, and in particular, at the top level there is no simple way to see how far back it goes. How about a new top-level section called "History" (which could be divided into, perhaps, Antiquity, Modern, 21st-century) that would give a brief overview chronologically? Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously not "History", doh; the article is already "Transgender history"; so something else. Not timeline, because that would imply a listing of individual events as is typical for timeline articles; maybe, "Chronology"? "Evolution"? Something else? Mathglot (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a good point that the article doesn't start with the earliest stuff first overall, though the old structure didn't either — the first paragraph is the same in both versions, about the earliest African trans/third-gender categories, with both versions not getting to the oldest(?) Assyria/Sumer stuff until later. And each geographic section does now generally start with the oldest stuff in that area, so people get a sense of how far back stuff goes in each area. My main concern with adding another section would be duplicating content which is already a summary of all the more specific articles it's present in ("LGBT rights in Peru", "History of transgender people in the United States", etc), and which is in turn already summarized here in the lead. But maybe the lead is the answer—we could rewrite the lead (which I intend to expand to summarize the modern stuff soon, unless someone else wants to beat me to it) to be the chronological summary, starting with the furthest-back-anywhere stuff. -sche (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Things are coming along. A few big things are still missing from the body, but the lead now summarizes most of what's there, and in a mostly chronological way. If/when the remaining lacunae in the body are filled, I think I may try sandboxing a chronological-ish re-ordering of it, to see if I or anyone else can think of a way to make that work, and then see whether it looks better or worse than the current layout. At the moment I am trying to cut out unnecessary details, so the article doesn't become too big. -sche (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

In literature
Was thinking of adding a section In literature. Ovid has something in Metamorphoses; so does Montaigne. I hate "in pop culture" WP:TRIVIA sections, so I would strive to avoid that (no trans spongebob characters or Star Trek aliens, please) but serious cases like these, should be considered. Mathglot (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I do think the most important pieces of literature (like the earliest or most influential records or 'explanations' or the like) warrant mention here, and a few are already mentioned—but they're in their chronological and geographic* places. I'm not immediately able to envision what advantages a section would offer over making an article specifically on the topic (Transgender people in literature? History of transgender topics in literature?) or sorting things into the existing structure, but that's arguably a sign you should go ahead and add (or mock up) what you're envisioning and then we could look at it and discuss whether it'd be best in that form, dispersed into the rest of the article, or split off into its own article. (This article is quite large.) (*A structure which I acknowledge is already bumping into some issues, like where to mention a pan-national and indeed somewhat pre-national religion's records and views...and I admit I can see how e.g. a Roman work with influence throughout Europe long after Rome's fall would present some of the same issues.) -sche (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Which transnational entries were you thinking of, specifically? If several are in different countries but one localized area, we could add section headers, eg Southwest Africa, or South Asia (hijra), or whatever made sense, and place the transnational items there (possibly under subheading “Regional”), followed by the country name section headers within the transnational region. Mathglot (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Two connected things I ran into were third-gender categories mentioned in early "Indian" and then Buddhist texts and practices (from India but also elsewhere) which have connections with hijras in various Indian subcontinent nations and kathoeys in Thailand (and among the Khmer at some points in history?) . This is currently sort-of handled via an early-history "Buddhist Asia" section and later "Indian subcontinent" and (elsewhere) "Thailand" sections, with cross-links and a bit of repetition between them. Also tricky is the Byzantine Empire with history in Europe, Asia, and Africa. At the moment, I put it near the Ancient Rome section (in Europe) and left explicit links to there in the 'Asia' and 'Africa' sections. Modern Turkey and Egypt present a similar issue but in those cases I think it's fine to just sort all of Turkey into Asia and all of Egypt into Africa even if we ever have any e.g. Sinai-specific content. What to do about Ottoman content is another question (currently, the only explicitly Ottoman content was Egypt-specific so it's sorted with other Egyptian content, but there may be Asian and European content and indeed the sworn virgins have some connections to the Ottomans). Russia is also a frankensection: separating the "Indigenous peoples of the Far East" into a subsection is the obvious solution to half the problem, but the other half is what to call the other section / content, which isn't exactly about "European (portions of) Russia" but more "European(-led/oriented) Russia". -sche (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Peripheral things, if this page gets too large
If, as this page continues to be expanded, it is felt that it is too large, here are the first line of things I'd suggest could be moved to other articles because they're less vital / more peripheral to this topic. (Many but not all of these are things I've added...) And descriptions of other specific individuals could be condensed. (Alternatively, but IMO much less optimally, the page could be split by continent: Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa. However, the byte size of the prose itself is only ~57k; most of the bytes are references; so I would be averse to splitting it.) -sche (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * eunuchs (move to Eunuch or other more specific articles), starting with Ottoman and Egyptian eunuchs (but preserving a link somewhere on this page to Eunuch)
 * Romans' negative views of crossdressing (move to History of cross-dressing?)
 * Lafitau quotes or whole paragraph (which are redundant to earlier and later statements that such roles existed)
 * quotes from various courts about why they ruled
 * Bata the Egyptian (move to Tale of Two Brothers), other Ancient Egyptian content
 * La Fargue sentence (move to Canada-specific article like the next item below)
 * less-important modern-era people, e.g. first trans gondolier in Venice or first trans hockey player, as long as the section has other modern-era content (in these cases: MPs and laws) (move to "LGBT (rights|history) in [country]" pages)

