Talk:Transphobia/Archive 5

"So broad"
Regarding this and this, the "Etymology and use" section is about etymology and usage of the term. If reliable sources state that the term transphobia has become too broad in a way that might be problematic, whether it's just an opinion or not, it can fit in the "Etymology and use" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The first edit appears to be from a different section? Either way I think it would be odd to have criticism of the topic before it is more thoroughly introduced further on. In other articles, like patriarchy an etymology and use section is meant as just a brief intro for the meaning of the word and how the word is used with further explanation and critiques further down. In a sense everything in this article is explaining different aspects about how the word is used but it wouldn't make sense to fit all of them into the usage section. Rab V (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Per WP:DICT, this article is about the topic rather than the definition. Definitions concerning transphobia are best placed in the "Etymology and use" section. The vast majority of the article is about the topic. If any definition aspect belongs in some other part of the article more than it does in the "Etymology and use" section, that's fine. I just wanted to point out that the "Etymology and use" section is about use of the term transphobia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not actually sure these would qualify as "reliable sources" - it's an evidence-free assertion by a philosopher who is, by her own admission, not part of the mainstream among academic feminist philosophers. At best, it seems like it should be presented lower in the section, and it shouldn't present Stock as a disinterested academic. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 14:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is more than acceptable for the statement as written. It is a mainstream reputable newspaper in the UK and the addition was attributed. Not sure why Stock is being brought up, they were just one of the signatories to a statement referenced by the Guardian and were not presented except as part of the "some academics" (which was the Guardians wording). It was at the end of the entymology section so not sure how it can get any lower. I originally had it in the feminist section, but the objection was that the source did not make clear that they were feminists. The edit summary that removed it said it included mathematicians and art historians. So if it is more broad than just feminists it belongs in a more broad section. It specifically talks about the definition so I am not seeing an issue with it being in the section that talks about definitions, especially as it is kept general and brief. AIRcorn (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am also unclear how ·academics who's expertise seems to be other fields are especially relevant in an article on transphobia. This seems more like focusing on recent news than significant contributions to our understanding of transphobia. As is this letter to the guardian is only briefly mentioned in the cited article. Rab V (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Because a reliable secondary source mentions it specifically in relation to transphobia. You and Nblund are focussing on the wrong thing. It is not the letter or even the signatories that are important, it is the fact that it gets mainstream coverage. Recentism is a form of undue when the article is unbalanced towards events that have just happened too much. It does not mean that we cannot add recent information to an article. Given that it is only one sentence I don't think it is undue. Would it help if we expanded the section, it could certainly do with some work. AIRcorn (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * ~Is the Guardian or a letter published in the Guardian? ~ BOD ~ TALK 09:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, I think it is essentially just a letter to the editor. I brought up Stock because she's the leading signatory, so I assume she wrote it, but who knows. I'm not sure how to write it without resorting to WP:WEASEL words and without attributing it to a specific author. I can't find any coverage of this letter in a secondary source, but if we could track one down it would probably help to add some context and assess notability. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 15:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahh I see the confusion. I cited the Guardian twice. One is the letter and the other is an article where they refer to it. For clarification the disputed sentence is Some academics say that the definition of transphobia has become so broad that it makes analytical analysis of the issues difficult and has led to censorship of their work and the two sources are this and this. The letter is basically a Primary Source and is not really needed. I only included it since it is in a reliable source and some people (myself included) find it informative to look at the original source. The second reference is the secondary source. It is the one I read first and having a background in Academia I found that part quite interesting and relevant to this topic area. AIRcorn (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I do think that helps somewhat, but I was sort of hoping for something a little more detailed - in particular it would be helpful to have some context on who wrote the letter. The letter represents a particular viewpoint, and that view is contested, so it would really be preferable to be able to attribute it in-text to a specific group or individual. I think the case for including here is pretty weak, but it might be viable with some re-wording. "In 2018 a group of academics wrote a letter to the Guardian in which they expressed concerns that the definition of "transphobia" was overly broad". [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 19:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The 54 signatories wrote the letter, or at the least consented that the information in the letter represents their viewpoint. It becomes a catch 22 with these, as the more detail contained the more undue the information can become. We could change "Some academics say ..." to "Fifty four academics have said ..." (I don't think either of us think the names should all be presented). I can work with your wording though. Is their any reason transphobia is in quotes though? I also think "was overly broad" should be "has become overly broad" as it seems to fit better with what they are suggesting. I do think it is useful to add that they feel it is affecting their work, but it probably does not fit in that well under etymology (I actually considered removing that part when I moved it). That aspect might be better with specific examples, and counters, in the feminism section. I also think the whole etymology section could be expanded with a better summary style of what is considered transphobic, with the details presented in their specific section. AIRcorn (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

letters like this one have been used in the past to present fringe or extremist viewpoints as mainstream beliefs, so, ideally, I think it would be better to be able to say more about where these people are coming from. I get that this isn't really possible here, but I suspect they might be coming at this from a political, rather than academic standpoint. I'm skeptical of the claim that mathematicians are doing research on transphobia. I think that debates from people like Stock are totally worth mentioning, but my concern is that this letter addresses that debate in a way that might give the impression that the debate is non-existent.

