Talk:Transphobia/Archive 2

Citations and sources
I have tagged relevant unsourced statements with the  tag. A number of these tags are sourceable through the /*external links*/ section in the article, and a few sourced statements in the article have inline references. Unfortunately, I can't seem to get my head around the footnote3 system (the simplest of the two current preferred systems), even after reading the page for it. It would be useful (very useful) if somebody can apply the appropriate citations to the article, both because it needs it, but also because it will leave the truly unsourced statements on their own so they can be identified and sourced.

Of course, you'd also be demonstrating to me how to use the citation system simply by doing so! lol. Crimsone 18:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Thankyou Captainktainer :) --Crimsone 17:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Request to Crimsone - Please desist in further vandalism
Crimsone, I must request that you abide by the Wikipedia rules that you seem to hold so dear - stop vandalizing this page. As we have discussed, it is important to have a balanced article, which I have attempted to provide. Your attempts to squelch this attempt at neutrality are acts of vandalism. The fact that you have gained an accomplice through the heavily biased left-wing beliefs of Rombik (who has also vandalized this page) does not change a thing. If you question Rombik's bias, then I request that you take a brief look at his history - especially a comment that he made insulting an individual who diagreed with him on hate crime laws. - Lewis Ranja


 * It's hardly vandalism from me. I'm reverting YOUR vandalism. You have just once more violated WP:3RR, you have violated WP:NPA (and here again now), you continue to show contempt for anybody that would stand up to this vandalism, let alone discussion or the sentiments of WP:1RR. I am not the only person to remove this nonsense, nor am I the only person to consider it vandalism. You were even reverted early on by two administrators. You aren't even attempting to cite this nonsense.


 * As far as I recall, most of that discussion consisted of you attacking me with no provocation and me remaining civil. As vandals go, I would have to be a pretty bad one were I so inclined due to the fact that I have made many substantive changes to this article involving a reasonble amount of work on my part, and continue to try to improve it further. That of course, and that I've not vandalised a single article since I first became a wikipedian. Crimsone 06:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack. This is a civil attempt to request that you stop vandalizing this page. The fact that my edit does not mesh with your political views does not make it vandalism. Please stop. You're hurting my feelings and making me cry like a reclusive depressive. - Lewis Ranja


 * It is a personal attack on many levels, including accusations of personal bias, vandalism, defamation of otherwise outstanding character, insinuations about my personal beliefs, and insinuations about those of another user. Tlak about content, not the contributor. Given my userpage, it's fairly obvious what you just ment by your "reclusive depressive remark. I can only ask you politely, once more, to please stop. Your edit isn't your edit - it existed before you started reinstating it (unless you are that IP also). Our previous discussion disproves it's worthiness for inclusion entirely.Crimsone 07:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, you persist with the vandalism. Please stop - for your own sake. I fear that your "outstanding character" is being harmed here. All our discussion proved is that you do not want this article to have a balanced perspective. That is why I will not permit your vandalism to provide it with such bias. So please quit. And excuse me - I have to go take my medication. - Lewis Ranja


 * I'm confident that I'm not harming my good standing here. I'm following policy. I'm not responding to your attacks anymore as there seems to be no point in doing so. My actions, and previous words, speak for themselves. Crimsone 07:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

At last, we agree! Your actions do speak loudly enoguh. They make it clear that you fear contrary viewpoints and will do anything you can to stomp that out. I guess that's just what happens from living in your apartment all day long. - Lewis Ranja


 * Just a quick note to say that this discussion is now over due to (in part) WP:NPA. civility over all else (even under provocation) is I feel a very important concept, as is following wiki policy. These are the lessons confirmed to me today, and my thanks go out to those who have made wiki-editing bearable for me once more. Thanks. Crimsone 17:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised you wasted so much breath. No matter what the substantive content dispute, no editor at WP can reasonably be expected to put up with such abuse.  You were well within your rights to ignore him after the first couple such comments he made.  Kasreyn 00:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL! Thanks :) I guess I just wanted to do my absolute best at extending the olive branch and discussing the situation, but as you point out there's only so far it can go. Heavens forbit that I should ever have a similar problem, but I rather think that it's a right I might find myself exercising if I do. :D --Crimsone 00:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, Crimsone. In the future, if you don't want to suffer personal attacks - it's best if you don't attacks others by calling their attacks vandalism. You're pretty much just asking for it at that point.