Kaúxuma Núpika
I was in the middle of editing the Canada section, to add something like the following:"In the early 1800s, reports by a surveyor and Northwest Passage explorers of a 'Manlike Woman' were circulated. They were about a person who lived at different times as a woman married to a man, and as a warrior who used bow and arrow in combat, and who died of a battle wound." until I realized the atrocious state of referencing at the article, and decided it wasn't sufficiently supported. If this can be confirmed, it would make a good addition to this article. Note that the Kutenai straddle the CA-US border in the west. Mathglot (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's been no change to that article's sourcing since then. I may try to place feedback requests at some Project pages, to see if we can get that article in better shape, with a view to adding a sentence or two here about it. Mathglot (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Listed at: WT:LGBT, WT:Indigenous, WT:Canada. Mathglot (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just on a procedural(?) level, would not the more logical place to discuss improving the article Kaúxuma Núpika be Talk:Kaúxuma Núpika? -sche (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Todo: sections that need work
I intend to work on these issues, but am listing them here in case I don't have time to.


 * Africa: add other countries' actions, in their own sections or (if that would result in many short sections) in the 'general' section.
 * Canada: rework, is currently structured like a bulleted timeline without the bullets, unlike other sections which are prose.
 * US: some more could be added on recent history (organizations, figures, and government actions).
 * South America: probably there is content on early indigenous peoples to be added/summarized.
 * China: the "trans people are new here, having only been invented in the 90s" bit ... suggests one should look for resources on earlier historical examples.
 * India: more should be added, both on hijras and other issues e.g. laws, judicial rulings, etc.
 * Indonesia: needs further expansion.
 * Iran: needs expansion, and to note e.g. that the government funding surgeries is not entirely benevolent but e.g. gay people may be forced into surgeries (as in South Africa).
 * Israel: may need expansion, as what it currently covers seems less significant (and could be condensed) relative to e.g. laws or judicial rulings.
 * Japan: has some good time depth but could perhaps be expanded.
 * Philippines: needs wordsmithing as well as expansion.
 * Thailand: could use some work, to add relevant court rulings and remove anything that's just about lesbians.
 * Balkans: needs modern stuff e.g. Helena Vukovic (the major, not the athlete)
 * France and UK and Russia and Spain: expand with modern history.
 * Lead: finish summarizing body (still missing some modern US/Europe stuff); condense; possibly reorder chronologically per previous section.