I put transphobia in quotes because of a stylistic convention, it's totally not imperative here. "Has become overly broad" is also fine. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 19:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * A letter doesn't go through the same vetting process as news content, and so I wouldn't think it inherits the news source's reliable-source chops; I would say it's a primary source, and does not inherit reliability. It counts as unvetted opinion. Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * , re transphobia in quotes: that may be their stylistic convention, but it’s not ours. We use italics for indicating usage of words as words. Mathglot (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mathglot, that makes sense regarding the words as words thing. Like I said, totally not imperative - I really wasn't expecting anyone to copy-paste my suggested wording verbatim.
 * I agree that this doesn't count as a reliable source for a statement of fact, but as statement attributed to the authors might be acceptable. I'm inclined toward saying that mentioning it in-text is WP:UNDUE given that we don't have a lot of coverage in secondary sources, but it's not a hill I'm necessarily willing to die on. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 17:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I will be tweaking and expanding the "In gay, lesbian, and bisexual communities" section. This is because there are important aspects and debates missing from the article, such as "Is it transphobic if a cisgender person doesn't want to date a transgender person?" This debate, as some know, is very strong in the lesbian and bisexual communities because some trans women suggest being open with regard to genital preferences or that genital preferences shouldn't matter, while a number of cisgender lesbians argue that sexual orientation is not about sexual attraction to gender identity, their attraction is not really a preference, and that to insist that a cisgender lesbian should be sexually attracted to a person who has a penis is akin to conversion therapy and is homophobic. I do intend to present both sides of the debate, and commentary on how to mend the rift between cisgender lesbians and transgender lesbians. Anyway, there are sources like this one from The Spectator speaking of broad application of the meaning of transphobia, including the dating aspect. The source is from a transgender author. The author states, for example, "As a transsexual woman, I am sick and tired of seeing people being subject to character assassination because apparently they’re transphobic. In many cases, these people are either absolutely not transphobic, or accusing them of transphobia is a stretch (or somewhere in between). Unfortunately, the trans 'community', now run by the Regressive Left, does not call out on fake transphobia often enough, if at all. For this reason and many others, I didn't leave the trans 'community', rather, the 'community' left me." So the broadness aspect will be covered in the article to some degree. Some of what I intend to add should also be in the Transgender sexuality article, and I'll eventually get around to that poor article as well. Working on sexuality topics is partly what I do on this site, and I might as well go ahead and tackle these aspects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I have already agreed that the letter is essentially a primary source and should be treated as such. It is the mention in a secondary source I was interested in and have said so multiple times now. It has always been attributed so that is not an issue. It really comes down to how much of a mention is due and how it is presented. Nothing else really matters and most likely is original research on our parts. There is also this from the independent in 2015, which along with Flyer22s example suggest a small mention about this aspect is fair.AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: cissexism
I think the logic of Thecoolrahul's edit was distinguishing transphobia from cissexism. I think I only have access to the abstract of the cited source, but it seems like we should be careful in that it seems to be proposing that "cisgenderism" be used instead of "transphobia" because "phobia" terms are based in fear, ie. seems to be intentionally conflating cissexism-as-system-of-assumptions with transphobia-as-outright-bigotry. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Roscelese, thanks for commenting on it. Feel free to tweak that text as needed, of course. And for future reference, there is no need to ping me to this talk page since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Transphobic Graffito.jpg
My Name is Madness, regarding this, I know that such a message is commonly made due to transphobia these days. And that because there is a lot more transgender awareness these days, the message can be considered transphobic regardless of its intent. But such material has also been written for men, rather than trans women, specifically. For example, I would occasionally come across this type of thing in high school...because boys would sneak into the girls bathroom. Back then, it was very rare for trans discussion (including discussion of non-binary people) to occur in schools and elsewhere (outside of LGBT spaces) and so the message wasn't meant for trans girls. Do you know if the intent of the image's message was to exclude trans women? Considering that such a statement is commonly directed at trans women these days, I'm not stating that we should remove the image. It's a strong image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's an interesting point. I'm fairly certain this was aimed (at least partially) towards trans women, but the original photographer doesn't offer any further information and I suspect doesn't have any to offer; it had no associated information and I believe was simply stumbled upon by them. The photographer is Kansas-based, where bathroom use has been something of a battleground; on the flip, it was photographed in 2011 which is before this was such a well-known issue as it is now, although it was still certainly around quite prominently then. I agree with your point about transphobia without intent, and would add that regardless of intent this will definitely reinforce, support, and encourage transphobic attitudes.
 * Perhaps the way forward is to more carefully describe the exclusive language and the context within the caption. Or, in plainer English, we should just say what it says, where, and to whom.
 * It's certainly powerful, especially in context within the article. I thought straight away of it's potential for this article as soon as I saw it. Madness Darkness 19:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My Name is Madness, thanks for explaining. Yeah, when I looked at the original uploader's page, I didn't see that the uploader called the message transphobic. Again, I know that due to transgender awareness today, it can be considered transphobic because, either way, it excludes trans women who haven't undergone bottom surgery. So such a message can be unintentionally transphobic. I was simply wondering because of my experiences having witnessed this as a teenager (and to a lesser extent as an adult) when it wasn't directed toward trans girls or trans women. Some might ask me: "How do you know that the boys sneaking into the girls bathroom weren't transgender?" Well, to our knowledge, the boys were sneaking into the girls bathroom to make out with the girls and/or to get a peep of the girls barely dressed, as some of them admitted to and got in trouble for. To our knowledge, none were going into the bathroom to use the toilet, faucet, or mirror, at least not because of their gender identity. That stated, I don't know if any of them were transgender, but it's highly unlikely that all of them were transgender. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Opinion piece
I am trying to find an acceptable way of rephrasing the problematic text cited to a clearly non-reliable opinion advocacy piece. I don't see how it violates the MOS to say that opinion claims about living people are opinions, not facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.235.225 (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit in question was WEASEL language, and the parts of the text that were qualified in this way did not depend on the cited source. The article is cited to show that some of those labelled TERF object to that term, not to demonstrate that some feminists are considered exclusionary. Still, do we need additional sources?

Newimpartial (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Deadnaming
Any reason Wikipedia doesn't have a separate article on this? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody has written one... yet. One could certainly be written. Madness Darkness 11:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a great idea. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary has deadname and deadnaming. What do you imagine would go into a Wikipedia article about the term?  Do you see it expanding beyond a section-long amount of text, that could just fit here instead? Mathglot (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Revert
What is your issue with the cited source? It looks reliable. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Minor issue in the bi section?
"omnisexual (an alternative word for pansexual)"

As far as I know, omnisexual isn't usually a synonym for pansexual. The distinction I've seen in internet groups is usually that pansexual implies being "gender-blind" while omnisexual explicitly isn't. I don't know of any sources I can reference, so I'm not going to change it, but you can just look up the Urban Dictionary definition to see what I mean. nzsaltz (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are unreliable sources; while some may be under that impression, the WP:Reliable sources at Pansexuality show otherwise. Crossroads -talk- 21:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"Transphobic" graffito
I'm not convinced that the graffito ("Women's room, please only enter if you have a dick") should be simply judged transphobic. It could possibly be understood as a general complaint against men in the restroom. Regardless, the question of whether primary sexual characteristics or gender self-indentification determines access to women's rooms is a matter of current heated debate. The current caption ("A transphobic graffito") is not really a fact, it's a value judgment or opinion. -- St.nerol (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * St.nerol, I also brought up the "men in the restroom" aspect, as separate from referring to trans women. See Talk:Transphobia/Archive 5. Like I stated then, my experience with seeing such wording in public bathrooms (including when I was a teenager) has been a reference to cisgender boys/men. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I removed it. That makes 3 editors against it. It's original research, which is never allowed, to say that this image has to do with trans women. (The image's caption and file name are by wiki editors, and are thus part of the OR.) Crossroads -talk- 20:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

So if a trans woman is barred from entering woman's restroom because of her primary sexual characteristic, it's somehow not transphobia even if she's forced to use a restroom that doesn't actually fit her gender, and is very likely to face sexual harassment or hate crimes if she uses the men's restroom?