 * There was NO excuse for the things previously said about me, and there is no way I will tolerate it should it occur in the future. --Crimsone 17:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this really a neutral article?
Can't we at least agree that this article is not neutral? After all, another editor has referred to the idea of transphobia as a "mindfuck" idea. At the very least, shouldn't this have a "neutrality in dispute" tag attached to it??


 * The contribution of the editor you refer to was quite clearly vandalism, and if you look closely at the comment, the "mindfuck" reference was directed at transsexuality itself not transphobia, and so no, there is no issue with neutrality. Comments on controversy belong in the subject of the controversy, and not in articles that stem from that subject. As such, the "mindfuck" issue would belong on transexuality's talk page (NOT the article!).


 * Either that, or the comment was actually trying to say that transexual people are wierdo's that are complaining about being discriminated against and deserve everything they get. I'd much rather assume good faith and go with the former concept.


 * You are of course referring to the same edit that you have insisted on reverting into the article time and time again against both consensus. As I have already said, I've had enough of being attacked from the earlier episode (for which your account was banned for disruption and NPA). As such, I will not be the one to remove your revert, but refer any would be editor to the immediately previous discussion on this talk page should they wish to decide themselves. Enough is enough at this point, and I will no longer continue to deeply involve myself in this situation, especially given your last comment in the above section which I take to mean "serves me right, and I'll do it again if you continue this issue". I still however consider your edit to be vandalism. Note that, as with each time previously, I am commenting on the content, NOT the contributor, and so I am not and will not violate WP:NPA, nomatter how hard I'm pushed. -- Crimsone 17:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is now fairly well-sourced - turns out that most of the stuff was in the External Links section. At this point, there is no excuse for adding an unsourced, OR, POV section. Furthermore, the article is in dispute by one banned user, and one vandal. That's not enough for a neutrality disputed tag. Also, stop readding that Criticism section. Last I checked, you were indefblocked for harrassment and POV-pushing; an IP block can fairly easily be arranged. Captainktainer * Talk 21:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

One More Stab at Making the Article Neutral
I have inserted a passage that is identical to a passage from the "homophobia" article. It merely replaces the word "homosexuality" with "transexuality/transexualism". There is absolutely no reason to keep this passage out - other then to provide the article with a liberally slanted viewpoint. It is more difficult to find a citation for opposition to use of the word "transphobia" than it is to find a citation for opposition to the use of the word "homophobia" simply because most people don't even know this word exists. Common sense, however, makes it clear that opposition does exist for the same reasons. Depsite changes to the article, it still remains nothing but an unsourced opinionated opening section, which is then followed by a list of unfortunate incidents. That's not an ecncylopedia article. That's a political pamphlet. With this addition, I believe that we can at least make the article reasonably neutral in the same way that it seems to have made the "homophobia" article neutral. I'm glad that we got rid of that Lewis Ranja guy, but he did have a good point.


 * So you aren't Lewis Ranja? Dysprosia 13:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Further to the article... there are no excuses for either WP:NOR or WP:CITE npt being observed in this article (as already suggested by another user.) It is perfectly well sourced, and is already neutral by nature of being properly sourced. What applies to homophobia is one thing, but transphobia is a distinct and different subject. I have even qualified the definition (as was already obvious anyway) by linking to a subsection of non-clinical uses of the word "phobia". It's untidy to say the least, but it stands for itself. I could use a source if desired though - there are hundreds of them. --Crimsone 18:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete material. You have already been warned about this once. Improve it, if you wish, but do not just delete it. Complaints that religious and social groups have about the use word of "Homophobia" are no different than those they have against "Transphobia". As discussed before, it the use of the "phobia" suffix that is the conccern - not what precedes it. Therefore, the entry is legitimate.
 * You've been asked to provide sources. You haven't. Therefore, the entry has been removed, and per previous warnings I am contacting an administrator to enforce the block. Captainktainer * Talk 00:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Drawing a line under the history of the article and the talk
This article has had a rather tumultuous history of late. Without naming names, the party responsible for this has been blocked. During the course of this 'dispute', the article has been completely sourced by more than one editor, and has been re-structured and wikified. It still isn't perfect perhaps, but then, now that the article has been "brought up to code", it's in a prefectly good state to be further expanded and improved if anybody has anything to add. Later, I may well archive most of the talk before this page, partially because it is untdy, and I'd be lying if I didn't say that it was partly because of the numerous personal attacks on the page.