-sche (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a general shout-out to the great job -sche is doing on the article. I've particularly noticed the much needed, expanded lead, as well as additional expanded sections in the body.  On the to-do list: France was once included, as in this version, which had information on the Chevalier d'Eon and Herculine Barbin.  Barbin was removed here, and Eon here. (The same editor removed Elagabalus here, but it's since been restored.) I added the content back into the section on France, and tagged them cn (citations available at the source articles). Mathglot (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for the shout-out and the restoration of the French content! :) -sche (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Updated to-do list: -sche (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Overall:
 * evaluate and, if low-quality, replace sources copied from other articles (e.g., "Gender Dynamix"?), here and in the other articles.
 * possibly change from countries-as-L3s to e.g. regions more often (this is already done with e.g. the Balkans)? downside: laws may vary very much from nation to nation (but this could be handled by subsections for nations within smaller-than-continents geo units). maybe a bad idea.
 * Africa:
 * add other countries' history (in ===General=== if there'd otherwise be too many short sections)
 * add West African general/early history?
 * some lower-quality books say Phoenicans in North Africa had third-gender priests; do high-quality ones?
 * were there trans male roles?
 * are there any pictures to add?
 * North America:
 * are there records of trans people in Canada in the 1700s, 1800s, 1900s, as there are in the US?
 * condense/trim less-important Canadian stuff further? (this is an overview article; compare other sections)
 * add modern Mexican history.
 * add Canadian and/or Mexican pictures?
 * South America:
 * add or expand (and move out of national subsections, to top?) pre- and colonial era history.
 * as with Canada, look for examples from between the colonial period and now, such as existed in the US.
 * pictures?
 * Asia: many countries (China, Indonesia, Israel) need sentences on the state of modern laws; others (e.g. Japan, Thailand) are decent but could realistically reach US/Canada-section levels with further work! :)
 * India: still need to add more post-ancient history, e.g. British hostility to hijras, modern-era laws.
 * Iran: add pre-modern history, modern transphobia, government forcing gay people into SRS.
 * Philippines: many Philippine articles on LGBT topics are poor, a result of persistent POV and/or poorly-sourced edits; this section needs checking, sourcing, and then expanding, etc.
 * add: Korea, Mongols + Mongolia, Pakistan, Palestine (today + pre-1900s), Vietnam.
 * Australasia and Oceania: needs expansion of pre-modern history as well as modern laws.
 * Europe:
 * Balkans: needs more countries' modern stuff.
 * France, UK, Russia, Spain: needs modern laws, etc (UK to mention media TERFs?).
 * Scandinavia: add (modern sterilization laws/repeals, etc)
 * mention other countries, e.g. Greece, Poland (incl. communist-era SRS), at least in a "General" section
 * Antarctica: is there any serious content to add? ([//www.huffpost.com/entry/antartica-worlds-first-lgbt-friendly-continent_n_56f16093e4b09bf44a9e7b39 ], [//www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/05/28/antarctica-is-about-to-have-its-first-ever-pride/ ]? Probably not...)
 * Lead: is probably an adequate summary of the article now, but will need to be kept up with changes above!
 * Struck out one more bit that's been done. -sche (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Just more approval for what you are doing; it isn’t passing unnoticed. The "Earliest history" subsections at the top of some of the major geo sections is a great way to handle this. (Although I’d go for "early" or "ancient"—if applicable—rather than a superlative,but that’s just a quibble.) Good job; thanks for your efforts.  Mathglot (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks! And that's a good suggestion; I've changed 'Earliest' to 'Early', except in Europe where 'Earliest history' contrasts with a following same-level 'Ancient' history section. Incidentally, I wonder if Africa should be reorganized said the Briton to the Frenchman in the 1800s . Maybe: Ancient Egypt, Arab Africa (including the bits on 10th to 18th century Egypt), and then the regions of Black Africa: East (including the non-Arab Nuba peoples who are currently kumped with Arabs in North Africa?), Central, West, and South. (If I could find reliable sources on a Phoenician/Carthaginian third gender I would add a section for it, but I haven't yet. Another thing I found claims of, including on some university webpages, but didn't find in sources directly about Madagascar or that I would consider reliable, is that the Sakalava or Tanala of Madagascar had a third gender for 'boys raised as girls'. I will try to check German and French language sources later.) -sche (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * A recent (poor) edit to Transgender prompted me to look into the concept Shirabyōshi; I see some discussion of either the dancers or the deities of the same name as trans-gender figures, but would need to look into it further to determine if it's appropriate to add anything here or to that article. -sche (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * On a procedural note, the first paragraph of the lead apart from the first sentence (i.e. the part from "As this history..." to "...and 'gender role'") is not "embodied"/reflected in the body; possibly the first body section should be something like "Scope and considerations" with a paragraph covering that ground; alternatively, perhaps slightly more content could be added, either to the relevant chronological places or to a section like "Development as a [modern] discipline", covering that ground. Something to mull over. -sche (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Transgender people in Turkey
I noticed that Turkey wasn't included while there's a transgender singer from 1970s and some other transgender celebrities All cats are british (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Reactionary laws in Central/Eastern Europe
Hungary just passed a discriminatory, anti-LGBT law, and regions of Poland have had so-called, "LGBT-free zones" for some time. The Hungarian law may be too recent to cover here now, but we should keep an eye on it. While on that region, I notice we don't have much of anything on Central/Eastern Europe (I mean, former Warsaw Pact countries). The series of "LGBT rights in &lt;country>" articles could be checked to see if there's anything going on that rises to the level of importance to be included here. If we can figure out what to call it, maybe we can have a region subsection under #Europe, rather than individual country subsections, at least for starters. Pinging for comments. Mathglot (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The lead sentence has issues
The lead sentence says this

Transgender history, in the broadest sense, includes examples of gender variance and gender nonconformity in cultures worldwide since ancient times.

I haven't this article but transgender people are individuals who a gender identity different from there assigned sex. So I don't understand why gender nonconforming is mentioned in the lead.CycoMa (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Because of the sweep of history, and how things evolve. Ever hear of using cowrie shells as money? A history of world banking, might start with exchanging cowrie shells, or evaporated sea salt. A history of transgender people in the world, starts with the earliest known antecedents. Make sense now? In that sense, I think the lead sentence is just fine. Mathglot (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I guess that makes sense, but the article doesn’t explain why gender nonconformity is important to transgender history. Like I tried scrolling through as much of the sources and the articles and it doesn’t explain why gender nonconformity is important to the history of transgender people.


 * But nonetheless this article mentions stuff that is unrelated to the topic of transgender history, like the section on Canada says this.
 * During the colonial period a European system of beliefs and values was imposed on the First Nations and enforced among the colonists. In 1738, the arrival of Esther Brandeau, a Jewish girl disguised as a boy using the male pseudonym Jacques La Fargue, caused a minor scandal in Quebec City.[79]
 * Like in what way is a woman pretending to be a boy has to do with transgender history? I even checked the source cited for that sentence it doesn’t mention anything about transgender or LGBT.