Just because you are privileged enough to be fine with transphobia doesn't mean other people don't suffer from it.

"Original research". What a great word. Life experience of anyone not backed up by the majority is always "original research" and thus irrelevant. But anything you people write about, no matter how biased it is or how unreliable the source, is not "original research".


 * There really is no alternative to a prohibition on original research. Without it there can be no limit to what people can put in an encyclopaedia. It just becomes another internet chat/discussion/arguing site where people can write whatever they feel to be true and there is no way to arbitrate between different people's competing claims. Wikipedia, like any other encyclopaedia, has to reflect what is written elsewhere, not make up its own truth otherwise it would tear itself apart arguing over what that truth should be. Believe me, the transphobes would love to be able to write whatever the hell they like and our prohibition on original research is a key tool to prevent that. Whenever a transphobe tries to insert their made up nonsense along the lines of "blah, blah, something irrelevant about chromosomes, blah, blah, its just basic biology init, blah, blah." the prohibition against original research is our reason for removing it and refusing to readmit it without solid references for the complete claim.
 * It can be annoying and frustrating when you feel that something is both important and obviously true but the only way to defeat a claim of original research is to find valid sources showing that the research did not originate with some Wikipedia editor but is a thing in the real world. Normally this can be done.
 * So, what should we make of the phrase "Women's room, please only enter if you have a dick"? Absolutely nothing because that is not what the graffito in question says. It actually says "Women's room, please do not enter if you have a DICK!". So what should we make of that? Personally, I'd assume that it was probably intentionally transphobic but there is also a small possibility that it was written by somebody not merely tone deaf but totally unaware of trans issues. They might have intended to ward off cis men without even the slightest thought that they were excluding some trans women as well. I doubt that but I can't prove it. Nobody can. To state it without referencing a reliable source would be original research. This ambiguity makes it a poor example to use in the article.
 * Compare this with the graffito shown in the article at present. That image shows the slogan "Trans raus" and a swastika. This is a much better illustration because it is utterly unambiguous in its awfulness. No inference is needed to determine its meaning so questions of original research can't even arise. It demonstrates the nature of transphobic graffiti perfectly. The swastika makes explicit what is so often hidden and denied. Readers are left in no doubt as to its nature.
 * Rather than argue for the inclusion of this particular graffito, maybe somebody can find something else that could serve in a similar capacity without these problems? --DanielRigal (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2021
"A high percentage report being victims of sexual violence. Some are refused healthcare or suffer workplace discrimination, including being fired for being transgender, or feel under siege by conservative political or religious groups who oppose laws to protect them. They also suffer discrimination from some people within the movement for the rights of gender and sexual minorities."

The above statement should also include feminist groups, such as 2nd wave feminists and TERFs and so should read as follows:

"A high percentage report being victims of sexual violence. Some are refused healthcare or suffer workplace discrimination, including being fired for being transgender, or feel under siege by conservative political or religious groups, such as trans exclusionary radical feminists, who oppose laws to protect them. They also suffer discrimination from some people within the movement for the rights of gender and sexual minorities." 62.254.157.102 (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I added a mention: "They also suffer discrimination from some people within the movement for the rights of gender and sexual minorities, and from some feminists." Hopefully this is sufficient. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 18:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

confusion of terminology
Article claims that prejudice can be caused by a belief that gender is limited to biological sex. It says that things like that, directed at transgender people, is called transphobia. But it mentions transgender and transexual people interchangeably. This seems paradoxical. Perhaps take care to avoid the term  "transsexual"? Or change the definition of transphobia, in which case the "biological sex" bit becomes irrelevant? Sorry for my poor English 122.56.204.171 (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021
Change the word "disenfranchisement" in the caption for the graffiti image to "disillusionment" - disenfranchisement means loss of the right to vote and that is not what is being expressed by this graffiti 37.117.74.48 (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

New section on transphobia in sports?
I was wondering, would a new section on transphobia and/or trans-exclusionary policies in sports be warranted or no? It's probably one of the most common forms of transphobia in the United States as of recently, especially on the legal side of things. Casspedia ( talk )  14:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say so. I wouldn't think it'd be difficult to find sources on the subject; it seems to be all anyone talks of these days, when they're not busy talking of the dangers of trans people "stealing" lesbians. (You'd think they'd understand that they'll keep making new ones, but apparently lesbians are a hard-to-find resource...or so it would seem.) --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just how to work out sex and gender in sports and where exactly to draw the lines is greatly debated. Some in the debate calls others transphobic, but that's a POV. Any such material is likely to be highly politicized media sources that mix news and opinion; presenting a WP:POV as fact is not acceptable. Crossroads -talk- 04:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * - I'd just like to point out, as a transgender person myself, I know this too will come across as a POV, but I would encourage you to understand that there are some issues that one cannot be neutral one, and I would argue that this is one of them, especially given how scientifically shaky the grounds of 'banning' trans people from sports are.
 * It's not a POV to point out that the scientific basis for a lot of arguments against trans women in sports are not the greatest. It's also important to recognise that sex isn't a black-and-white issue, and that research into this issue is ongoing.
 * Though I cannot help being POV myself, I would at least urge other editors to consider that many articles on this subject may also be POV in the opposite direction. We seem to be the hot topic of the day and everyone has an opinion - and not all of these opinions are going to be scientifically grounded. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Vague terms
I see some vague terms such as "it is very common", "often", "regularly", and "many". Also this may be a point of view issue because when reading this it feels very opinionated. I'm not sure if this is an actual issue so I just wanted to see what others think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.175.138 (talk • contribs) 21:41, June 9, 2021 (UTC)