Future content in the article should be in accordance with WP:CITE and WP:OR, and I would suggest (though by no means demand) that editors might consider followin the sentiments of the essay WP:1RR with regards to this article, as per the wikipedia spirit - or in other words, discuss changes on the talk page :). --Crimsone 15:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In general, the practice on article Talk pages is to do a complete archive, warts and all (save for examples of vandalism), so that editors can quickly and easily find information about the context of edits to the page. It's my belief that user talk should function the same way, and in the majority of cases that's how user talk archiving is done (though not to the same extent as article talk pages). A good explanation of how to archive is here. And yes, we should be very mindful of Wikipedia policies and the guiding principles of Wikipedia. Captainktainer * Talk 21:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed Captainktainer. I shall read the archive policy/tutorial later, but for the moment, if it's OK, I shall simply place the one discussion I've left out of the archive where it should be in that respect :) Thanks --Crimsone 21:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Looks good! Captainktainer * Talk 21:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Transphobia in Public Accommodations
If nobody has any objections I would like to rename the section "Transphobia in Society" to "Transphobia in Public Accommodations," add a paragraph dealing with restrooms and move the sentence regarding the murder victims to a new section called "Transphobia and Violence." Samantha D 18:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. --Alynna 06:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Adding a whole subsection on one sentence would be inappropriate. However, it's an important sentence and so cannot be removed from the article. The "transphobia in film" section could be moved to the society section however, though I still feel that section to be inappropriate. This article is starting to read far too much like a list of unrelated points - some of which aren't all that notable (film being one - and is debateable as a case of transphobia in the least) Crimsone 19:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Transphobia in Feminism
Why is there nothing about feminist transphobiacs, such as Andrea Dworkin, a notorious trans-hater? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.16.202.19 (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Because nobody's gone there yet. I agree, it would be a good section to include (though Janice Raymond is the name that leaps to mind for me).  This is Wikipedia -- if you can see something that belongs in the article that isn't there, and you're prepared to follow Wikipedia guidelines, go to it!  Just a friendly word of advice, though: Based on nearly two decades of experience with online feminism, I advise you to source impeccably, follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines without even the slightest appearance of a cut corner, and carry an entry suit along with you.  :-) --7Kim 06:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This paragraph is an excellent start, however it needs rewritten to be made NPOV and rigorously sourced.
 * "Germaine Greer is notorious among trans women as one of the feminist vigilantes who went on an anti-transsexual rampage in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Along with feminist academic Janice Raymond, author of the notorious book The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male, Greer went on a witch-hunt to find and “out” stealthy postop women.


 * Raymond and Greer (and their ideological followers) especially targeted trans women who had successfully obtained good employment. They went after these women without remorse, in efforts to publicly defame them, cost them their livelihoods, and force them into social marginalization (which Raymond and Greer apparently thought they deserved).
 * Physicist Rachel Padman of Cambridge University became one of Greer’s special targets in 1996 (Greer ruthlessly outed and attacked Rachel in the UK tabloids). Fortunately, Rachel was really well-liked at Cambridge, and was able to survive Greer’s wrath.
 * Although most stealthy women in academe and the professions escaped such exposure, fear of being exposed by the Raymond-Greer witch-hunt kept many successful trans women in deep stealth during the 1980’s and 1990’s. As a result, the stories of many successful transitions in those decades never became public. " - Lynn Conway
 * 88.96.135.14 (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Page Move:Discrimination against Transsexuals
Can anyone give me a good reason why I shouldn't page move this article to Discrimination against Transsexuals? MPS 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Because the article also covers discrimination against transgender people, so that title would be inaccurate. And "Transphobia" is a term already in use (for atleast 10 years), as a Google Scholar search shows. Mairi 23:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Transphobia in film
I would like to start discussion of this section. I am firmly of a belief that it does not belong in the article. The fact that some films have portrayed their serial killers as transgender people is not in and of itself transphobia.