 * This is also the case with Germany
 * Around 98 CE, at a time galli priests existed in Rome, Tacitus wrote that the priest of the Germanic Nahanarvali tribe also wore women's clothes.[354][355]
 * Also I noticed the article mentions cases of intersex people. Sure some of the sources do mention that these cases have something to do with transgender people but in other cases they don’t.
 * CycoMa (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Like come on an average doesn’t know anything about transgender history. Don’t assume a reader is gonna instantly expect gender nonconformity and transgenderism have a connection.
 * A brief explanation for there connection would be nice.CycoMa (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems worthwhile to look for how sources define this topic and go from there. Additionally, anything in the body whose source does not mention being transgender, specifically, should be removed as WP:SYNTH. Gender nonconformity is not necessarily transgender related. Through history there were reasons for people to cross-dress or present as the opposite gender (for lack of better terms) that were unrelated to gender identity as understood today. Any claim such cases are related has to be made by reliable sources, not Wikipedians. Crossroads -talk- 23:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Digging through the edit history, I found where this wording was introduced: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transgender_history&diff=next&oldid=927508280 diff], which changed the lead from "Transgender history begins with transgender (in the broad sense, including non-binary and third-gender) people [...]" to the current "Transgender history, in the broadest sense, includes examples of gender variance and gender nonconformity in ancient cultures [...]". I am inclined to think the previous wording was more on-topic, and more in line with RS, which (as noted and cited in the main Transgender article) tend to define transgender, even "in the broadest sense", in terms of non-cisgender and non-binary / third-gender people (sometimes, when defining it very broadly indeed, some RS even include crossdressers) but not just any "gender variance and gender nonconformity". I would not object to simply restoring the original wording. -sche (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have changed it back, although further improvement may be possible. Crossroads -talk- 02:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

'Main' vs. 'Further' links in sections
In my opinion, sections with Summary style top-of-section links should only use the Main template when the target article is a history topic, such as in sections #Canada, #China, #South Africa, or #United States. OTOH, if the section top link is to a non-history topic, as in sections #Australia, #Haiti, or #Uruguay then they should use Further or See also instead.

To the extent that redirects exist with 'history' in the name I'd be okay with using a Main link in that case, even if the target article was currently not a 'history' article, but possibly a section-redirect to one of the 'LGBT rights in &lt;country>' articles, because it could become a 'history' article in the future. ( No such redirects currently exist afaik; but could apply to redirects such as Transgender history in Haiti, Transgender history in Uruguay, and so on.) User:-sche, any thoughts on this? Mathglot (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Listed at: Wikipedia talk:Summary style. Mathglot (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree fundamentally with your view on the distinction, although I would strongly prefer see also to further in most cases here. My own use of Main is always restricted to cases where the section's explicit or implicit topic is exactly the target of the main link. — HTGS (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I also support your recommendation for Main. I don't have an informed opinion on see also vs. further. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Graydoiron.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Meaning? David Reimer?
"In 1970, Dianna Boileau underwent sex reassignment surgery at Toronto General Hospital, becoming possibly the first in Canada to do so"

Does this reference to actual surgery in Canada or being the first Canadian? Because David Reimer had that surgery (technically) but at Hopkins in 1967. Also, I'm pretty sure they operated on boys with micropenises in Canada before 1970 no? Chronicler87 (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Middle Ages
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowmanbk (talk • contribs) 17:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead seems logic-less
"Transgender people (including non-binary and third gender individuals) have existed in cultures worldwide since ancient times. The modern terms and meanings of "transgender", "gender", "gender identity", and "gender role" only emerged in the 1950s and 1960s. As a result, opinions of how to categorize historical accounts of gender-variant people and identities vary."

Does anyone else see the problem here? There is dissent on how to categorize gender-variant personal identities and social roles throughout history. This article includes historical gender-variant identities and social roles, and counts them (in the lead's first sentence) as part of transgender history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isthistwisted (talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * How about changing the beginning to ? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an improvement to me. Colin M (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have implemented the second change, but I disagree with changing the first sentence. The article is still about transgender folks, and sources describe it as transgender history. The third sentence is to express that there is scholarly disagreement, but the weight of sources cover transgender, not gender variant, history. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for implementing part of Fireandfeathers' suggestion; whoever they are I like their style! If it's a matter involved in scholarly disagreement, can we state one of the positions in wiki-voice? (I support the radical queering of history, but I'm trying to color inside the lines while I have my Wiki-hat on). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Firefangledfeathers Hehe sorry I was typing your name from memory :P My concern is that we're giving undue weight to this disagreement. In fact, its hardly discussed in the article at present. Nor do I think the actual weight of the sources bear that argument out. I've been meaning to expand this article. I'll try to work on the historiography section some today and see where the sources lead me, and hopefully then we can have some more info to make a decision on :) CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks cap'n. I don't think the status quo language is problematic enough that it requires immediate fixing. Happy to watch some WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY happen and I'll chip in where I can. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the lead is a symptom of the POV of the whole page. For example treating eunuchs as though their decision to become eunuchs was an expression of their gender identity rather than a necessary sacrifice for advancement in the administrations of certain kingdoms. This page is reading back into history a very modern and western ideology.Dejvid (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, it perhaps reflects the fact that the reliable sources available on transgender history represent primarily a modern, western viewpoint. (I'm not sure whether the use of the term ideology, rather than viewpoint, perspective, context, or frame of reference was intended as a subtle dig, but be aware of the subtext or negative connotations that that may arise in the minds of some readers here, due to an echo from expressions such as gender ideology or LGBT ideology.) History is constantly reinterpreted by new generations of historians; you can't read about the Decline of the Roman Empire or the French Revolution without being aware of the changes in interpretation over time and the viewpoint of modern historians, and there's nothing wrong with that. One would hope that modern historians, cognizant of the experience of all previous historians, augmented by the additional, modern perspective available to them in their own time would come up with an analysis that is useful to contemporary readers, in the field of transgender history, as in all others. And one could consider WP:AGE MATTERS as well. Mathglot (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Kim Coco Iwamoto dates
Something screwed up in this snippet from section, which says:

Two problems: This is possibly from this 2019 edit, and in any case, needs some looking into. User:-sche, could you have a look? Mathglot (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * if you click that link in note 159 (displays as note [1] here), it goes to a story about trans swimmer Lia Thomas from 2022, and there's nothing about Iwamoto in that article;
 * if you search the web for Iwamoto, you find stories like this one from Fox News from 2015, and it doesn't say anything about significant events for Iwamoto in 2006 or 2012.


 * Fascinating: Fox reassigned the URL to a different story (and is misdating the copy they have at the new URL you link above). You can see that the URL was added to the article on Iwamoto way back in 2008, years before anyone was writing about Lia Thomas, and it was an article about Iwamoto back then (that article is now at the different URL you link above, where it's misdated). The article is from November 2006, shortly after the election, and is about how "Now she has a post on Hawaii's state Board of Education and is the subject of a surprise blitz of national media attention as the highest-elected transgender official in the country." i.e. does confirm the election to the Board of Education. This article from the Honolulu Star-Advertiser in turn confirms the other office: "In 2012, Iwamoto was appointed and confirmed to the five-member Hawaii State Civil Rights Commission." -sche (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * -sche, appreciate the effort involved in tracking this down, and your fixes at the article. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Early History as its own section
I think it would look cleaner to separate all early history into its own section, and then follow up with the continents. That would look cleaner and give readers faster access to relevant information. E.g., if you're looking for examples of ancient transpeople's history, that seems more common than looking for ancient examples of trans history by continent. Then we can perhaps someday create a separate article on transgender history in the ancient world, if there isn't already one, and link it in the proposed new section as the main article. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I generally agree that the article needs some restructuring, but this is a pretty big project and its not currently at the top of my list :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

can we have a section under Australia about Aboriginal brother-boys and sister-girls?
I feel like one of the oldest living cultures deserves their own section on gender identity on the page for the history of gender expression in specific countries

thanks <3 120.18.137.124 (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2023
It states in this article that emperor Elagabalus “sought after” sex reassignment surgery. sex reassignment surgery was invented in the 20th century. It also states he liked to be referred to as a woman. not only is there no evidence for this but a different wiki article says the exact opposite. This is very misleading.

ORIGINAL- Sumerian and Akkadian texts from 4,500 years ago document priests known as gala who may have been transgender.[citation needed] In Ancient Greece, Phrygia, and Rome, there were galli priests that some scholars believe to have been trans women. Roman emperor Elagabalus (d. 222 AD) preferred to be called a lady (rather than a lord) and sought sex reassignment surgery, and in the modern day has been seen as a trans figure.

NEW— Sumerian and Akkadian texts from 4,500 years ago document priests known as gala who may have been transgender.[citation needed] In Ancient Greece, Phrygia, and Rome, there were galli priests that some scholars believe to have been trans women.

All sources for my decisions can be found in any article or book ever written about this emperor. He was assassinated for his disgusting sexual behaviour at 18 but none of it was related to being trans. 2001:569:BF00:C00:ACDE:A3D5:78F4:2982 (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the part about Elagabalus to better reflect reporting in the available sources. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Gala should be removed or cited
As far as I am aware, the Gala were not transgender. I don't see much evidence they identifies as the opposite sex. Sure, maybe they were gender non-conforming, but that and being trans are not the same. I think this should be cited or removed.

You can speculate they were trans, but that's really all you can do. (In I believe that's the case for many of these, but that's a different subject) LukFromTheWiki (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Removing examples from lead
Hello, I am wondering what the community thinks about shortening the lead section. It currently lists quite many cluttered examples of transgender people from different periods in history from many different continents all in the same paragraph. It is not concise and lacks coherence, and it makes the article less readable. WP:LEAD states the lead section should have no more than four paragraphs. Examples of transgender people can be left to the body of the article, while the lead section can be used to overview the history of transgender people in more general terms, leaving only the most notable examples (earliest, most well-known, etc.)

Also, the lead section currently attempts to list examples chronologically, so it is a bit awkward to have the discussion of Hijras' modern status in the paragraph corresponding to ancient history.