 * Please sign your comments, but anyway I haven’t really read the sources cited in this article but if a certain source says something like “Tran people are often victims of sexual assault” then Wikipedia mentions they are.
 * Also I’m not entirely sure about your comment when you say this is very opinionated. Honestly your comment comes off as a little confusing so can you explain in more depth on what you mean in simplistic English?CycoMa (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

"Manifestations", "In society"
Just from a quick skim, these two sections seem redundant; that is, unless there are manifestations of transphobia that happen of society. (Transphobic hermits? Probably not too noteworthy.) I suggest the latter section be merged into the former. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Or maybe could be renamed "In institutions"; compare with . --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * - I think that was my (clumsy) attempt to bring a bit of order to those sections. I agree they're clunky-sounding - couldn't really find words that seemed to fit right. They do need re-organising, but I'm not sure how. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Transphobia in LGBTQ Community ‎
I propose that sections Transphobia. The content of the current page seems on-topic and these sections are large enough to make their own page. BlackAmerican (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable source tag
Hey I have no idea why you put that unreliable source tag back in. That source has been tagged with that since 2017.

Although I don't know why it was tagged with it to be honest. But if the source is unreliable I don't see any reason why it should be in here.CycoMa (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, User:CycoMa. Regarding this edit restoring the citation, I tried to explain my reason in the edit summary. I don't know why it was originally tagged either. The tag was first added on 25 September 2017 (by an editor I trust) in a rather tentative way, and the Talk page of the time doesn't show any particular commentary about it, so in that sense it appears to be WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING, which doesn't mean it's wrong (we all do it), just that it's undiscussed. With your removal, that's two editors now that think it should be removed. It's worth a discussion, especially on your other point about too many refs, but I'd argue this one has interesting material not covered in the others; whether that's sufficient to keep it around is debatable.  Mathglot (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe the tag should removed entirely.CycoMa (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Let's see if others weigh in. Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we can't just re-remove the source. For one thing, it's just one among three others, although the three others aren't that great either, not being academic sources but media ones, and not major outlets either. The claims in that sentence, both about current conditions and about history, should have a better source. Crossroads -talk- 05:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I don’t think a source needs to always be academic to be reliable all the time. Context matters and I do think sources like that are reliable for the context of this article.CycoMa (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

What is it that the source is meant to be supporting - that transphobia exists in gay communities, or that trans people were present at Stonewall? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks to me that it's supposed to be supporting the former, and uses alleged revisionist history at Stonewall as an example, without explaining how it's an example. But just the fact that it's not even clear to editors here what that reference is doing there, makes it clear to me that some rewording is necessary, at a minimum so Roscolese's question is definitely answered. Following that, there might be further discussion about whether it's warranted at all.
 * Addressing the latter question first: trans outlets have long complained of erasure of trans involvement at Stonewall (trans position: yes, of course trans women were present; but not only that, they instigated the whole thing and omitting that is revisionist). So, there are two different assertions that need explanation, with (probably) separate sources for each:
 * Have there been a lot of claims by trans supporters that there has been revisionist history of trans involvement at Stonewall? (that's what I think that source is claiming; I could be mis-reading it)
 * Has there been such revisionism?
 * Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Source [24]
I have an issue with source [24]. That source is used for this Transgender people may also be denied service in restaurants.

However, the source is talking about a single incident of this happening. I don’t really see a mention of the source saying trans people are denied services in restaurants.CycoMa (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I removed it. Crossroads -talk- 04:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

No real muslim “influential conservative scholars” support transgenderism
This is a blatant lie, and as such should not remain on the article.

a concern
"As an example of a high-profile employment-related court case unfavorable to transgender people, in 2000 the southern U.S. grocery chain Winn-Dixie fired long-time employee Peter Oiler, despite a history of repeatedly earning raises and promotions, after management learned that the married, heterosexual truck driver occasionally cross-dressed off the job." I feel like this section almost implies that the guy is transgender just because he crossdressed. blueskies (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's too much of an issue. Clearly, a company firing a person for how they dress off the job is unfavorable to transgender people. The bigger issue with that paragraph is that it's based only on the actual filing by the ACLU, rather than a secondary source. It could be stretching into original research and potentially undue. Unrelated, I see that your signature is very different from your username. Your signature should make it easy to tell what your username is. If you want to change your username, you can do that by following the instructions at WP:RENAME. Best, <span style="background: linear-gradient(gray, #111111); color: white; font-family: Times New Roman, Georgia;">Politanvm talk 20:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No - crossdressing has nothing to do with being trans. Cross-dressing involves someone dressing in clothes usually worn by people of a different gender. Transgender people have a different gender to the one they were assigned at birth. Including this story implies that trans women are men dressing in women's clothing. And I fully support @Aleeza2018 in the story being removed. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bluesunnyfox 92.0.35.8 (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are maybe more notable cases anyway that would be better to mention anyway, like Karen Ulane or Aimee Stephens. Rab V (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Since three of us are in favour of the section being excised and only one of us supports its inclusion - do you think that a consensus has been reached and that it should be stricken? Even a consensus it hasn't been reached yet, it goes per WP:ONUS 92.0.35.8 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It goes for the moment 92.0.35.8 (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone. If consensus is to remove the section I'm ok with that, but I worry the case is being misrepresented. Oiler was a transgender person fired for being transgender, and the case is definitely on-topic for this page. Citing the ACLU complaint only is an issue, but there are secondary sources about the case, which I'd be happy to cite and summarize in the article if we decide to keep the content: Use of the phrase "cross-dressing" here is an issue. The ACLU complaint uses "dressed as a woman" and Oiler himself is quoted as saying "dress as a lady" (quoted in the Georgetown paper). I'd prefer to use similar language. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not know this. In that case, I support the retention of the content. However may I ask you why you said "himself"? 92.0.35.8 (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good question! As best as I can tell, that was Oiler's pronoun. Oiler's own attorneys used he/him and the complaint notes that "he had no intention of changing his sex or of "transitioning" to live full-time as a woman in any way". All three secondary sources use he/him, which isn't solid proof of pronoun usage but it's what I'm leaning on in the absence of a definitive statement from Oiler. As a side note, anyone with Wikipedia Library access can get the sources I listed above, and anyone else should email me if they'd like copies to use for improving this or other articles. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

in religion
The religions section doesn't seem neutral. It starts of by talking about the christian right, linking anti-trans christian groups without any separation between diffrent forms of Christianity or differing beliefs between churches/religious communities. It than uses anecdotal quotes to talk about the struggles trans people face in Christian communities. I'm fine with that but what seems weird to me is this is then flipped in the Islam sections. With Islam there's an emphasis on diffrenting views in islam. unlike the Christian section instead of linking Islamic institutions that are considered transphobic it does the opposite linking institutions that aren't considered transphobic Gamiac (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