 * 1) There have been real life cases of transgender people either going on a killing spree or otherwise committing serious crime. This is not because transgender people are twisted, but is because transgender people reflect a cross-section of society. There are deranged and/or dangerous people in society just as there are in the transgender community. Proportionally, it probably works out to around and about the same level of incidence.
 * 2) The fact that the directors of a given film have made their "baddie" transgender could be a simple theatrical device. People in general are often slightly unseated by "difference", and this is not nessecarily trans related. Of course, when you need to make a character "different" on a personal level through the impact-reducing lens of a camera, what more fundamental difference to the "norm" considered in the "mainstream" at the time these films were originally made than a person that does not conform to gender norms? The fact that "transphobia" exists at all is proof that such a device can still operate successfully today, and is not transphobic in itself.
 * 3) The director of said films could equally be simply reflecting reality - that some of these instances exist. Given the proportion of Hollywood movies that involve trans serial killers to those that don't (or even those that involve non-trans serial killers only), could this really be said to be some kind of transphobia of the film industry? Or even of a particular film?
 * 4) Who is to say that one of the areas intentionally involved in a film with a trans "baddie" isn't the negative reaction of other characters to their trans status, and how that might contribute to a trans persons "fall from grace" on top of any issues that individual character might have? Could part of the moral of such stories be that transphobia has serious and negative effects?
 * 5) The inclusion of The Rocky Horror Picture Show in itself makes the whole section laughable (and I even removed it once, only for it to be replaced). Has anybody been to see Rocky Horror at a cinema? What were you and the others around you wearing at the time? This can't even be said to be a misinterpretation of the directors true malicious and transphobic intent - the creator was Richard O'Brien, who even starred in it! - just read his article on Wiki! Better yet, the source doesn't even include it.
 * 6) Even if there were transphobia in film (which cannot be proven, nor demonstrated sufficiently), is it really in the film, or is it just a reflection of society? If so, it's society with the transphobia - not the film. If not, it's the directors that are transphobic, not the film. Either way, it still comes down to the fact that this isn't transphobia in film.
 * 7) The reference is quite clearly a page that has been written as one persons point of view, and better yet, it doesn't even say who that person is. As a source, it is thoroughly non-notable, with the exception of the transcripts which, as described already, don't automatically scream "transphobia".

The section, in my opinion, makes a mockery of the article, and the whole issue of transphobia. There are undoubtedly many more issues to raise along with the above, but I'm here to say why there's a problem, not to write an essay on it. Crimsone 14:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If African-Americans were often portrayed as the villains in film and someone called it racist, I think the previous points would justify that racism too. The only excuse can be coincidence. I'm making numbers up, but if .1% of people are transgender and 5% of movie serial killers are trans, we're beyond coincidence. But I agree that without a good reference, the section shouldn't be here. --Ephilei 19:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Bias / POV
This article reads as though it was written by a tranny who is active in the fight against discrimination. There is no talk of why such discrimination exits, how prevalent it is and why it might be justified.

I personally find it disgusting but that doesn't mean people should be prohibited from being "who they are". Some may find me disgusting and thats okay. There is no way I would hire a transgender for a job if I were looking for a new employee. It weirds people out, both customers and other employees. I would loose business and employees. Stop trying to cram it down everyone's throat. --Jon in California —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.73.181 (talk)


 * It would be important to point out that at one time similar sentiments were held against blacks, and women. Just because something is not currently culturally tolerated does not mean you have a right to refuse them a job if they were capable of performing that job.  There do exist certain protections to employers to account for customer interaction, and business appropriateness.  As a result, dress codes may be enforced based on gender if there is a compelling business need, also, the company may have a case for refusing employment to an individual whose appearance would have a gross impact upon their ability to perform their job.  That being said, there are a lot of cases where transgender people can perform just as well as anyone else, and in the everyday and incidental encounters that they may have with customers would not impact their job.  If someone with a tatoo covering their face, and a nose ring, and huge loops through their ears is reasonable to serve as a cashier at a fast food place, then there is no reason why a transgendered individual not be permitted and afforded the same opportunity.