My previous edit aiming to correct this was reverted. Just want to know your thoughts. Thanks. Pinkslimo (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I find the lead generally appropriate as is, although I sympathize with the comment about Hijras. This is an article which attempts to cover several millenia of history; naturally, information is spottier the further back we go. I find that rather than incoherence, the examples from different locations show that there's a universal thread here, and not something that, as some might presume, only applies to white, western, modern, Anglo-Saxon societies. I think the examples show the very broad scope across geography, culture, time, and nationality, and provide a specific footing to the reader by naming names, instead of just dealing in generalities. Most readers never read past the lead, and if they read only the lead of this article, I think the current one will leave them very much better informed than when they first got here, in a way that a lead without the breadth of examples would not. Also, recall the purpose of a WP:LEAD at Wikipedia; it is *not* an introduction, as in an academic paper; rather, it is a summary of the most important points of the whole article; it would be very hard to do that, without examples and names, as "Transgender history" is about people, that is very much what this article is about, and the lead is necessarily a briefer version of that. Mathglot (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the lead is crazy long. The lead for history of homosexuality is a good model, I think. The lead should be both an introduction and a cursory summary of the article’s contents. This lead is instead a sprinkle of examples, explained in depth, chosen from the article with no apparent criteria. Isthistwisted (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at your example of History of homosexuality, the lead is 7.7% the length of the body. In this article, the lead is 3.0% the length of the body, so by that reckoning, we should double the length of the lead, or a little bit more. I'm not actually arguing for that, just pointing out that the analogy with HoH doesn't really work. The criteria, while unstated, appear to me an attempt to get a representative sampling across time and space&mdash;just as the body of the article is an attempt to get a (sourced) sampling across time and space, and like any history, has to pick and choose what to cover. The lead is a highly shortened version of the body (3%, as we've shown), and I think it does a good job of representing the body. I'd leave it largely as it is, unless you can point out some specific problem with it that doesn't meet the WP:LEAD guideline, or some other policy. Mathglot (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mathglot. The lead for an article that covers the full length and breadth of history will necessarily not be a four-sentence affair, but this one is quite short relative to the topic and the article body, and provides an important summary since many people only read the lead. I wrote much of the lead text, summarizing the various transgender categories described in the body, and spending a quarter-sentence here or there on individuals who are treated by RS and hence by the article body as notable in trans history (the article topic), generally "firsts" or "earliests". If there are specific things you think should be added or removed, let's discuss them. -sche (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

First sentence is problematic
"Transgender people (including non-binary and third gender people) have existed in cultures worldwide since ancient times."

This sentence is controversial and there is no consensus on its truth. As is revealed in the very next sentence, there is much discussion and difference of professional and academic opinion on how to categorize non-normative expressions of gender from before the advent of the term "transgender". We need a different beginning. The article for the history of feminism begins with an explanatory consensus for what will count as a node in the story of feminism, but no similar consensus for transgender history could be presented, as the qualifiers for inclusion in the historical narrative of transgenderism are contested and have no consensus.