New Article
Female Privilege Feel free to add content BlackAmerican (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Criticism
As stated already in the header of the article, it may be unbalanced. Many of the topics found on Wikipedia also include an attempt to objectively address the negative aspects in the form of a review of criticism regarding the topic. Especially in the light of the way this topic has been able to polarise the discussion and the often aggressive tone and attitude that gets expressed in conflicts regarding this topic, I think it is important to also include the dark side in the article. The first criticism would be, that discussing the this topic seems to be taboo. People get cancelled for just speaking out in a critical way or simply expressing their personal ideas. This is bad practise in an open society and raises the suspicion that there might be more to this than meets the eye. Secondly a critical sign should be posted where the topic leads to physical harm, as can be expected from medical procedures regarding transpeople. A third concern is the erosion of common sense for the sake of an ideology. This is more of a war on the mind and propaganda, when it comes to leading these ideas into schools and families. I think what we see is that subjective experience is taken to be valued more than objective facts. Now in many ways it is important to listen to the subjective truth of individuals and groups. Nevertheless in this regard the transgender issue tends to become like a cult, where objective facts are being actively suppressed in order to maintain the cohering beliefstrucktures. Finally, it seems that there being made an attempt to bring all who perceive themselves as being ignored, rejected or suppressed to belong to this movement. That gives it an almost religious aspect. For politics that used to separate church from state for these reasons, deep consideration should be made when it comes to legislation in this regard. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia ever. Thank you for reading. 2003:C1:8F0C:39F2:72E9:7B8F:B4C5:7903 (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The trouble with a general criticism of Wikipedia like this is that it is not easy for us to know what you want us to do with it. The trouble with your opinions on the subject of this article are that they are not really helpful for improving the article and we don't want talk pages to get derailed by general chat about the topic per WP:NOTFORUM. Can you tell us what you think should be changed in this particular article to make it better? The more specific you can be the better. The more reliable sources you can offer to support your proposed changes the better. DanielRigal (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not the OP, but I agree that there ought to be a criticism section. There are legitimate philosophical qualms with the transgender identity held by a number of reputable figures in academia such as Kathleen Stock, Germaine Greer, Tomas Bogardus, Jon Pike, and Holly Lawford-Smith that do not boil down to simple prejudice as the term “transphobia” implies. I think that the leading criticism of the concept of transphobia should be, as laid out by Jo Phoenix, that the charge creates a chilling effect by preemptively defining all aforementioned qualms as simple bigotry worthy of automatic dismissal. Juandissimo Magnifico (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia tends to avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies, as this often creates a POV fork (and other NPOV issues). The preferred approach is to integrate positive and negative material into the same section.
 * I don't think we can cite remarks by Kathleen Stock or Jo Phoenix as a source to assert that Stock and Phoenix had their legitimate academic free speech silenced by the freedom-hating anti-academic wokeist trangender mob, though we can attribute the fact that they think so.
 * The sections at Gender-critical feminism and Transphobia seem to give due weight to some of the "legitimate philosophical qualms" in question (certainly, all philosophers believe their philosophy is legitimate, and all bigots would like to have their bigotry perceived as "legitimate qualms", hence why we prefer secondary sources), but you're welcome to propose ways to enhance these sections.
 * ~RoxySaunders (talk · contribs · [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/?username=RoxySaunders&project=en.wikipedia.org count]) 17:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there should be some sort of different viewpoints/criticism/viewpoints from around the world section. Scientelensia (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

And the comment above shows better than any criticism could what the problem is with a large sub-set of editors on pretty much all of the trans-related articles on wikipedia - they're unhinged. The article should give the etymology of the word and then refer to the fact that it is often used pejoratively of those opposed to or critical of transgender movements and ideas. The fact that hyperlinks elsewhere on wikipedia such as 'anti-trans' and similar lead to 'transphobia' shows the problem. The term is used in the world today, and the article should explain how it is used, but it cannot be used as a catch-all by any serious encyclopedia for movements or positions which take a critical position towards transgender phenomena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.153 (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ignoring your personal attack and assumption of bad faith, I will re-emphasize that I have no problem if someone wants to expand one of the existing sections with a sourced paragraph on how XYZ prominent gendercrit says they have been personally victimized by hasty or pejorative application of the label transphobe, provided it follows WP:NPOV and does not give WP:UNDUE weight.
 * My issue is specifically with a section titled Criticism, which, by design, becomes a one-sided WP:COATRACK for issues the article should preferably cover in context.
 * This discourse, and the discourse around “TERF is a slur” (apparently now “gendercrit is a slur”), necessarily exists in the context of a larger “culture war”, in which participants stand to benefit greatly from positioning themselves as helpless victims of bullying and censorship. We should, as always, exercise caution before taking individual opinion pieces completely at face value. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "which participants stand to benefit greatly from positioning themselves as helpless victims of bullying and censorship" = unfortunately, we saw the very same mindset in reverse at a high-profile court case here in the UK, wherein a trans rights activist stood up and declared that lesbians not wanting to date or have sex with trans women was akin to apartheid. Comments I am sure were scoffed at by most transgender individuals, particularly those of Colour. But such niche criticisms and incidents are of no relevance here, and would be handled at pages such as feminist views on transgender topics/lesbophobia etc.--SinoDevonian (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "not wanting to date or have sex" I was not aware of any legal obligation which would prevent people from choosing their own sexual partners. Does this have any basis in British law? Dimadick (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Islam
I would question some viewpoints said there, that Iran thinks people are born transgender. This not the case, but instead it is more about that Iran’s government would prefer to have trans people than gay people as in some contexts they are less visible and sex would mostly still be different-gender.

Also, I think we should memtion that the majority of Islamic populations don’t really approve of LBTQIA+ Scientelensia (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Lesbians being called transphobic
I recently added a sentence about lesbians being called transphobic for refusing to accept as partners trans women:


 * Some lesbians have been called transphobic because they have a “genital preference” which causes them to reject as lovers trans women who have a penis, thus denying that a trans woman is a woman.