 * That all said, a transgender person is better off not working for someone who's as maliciously upset with them as you are. Honestly, you may not even know if you've hired a transgendered individual at your company.  Just because someone is transgendered does not mean that in any way that they are visibly gender variant. --Puellanivis 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that transgenderism (is that the word?) is something that is going to just progressively gain acceptance like blacks (no one was ever really repulsed by women). Even with homosexuality, even if many consider it immoral, most people feel that it is not a choice. This is not the view most people hold about transgenders, and I think the fact that people don't know whether or not they fall under male or female and just a general confusion will always result in a stigma attached to them. Gtbob12 (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is for discussing improvements to the article Transphobia, not for discussing your personal views. --Alynna (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge Transprejudice into Transphobia. -- ~ Eliz 81 (C)  07:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC) I suggest that the content and references of Transprejudice be merged into here, and that article redirect here. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 15:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Transprejudice is at best a synonym and at worst a neologism. I don't know if there's really anything in the transprejudice article to merge into here, or whether it would be better to simply make it a redirect to transphobia. --AliceJMarkham 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There are a couple of references that should be considered for saving as well. Benjiboi 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. References definitely worth considering, maybe also mention the word "transprejudice" as a synonym here.  --Alynna 14:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I can't see the distinction between the terms in any real way.Kootenayvolcano 16:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Not exactly the same, not similar enough that all their contents will be identical. --Ephilei 19:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. The "transprejudice" article specifically mentions that it may be manifested just like "homophobia".  There's no reason to consider these terms as different for the purpose of an encyclopedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puellanivis (talk • contribs) 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject The terms 'transprejudice' and 'transphobia' and the underlying attitudes these terms represent may very well be distinct, especially when considered across cultures. Just as 'homophobia' and 'homoprejudice' may be distinct (see Logan, C. R. (1996). Homophobia? No, homoprejudice. Journal of Homosexuality, 31(3), 31-53. A number of researchers have challenged the validity of using the term “homophobia” to describe anti-homosexual attitudes and beliefs (for example, see Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond "Homophobia": Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the Twenty-First Century. Sexuality Research & Social Policy: A Journal of the NSRC, 1(2), 6-24. And as Herek suggests, "scholars and researchers alike require a more nuanced vocabulary in order to understand the psychological, social, and cultural processes that underlie the oppression of sexual minorities" (p. 14). In Chinese culture, for example, the use of transphobia (bing sing hung gui zing) to describe the negative reaction of heterosexual (or 'heteronormative') people to transgender people is almost universally rejected, as 'phobia' (hong gui zing) infers an established clinical condition onto the individual who simply may hold negative, even prejudicial, attitudes towards transgender people, but attitudes that may not be considered as 'phobic'. The term transprejudice may be part of that nuanced vocubulary. For the sake of this discussion, perhaps we could explore Herek's 'sexual prejudice', Logan's 'homoprejudice', and the conceptualization of 'transprejudice' as distinct terms that conceptualize anti-gay and anti-transgender/transsexual attitudes. I certainly don't see how 'prejudice' and 'phobia' can be synonyms, nor do I see how transprejudice is a neologism of transphobia.202.189.104.26 15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Transphobia is a a non clinical term... it doesn't refer in the first place to a clinical phobia, and just like homophobia to predjudice against homosexuals, (another non-clinical term) it usually refers to predjudice against trans people, and is the generally accepted term for it... just as the article itself states. the way in which phobia and predjudice can be used as synonyms is described by the page Phobia - terms indicating prejudice or class discrimination as referenced by the article. Crimsone 19:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, if homoprejudice does take off as a separate term to Homophobia that would be reason to consider keeping both these articles but homoprejudice doesn't have an article for us to even compare and contrast. 202.189.104.26 does have a point that if we do the merge, which I still support, that it's referred in the lede that it's inclusion of transprejudice is an umbrella term or some variation. Benjiboi 06:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Absolutely, though the lede already states that the word transphobia refers to prejudice against trans people. Crimsone 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If this constitutes sufficient support here for the move, I will gladly make it. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  08:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment For homoprejudice, see Logan, C. R. (1996). Homophobia? No, homoprejudice. Journal of Homosexuality, 31(3), 31-53., as well as the more recent work by Schiffman, J. B., DeLucia-Waack, J. L., & Gerrity, D. A. (2006). An Examination of the Construct of Homophobia Prejudice or Phobia? Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 1(1), 75-93.202.189.98.187 01:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment well, it's very likely that all of the terms are acceptable, and used by one scientific or medical or whatever organization or another for some purpose. The interest here is that the common person would expect the words "homophobia" and by extention of that usage "transphobia".  The only real reason to have two articles, is if they concern different material, which I don't think they substantially do. --Puellanivis 01:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * comment ... the solution to which is to re-direct transprejudice Crimsone 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment naturally. :) --Puellanivis 00:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I believe that we have essentially reached a reasonable consensus position that Transprejudice should be merged into, and redirected to, Transphobia on the condition that the term Transprejudice remain in the article. It should be noted that, if adequate distinction becomes available in the future, it might then be split back out into a separate article. In order to ensure that the term is not subsequently inadvertantly removed from the article, I propose that a hidden comment such as   be placed  close to the top of the article. If there are no further objections, I'd suggest that User:Eliz81 or whoever else is enthusiastic about it may complete the merge. --AliceJMarkham 02:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.