I'm not sure what would be right! Please lend your thoughts. Isthistwisted (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The typical standard for us as editors is verifiability, not truth. We aren't equipped to be truthfinders, just for verifying that reliable sources state what they state. With respect to this article, as a summary it seems fair, as the history that it is summarising goes almost as far back as the start of recorded history and is reliably sourced.
 * Because the lead of an article follows the body, it might be best if you can identify problematic content there first. Otherwise, if you have scholarly sources that state that there is no historical consensus on how long people that we would now understand to be trans or non-binary have existed, presenting those would also be helpful. But right now I don't see any compelling reason to change the first sentence. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The entire "Historiography" section contains sources and discussion that show an absence of consensus of how to define transgender history, in a way that would challenge the uncontroversial framing of the article's first sentence:
 * "A precise history is difficult because the modern concept of being transgender, and gender in general, did not develop until the mid-1900s. Historical understandings are thus inherently filtered through modern principles, and were largely viewed through a medical lens until the late 1900s. Writer Genny Beemyn points out:
 * "Can there be said to be a 'transgender history,' when 'transgender' is a contemporary term and when individuals in past centuries who would perhaps appear to be transgender from our vantage point might not have conceptualized their lives in such a way? [...]"
 * Trans history has also been filtered through gay history, with some historians erasing the trans identities of historical figures such as Billy Tipton to instead promote a gay reading of their lives.
 * The absence of autobiographical accounts requires historians to assign identities to historical figures, which of course may be inaccurate. Author Jason Cromwell assesses that if a person indicated he was a man, modified his body to look more traditionally male, and lived his life as a man, he was a trans man; the same approach has been used to identify trans women. Genny Beemyn distinguishes trans people from crossdressers in the historical record by assessing that a person who crossdressed only in public did not mind exposing their dual life as a crossdresser, while those who crossdressed consistently (also in private) and sought to keep their assigned gender a secret were more likely trans." Isthistwisted (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * More from an already-tapped source:
 * "Given the rich histories of individuals who perceived themselves and were perceived by their societies as gender nonconforming, it would be inappropriate to limit “transgender history” to people who lived at a time and place when the concept of “transgender” was available and used by them. 1 But at the same time, it would also be inappropriate to assume that people who are “transgender,” as we currently understand the term, existed throughout history. The best that we as historians can do is to acknowledge individuals whose actions would seem to indicate that they might be what we would call “transgender” or “transsexual” today without necessarily referring to them as such and to distinguish them from individuals who might have presented as a gender different from the one assigned to them at birth for reasons other than a sense of gender difference." - Beemyn, Genny. "A Presence in the Past: A Transgender Historiography." Journal of Women's History, vol. 25 no. 4, 2013, p. 113-121. Project MUSE, 10.1353/jowh.2013.0062. Isthistwisted (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Restored the previous version while this is being discussed. You may want to check the archives for previous discussions, and also the history of the article itself. Here's a version of the article from three years ago that you might like better, and it's not the only alternative. (That wording, by the way, lasted about sixteen months, until this change by Crossroads, carrying out the results of a discussion at Talk.) I'm not necessarily voicing support (or opposition) to the 2020 wording; I'm just trying to glean where your objections might be, and see how you'd react to various alternatives, such as these. That might help move the discussion forward. Mathglot (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Further, this caught my eye:
 * Be that as it may, Wikipedia editors are in the fortunate position of not having to determine historical accuracy; our main remit is to read the literature, get a sense of what the majority and minority viewpoints of (possibly inaccurate) historians and other reliable authors are, summarize them, and add them to the article with citations. That's it; that's what we do here. So inaccuracies of historians, our lack of knowledge of who is "really" transgender, and other such musings matters not a jot. If we summarize the literature proportionately, we've done our job; we can't do more. Mathglot (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The literature says that referring to gender-variant people and third-gender roles as “transgender” may be anachronistic. Isthistwisted (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and other literature uses the term. Nevertheless, I have nothing against including a statement in the article body about anachronistic use of hte term, if it isn't already there, and a significant proportion of sources claim it is anachronistic to use it. Mathglot (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as the Beemyn quote about whether we can even talk about "transgender history" if the word was only coined in 1965, I'd say, of course we can; "The History of &lt;Whatever>" always does this. Look at History of money, which mentions it going back to "prehistory" and lists some specific item from 30,000 years ago. It doesn't matter that "money" the way we think of it wasn't created till thousands of years later; there's a continuity of concept that makes talking about cowrie shells and all the rest highly relevant. It's *not* talking about that period that would be a disservice, as if only the modern concept counted, and it somehow sprang into existence with no precursors. Same thing with transgender history: it's entirely appropriate that we don't begin the article in 1965 because people didn't have the word to talk about it before then. Bottom line, as always, is what the sources say. Mathglot (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what is and is not “money” has a clearer academic consensus than what is and is not “transgender”. Isthistwisted (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Now, sure. But not umpty-thousand years ago, when there were no banks, no banknotes, and no academics. Still, we talk about it in the article about money. Also, anytime you talk about people, there's going to be uncertainty. Was anybody schizophrenic before 1908? For that matter, is anyone schizophrenic now, or ever? However, I feel we are straying too far from what this page is about; as interesting as I find this tangent and would love to discuss it with you over a beer, it is not up to you and me to decide what we think about this question; we should simply stick to the sources and see what they say. Mathglot (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What I’m saying is that the sources (every source that I’ve read acknowledging, let alone about, the historiography of transgender history, many of which are cited in the article), say something along the lines of “It’s complicated to define transgender history; there is dispute, yadda yadda”. This is a much more common claim than the simple “Transgender people have existed since ancient times”, something I have only read in one weak source, which cites nothing, though comes from the pen of an academic.
 * So, if we’re following the sources, the lead needs to reflect the complication of the notion of transgender history.
 * P.S. per your schizophrenia example—there’s no way we would have an article for “list of Schizophrenics” whose lead is “schizophrenic people have always existed”, and go on to list a bunch of speculatively schizophrenic historical figures. Isthistwisted (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as "it’s complicated to define transgender history; there is dispute...", yes, and out of the three sentences in the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH of the article, two of the three address this exact point. Are you saying that isn't enough?
 * Your comment about "List of schizophrenics" is a strawman. This is not a list article. But if you're curious, here is a paper from the NIH about possible cases of schizophrenia going back to the Middle Ages. It presents the same uncertainties of interpretation. And more to your point: we wouldn't have an article that said that "schizophrenic people have always existed" unless we had reliable sources to that effect. The exact same standard applies here, and we apply it. Mathglot (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Which source says that transgender people have existed since ancient times? I saw one weak source with no citations say this (just once, and in an article that didn't even name any ancient examples of transgender people) and many better, more reliable and themselves-sourced sources say that it's complicated to ascertain. Per Beemyn, the main historiographic source: "it would [...] be inappropriate to assume that people who are “transgender,” as we currently understand the term, existed throughout history."
 * If there is no source on par with Beemyn's that explicitly says "transgender people have existed since ancient times", and the best sourcing is the synthesis of examples included in histories of transgenderism, some of which date to ancient times, then I think that really doesn't stand very tall against Beemyn's explicit statement quoted above. Isthistwisted (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is no source on par with Beemyn's that explicitly says "transgender people have existed since ancient times", and the best sourcing is the synthesis of examples included in histories of transgenderism, some of which date to ancient times, then I think that really doesn't stand very tall against Beemyn's explicit statement quoted above. Isthistwisted (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree with Sideswipe that this is a plain summary of the contents of the article; I'm not seeing a reason to change it; that said, I'm happy to discuss alternative sentences: as Mathglot notes, there have been some. -sche (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Having written the historiography section, and having read Beemyn's work to do so, her contention is not that trans history is a undefinable before the invention of the term. Rather, she's adding some caveats to the academic understanding of it. But her work is still titled in part "Transgender History," in a book about trans topics. She is advocating for a broad understanding of trans history, not an erasure of it. So I don't agree with changing the first sentence. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A quote from Beemyn: "it would [...] be inappropriate to assume that people who are “transgender,” as we currently understand the term, existed throughout history." I'm sorry, but it's just not good enough a first sentence, especially when followed with something that challenges it to the point of obvious impropriety. Isthistwisted (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well that's why the lead notes "opinions vary on how to categorize historical accounts of gender-variant people and identities." I would not say the historiography section is complete, I only summarized the first 7 pages of Beemyn, and only really wrote from her. I wouldn't say its a broad coverage, it was merely a start. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm saying there's a contradiction. If we start with "transgender people have been around since ancient times", there is an implication that there is a consensus on that matter, and it can be reported simply as fact—because that is how Wikipedia works. But the very next sentence tells us that there is in fact no consensus: opinions vary. Isthistwisted (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