This was removed by with this comment:


 * it's undue and pov as written (looking at how RS cover transphobia, this aspect is not given nearly this much weight)

This was sourced to a BBC article. Please explain how the sentence I added misrepresented the article or was undue or pov. I also provide a link to another article dealing with the same subject matter. Is that article also undue and pov? Please explain. Swood100 (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * According to WP:BURDEN, “The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.” Does anybody think it does not? What is the issue? Swood100 (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't have much of a problem with including something about "lesbians being called transphobic". It'd be important to attribute opinions clearly. But it was clear the initial edits are challenged and WP:BRD was needed.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The same issue is discussed in many other places, such as: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/29/if-lesbian-prefers-same-sex-dates-thats-not-bigotry-desire-personal-thing and https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2018/07/why-were-lesbians-protesting-pride-because-lgbt-coalition-leaves-women Again, what is the objection? Swood100 (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That Guardian article is clearly an op-ed. I can't read the full New Statesman article without registering, but it appears to be an opinion piece as well. Funcrunch (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Please help me with the fundamental objection. Is it that there is insufficient evidence that lesbians are being called transphobic for refusing trans women as lovers? This conflict within the LGBT community is a well-known phenomenon. For example, see https://lesbianalliance.org.uk/biology/open-letter-to-stonewall/. Do you reject the original BBC article as well as all the sources linked in the Lesbian erasure article under In_relation_to_transgender_women? I'm just not following what the objection is. Swood100 (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You just linked to another opinion page with a blatantly transphobic image featured at the top. I don't believe you are acting in good faith at this point. Funcrunch (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm sure I don't understand the intricacies in this area as well as many. This is not my area of expertise. I linked the page from the Lesbian Alliance simply as a group of people who claim that they are being called transphobic for rejecting trans women. I don't understand why that would call my good faith into question. Swood100 (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you typed "trans men" as a genuine mistake then I'd advise you to go back and change it. If you did it deliberately to get a rise out of us then I'd advise you to give up. DanielRigal (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake. I changed it. But I have no idea what the motive would be of a person who would have done that intentionally. Swood100 (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Transphobia. ■ ∃ <b style="color:#C64600">Madeline</b> ⇔ ∃ <b style="color:#613583">Part of me</b> ; 20:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you admit this is not your area of expertise, perhaps you shouldn't be editing on this contentious subject. Funcrunch (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Referencing an anti-trans organization's website promoting this idea doesn't prove it is a well-known phenomenon. ■ ∃ <b style="color:#C64600">Madeline</b> ⇔ ∃ <b style="color:#613583">Part of me</b> ; 20:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you say that it is not? What about the BBC article and what about the sources linked in the Lesbian erasure article under In_relation_to_transgender_women? I'm just confused as to what the objection is. Somebody please explain it to me as if to a very simple person. Swood100 (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Careful. This sounds a lot like sealioning. DanielRigal (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Since these are WP:RSOPINION they could be used to include the author's opinion, with attribution, if it is DUE. I'm not sure they are, but I've never heard of these people so I could be wrong. Also from a quick glance, I dont think the blog titled lesbian alliance is RS. Filiforme1312 (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * See also the sources linked in the Lesbian erasure article under In_relation_to_transgender_women. Swood100 (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The proposed text is so poorly worded that it is likely to give offence to both "sides" here. It fails to say who "some" is and who they feel is accusing them, thus overstating this artificial talking point. It states that those people who do reject trans women on genital grounds are "denying that a trans woman is a woman", which some of them most certainly are, but probably not all of them. This makes both "sides" sound monolithic and extreme which is great for those confecting this divisive talking point but it is not reflective of reality. The mistake is to conflate a sexual preference (not intrinsically transphobic) with the wholesale rejection of trans women as women (intrinsically transphobic) thus the proposed sentence would hinder rather than help our readers in trying to understand the issue here (insofar as there actually is one). DanielRigal (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The proposed text is so poorly worded that it is likely to give offence to both "sides" here. It fails to say who "some" is and who they feel is accusing them, thus overstating this confected talking point.


 * Here’s the quote from the BBC article: “Some lesbians say they are increasingly being pressured and coerced into accepting trans women as partners - then shunned and even threatened for speaking out.” Doesn’t the BBC article support the original wording?


 * It also states that those people who do reject trans women on genital grounds are "denying that a trans woman is a woman" which some of them most certainly are but probably not all of them.


 * Isn’t that the fundamental issue? The lesbians who do not want trans women as lovers are being called transphobic for refusing to accept them as women for the purposes of a loving personal relationship. How else would you phrase this?


 * The mistake is to conflate a sexual preference (not intrinsically transphobic) with the wholesale rejection of trans women as women (intrinsically transphobic) thus the proposed sentence would hinder rather than help our readers in trying to understand the issue here (such as there actually is one).


 * But that is exactly the point of the BBC article – that a sexual preference is being termed transphobic. Did I misread the article or do you disagree with the article? Swood100 (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Did I misread the article or do you disagree with the article? That infamous BBC article has been so widely disagreed with, we even have an article on it. Using at as a source while ignoring its overwhelming condemnation and multiple rebuttals in equally reliable sources is an surprising omission. CIreland (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. That BBC article. Wikipedia is familiar with it. In fact we have a whole article about it. I don't propose to recount the problems with it here. DanielRigal (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Feels like COATRACK to add a FRINGE misinterpretation of transphobia to this article.
 * If this topic is covered, we should do so in a way that reflects the actual claims of what is transphobic. AFAIK the actual conversation is the way a minority of cis lesbians characterize and categorize trans women's bodies when describing their lack of attraction. I really doubt any trans woman wants this small subset of transphobic lesbians to be attracted to them. Filiforme1312 (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think if something like this is to be included, it should take the form of a WP:DUE opinion that X is transphobic and then any WP:DUE critique of that. The current proposal just reads like some people complaining about unnamed others calling them transphobic, which in my opinion is too far removed from what transphobia is and what transphobia is like (the scope of the article) to include. In other words, the proposed text doesn't represent an attempt to summarize significant opinions on transphobia, as a Wikipedia article should. ■ ∃ <b style="color:#C64600">Madeline</b> ⇔ ∃ <b style="color:#613583">Part of me</b> ; 21:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Not to pile on what is clearly a dead horse at this point, when other people have said most of what I would've said had I seen the ping sooner, but: as I said in my edit summary, I saw two issues, one of due weight and one of POV; the issues are intertwined. Looking through various sources, it's possible we could compose a sentence covering transphobia in dating and the way people (in general, of various sexualities) say they find someone less attractive if they think they're trans; even just doing a quick search for the keywords you'd used, genital preference and transphobia, so as to find works talking about that specific facet of the topic of transphobia, I spotted the article I linked in my edit summary, which discusses how researchers variously labelled pictures variously as trans or cis to different participants and observed that people of various sexualities rated someone as less attractive if they thought the person is trans. But focusing on one subset (lesbians) of one facet (people rating someone as less attractive if they think they're trans) of transphobia, and presenting it as a "some people complain about being called transphobic" type of thing, isn't contributing to presenting an accurate or complete picture of the topic. Looking at articles on other forms of discrimination where people even more often/loudly complain about / dispute being accused of them, e.g. Racism, I'm not actually spotting any weight being given to people complaining about / disputing being accused of racism: most of the article, like most of this one — following what most sources focus the most on — is about the origins, nature and effects of the discrimination (violence, prejudice in hiring, etc). -sche (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue I was trying to get at was that for many people sexual attraction seems to be irretrievably affixed to the biological sex of the other person rather than to the gender that the other person expresses, and they are surprised to find themselves labeled “transphobic” as a result, since they feel that they harbor no ill will towards trans people. Some label this transphobic because it constitutes a refusal to accept a trans person’s stated gender for all purposes, or perhaps a refusal (inability?) to recognize sex and gender as a dichotomy where their personal sexual attraction is concerned. Maybe some label it transphobic because it seems to be a rejection of another person only because that person is trans. Is there a difference between that and rejecting another person only because that person has the wrong biological sex?

Is addressing this issue out of bounds? I think it’s a topic of interest to a great many people and it is squarely within the subject matter of this article. One approach would be to briefly mention the existence of the issue. Another would be to discuss it in more depth. There seems to be disagreement about whether this should be considered transphobic. To label something as a phobia is to denigrate those who are being described. Is there something inconsistent here? Is a type of conversion therapy being recommended for those whose sexual attraction is problematic? Should these people be punished if they refuse to change who they find sexually attractive? Swood100 (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that the "issue" is made up in bad faith. It is not real. It is a 2020s version of "The Jewish Question". It was confected for the purposes of propaganda seeking to legitimise persecution. Wikipedia does not indulge such conspiracy theories. If they rise to the level of becoming notable conspiracy theories then we can cover them as conspiracy theories. (You may recall this approach from when you were editing Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.) So, I disagree that "it’s a topic of interest to a great many people" but it is a talking point that a fair number of people with privileged access to the media have an intense interest in promoting for reasons of propaganda in the hope that it can be made into a topic of interest to a great many people. If it happens, it happens, but Wikipedia is not here to assist them in that project.
 * Now, I appreciate that that might sound a little aggressive so I want to be clear that I am not accusing you of anything here. I don't know whether you are aware of the false nature of these claims. People do repeat them in good faith. After all, that is the whole point of propaganda, to trick people into actually believing and repeating the points that the propagandists want to spread. If that is where you are coming from then I realise that this might be tough to read and I do sympathise.
 * OK. So what could make us recognise this claim as a legitimate topic, if it were one? There has to be more to this than just me saying "no" and, of course, there is. If there was scholarly coverage which acknowledged its existence or other forms of genuinely impartial analysis published by Reliable Sources which concluded that it was a real thing and if this formed a consensus among the majority of Reliable Sources then we would write about it as as potentially real thing. We don't have anything like that. All we have are vague assertions that crumble to dust under the very slightest scrutiny (like that BBC article) and that doesn't even get us to the starting line for discussing legitimacy. DanielRigal (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * What are you disputing when you refer to the "false nature of these claims"?
 * (a) That there are people who are only attracted to the biological sex even where that differs from expressed gender. See https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/inclusive-insight/201906/are-trans-people-excluded-the-world-dating   The actual study is available here.
 * (b) That people in the above category are called transphobic by some but not by others.
 * (c) That whether people are called transphobic for this reason is of interest to anybody or serves any purpose other than to fan transphobia. Swood100 (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Let’s define “fact 1” as “the refusal of cis people to date trans people is deemed transphobic by some in the trans community.” Are you saying that including fact 1 in this article would serve only to paint trans people as bullies and aggressors, aggravating transphobia? Swood100 (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are trying to argue an alleged phenomenon into existence. This is WP:SYNTH. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you referring to by the term "alleged phenomenon"? Swood100 (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Does this refer to response (a) in my question above? Swood100 (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I've answered this matter quite sufficiently. I'm not here to play games. DanielRigal (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Misgendering
"Misgendering can be deliberate or accidental; common examples of misgendering a person are using the wrong pronouns to describe someone..."

Should this be changed to "pronoun(s) different than those the person uses for themselves"?