A few suggestions and references
First let me say this is a well-written article with a wealth of information. I was especially fascinated to learn about Elagabalus, and it may even benefit the article to include some direct quotations from the source (Cassius Dio).

He had planned, indeed, to cut off his genitals altogether, but that desire was prompted solely by his effeminacy; the circumcision which he actually carried out was a part of the priestly requirements of Elagabalus... (80.11)

I think the article can be improved in relation to hijras - while the myth of Ram blessing those who stayed behind after the men and women leave is not in most translations of Valmiki's Ramayana, the notion of hijras is widely understood in India's rigid class hierarchy. Joseph Bockrath wrote an excellent paper which could be useful to understanding the unique experience of the hijra community.

But it is the conception of the hijra as "neither man nor woman"1 that defines their odd role in Indian culture. It is a self-perception confirmed by hijra's own indiscriminate use of he/she and him/her. 2 "[W] ithin the home they are identified as sons and daughters depending upon the predominant characteristics of males or females present in them respectively." (Bockrath, 85)

I would also suggest improving the lede, as it is currently a bit dense with information and references without much overview on the criteria by which these historical references are being curated. The article as a whole has some fascinating references mixed in with some pretty excruciating reaches - "some archaeologists believe this was a transgender burial" sounds like historical revisionism to most people. queshav (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thinly-supported accounts (reaches) should be attributed as "one team posited..." "Historian Firstname Lastname suggested..." And I agree on the lede, too—the examples are random and too numerous. Zanahary (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The History of Sexuality
— Assignment last updated by LizzieB2327 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the scope of 'history'?
This page has a lot of content that looks like this example:

Trans people face stigma and are not able to change gender markers or access hormone therapy or reassignment surgery in Morocco, but in 2018 some founded a group to oppose discrimination. In Algeria, trans people mostly live in the shadows, or seek refuge in France; in 2014 the first LGBT magazine in the country, El Shad, launched and profiled several. In Tunisia, trans people have been arrested, jailed, and tortured; some seek asylum in Greece. Egypt today is also hostile to transgender people, who are subject to arrest.

Does this sort of content belong here? The sources are current, not historical, and so are the claims and conditions being described. I think it should be stored instead at a page like Transgender, or locally-specific ones like Transgender people in China or Transgender rights in Iran. Zanahary (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, it doesn't. (And not at Transgender, either.) There are dozens of LGBT rights in &lt;Country> articles which have statements like that, and although I find them too cookie-cutter similar from one country to the next, usually after that sentence they go into local content, and source it. (Who woulda thunk that the situation in Monaco and Djibouti were so similar, according to the lead sentences?) Imho, the paragraph you quote above is something that could find a home in one of those country articles, but for the most part, doesn't belong here, as it's pandering to WP:RECENTISM. The problem lies in those countries where nothing at all is known before the last few years. If that's the case, there might be some support for the idea of including recent info of the type you quote rather than having nothing at all, although I can also see an argument in favor of having just a section header for the country, a "Main or "Further template below it pointing to the LGBT rights article, and then no content below it; effectively an empty section with the header and template pointing elsewhere for the content. Mathglot (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01
— Assignment last updated by Bbalicia (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)