It's not about "right" or "wrong" pronouns in the way that an adjective can be true or false (i.e. calling a red apple green). it's about respecting people's wishes. If someone isn't out to everyone, and wants to be called the "wrong" pronouns in public, it's not misgendering  them to do so. 4.7.90.234 (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * not respecting someone's choice of pronoun does count as using the wrong pronoun. it is factually not the correct pronoun to use for the individual, therefore, it is the wrong pronoun. so, no 109.76.188.243 (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would need some clarification on this. I would support the proposed change. A pronoun is a part of speech, and its correct usage is objective, it does not depend on personal wishes. Misgendering, as OP pointed out, would be better defined here as “different than the pronouns the person uses for themselves.” The way it is currently written does not follow the logic of grammar and syntax. Morellet1 (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The word "wrong" is perfectly clear in context and in no way ungrammatical. There is no need to change it. DanielRigal (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The context was "" yet you seem to think it is related to what one says about what pronoun to use, i.e. what gender identity they they have. As OP said, you cannot know what someone's true gender identity is because it's not in external reality the way an apple's colour is. So it doesn't seem too clear to one of us either. Although, to your credit, wrong implies not that it is incorrect to use but a bad decision because it is a harsher word than "incorrect". I would agree that it is a good decision to use the pronouns that someone declared but that is subjective and someone else could have a different view and it never said once in the section that this was the right course of action, and we shouldn't add this because it is not a NPoV. – Mullafacation {◌͜◌ talk} 03:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * OP's point (from what I read) is that unlike the observable colour of an apple that exists in external reality, gender is an internal perception of yourself with no way of telling if it is true. Would referring to a male with female pronouns be using the wrong pronouns if they had lied about their gender? Granted, it is the best thing to do because their own declaration to their gender is the best you can get at inferring what corresponding grammatical gender is accurate. But that doesn't make it any more factual. – Mullafacation {◌͜◌ talk} 03:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Going off this article's definition of the term, you can misgender someone even when respecting their wishes. As the excerpt you propose changing says, it can be accidental. In such a case where someone uses the wrong pronouns for themselves (i.e., different to their gender identity), they would be misgendering and this would cause other people to do so as well, accidentally. And the definition makes sense that way because I'm sure that many trans people feel denied by not accepting themselves similar to how they might feel when being denied by others, and misgendering from others as a result probably reinforces those feelings.
 * I would support an elaboration that "wrong" means "different to one's gender identity" (DanielRigal argues otherwise) as you've used the word but would oppose your specific replacement, though I do love the implication of illeism that " [...] " has though! – Mullafacation {◌͜◌ talk} 02:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Since we're talking language ... I venture that in most cases it is more encyclopedic to write "different from" (as in "different from one's gender identity") rather than "different to" or "different than". Yes, there are exceptions and, yes, all these usages are plenty common enough, so they are not wrong or incorrect; it is just that they are not as encyclopedic.  — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 13:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, according to a few sources "different from" is used in both American English and British English unlike "than" or "to" so we should favour the more universally used as per MOS:COMMONALITY. – Mullafacation {◌͜◌ talk} 22:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree with Daniel; the current wording is clear (existing as it does not as an isolated word in a void, but as part of a sentence), and more succinct. -sche (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Removing specific examples
There are a number of specific examples cited for various types of violence and harassment. While they are indeed examples, and I have sympathy for those people, I think the bar for including specific cases should be pretty high (e.g. national news, landmark/seminal case, etc) and most don't meet that bar. The citations should be enough to support the claims made in the article; citing individual cases unnecessarily adds bloat and I feel it weakens the topic by making it sound more like an isolated incident that's being generalized.

I've already removed one that was just "Minor Celebrity Assaulted, Moves To LA" and I think most others should be removed as well. Aos Sidhe (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

San Francisco Study Source
I found this source that seems to confirm the claim that "a follow-up study in 1999 reported 70% of trans respondents being unemployed". While it is on leginfo.ca.gov, I couldn't find the actual source from the San Francisco Department of Public Health. <em style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting;color:#FF6699">Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 20:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01
— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Cool that it's being used in coursework! I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done to improve the quality of this article, I am planning on making improvements soon. Ashvio (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"transness"
"Transphobia consists of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender people or transness in general."

is "transness" an appropriate term to use? i feel like even shortening transgender to trans is a bit ehh in terms of formality but i feel like this is kind of just crossing the line because its too informal and may not even be considered grammatically correct, at least by public sources, and the shortening of transgender to trans isnt introduced in this article so it may be confusing, i think.

is "transgenderism" not applicable (im not sure if its a formally recognized term)? and if not, is something like "...towards transgender people or transgender identities in general" applicble? STIK2009 (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, "towards transgender people or transgender identities in general" is better IMO. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "Transgenderism" needs to be avoided completely as it is very commonly used as a dog whistle to imply that being trans is an ideological position. "Transness" is probably OK. It's a word that people do use and its meaning is readily apparent even to people who have not heard it before. Wiktionary cites it as being used since 1996. That said, if there is a preference for "transgender identities" then that's fine too. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "" and "" are both well-attested and acceptable in Wikivoice. I think we should prefer generally transgender identity (uncountable) as the  noun form of "being transgender". –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 05:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

"Genderphobia" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genderphobia&redirect=no Genderphobia] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Used incorrectly
Transphobia is used incorrectly. Phobia in short is a fear but people arent acting scared of trans,but hatred(talking about "transphobes" for lack of better termonology for now) the word needs to change to make sense. Letsmakesense01 (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As the article explains (with numerous sources), the meaning of the word is not simply "fear"; similar to homophobia, it encompasses a wide range of negative reactions. English is a complicated language that has evolved over time, and many words have etymologies that result in a meaning that does not match their Latin roots or other ways of dissecting the original meaning of their individual components. ("Inflammable means flammable? What a country!") --Aquillion (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if the OP were correct, which I am pretty sure that they already know that they are not, this would not be the correct place to raise it. The word exists and has a well established meaning. There is nothing to be gained from challenging the dictionary to a fight in a parking lot but, for those minded to do so, it needs to be understood that Wikipedia is not the parking lot they are looking for. DanielRigal (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the definition of phobia. 78.0.183.25 (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also look up the Etymological fallacy, which means that just because the term phobia is usually defined as fear does not mean that terms such as homophobia or transphobia can’t be about hatred.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is being used perfectly correctly, and these continual statements that it isn't are flat out wrong, and they are disruptive about getting actual improvements into the article. Is butterfly used correctly? After all, butter cannot fly. If you know the difference between drive and park, then why do you park your car in the driveway, and drive your car on the parkway? Words take their meaning from how they are used, and too-clever-by-half assertions about transphobia meaning something other than what it actually means are a perennial question on this page and a time-waster.
 * Editors (or trolls) are not going to change the meaning of a word by pointless discussions on Wikipedia talk pages. I call for a 24-month moratorium on any further questions or assertions that transphobia doesn't mean what it obviously means. Such questions should be removed or collapsed as an utter waste of time, and we shouldn't waste another minute on it. Mathglot (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No no, you should be calling for a 24-month hiatus as (according to its Latin roots) a moratorium would only be a postponement, and not a pause. 🙃 –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 23:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oooh, good one! Je dormirai pas bête ce soir. Thanks for that! Mathglot (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03
— Assignment last updated by Momlife5 (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The Genocidal Ideology of Gender Critical Ideology
https://www.lemkininstitute.com/statements-new-page/statement-on-the-genocidal-nature-of-the-gender-critical-movement%E2%80%99s-ideology-and-practice 80.3.115.218 (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * i mean they'll even go as far as calling it genocide. 110.44.18.224 (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)