Talk:Transvestism

Untitled

 * Archive 1 - 2004-October 2010

Merge
I agree with the merge proposal. I don't see good reason why this article needs to exists separately from cross-dressing. It discusses the same topic using a different name. (See the map is not the territory). Also, I question why discussions from Oct 2010 have been archived already on this talk page, leaving it empty. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support merge proposal. Loggerjack (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What proposal? Oppose merge with cross-dressing (a matter-of-fact term normally unrelated to lifestyle) which can be temporary and/or motivated by other mentality than what normally is considered transvestism (more often considered a lifestyle). And I agree about the archiving. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Two seperate and notable topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What to do here
Almost the entire entry is either 'citation needed' or 'original research.' While that doesn't make the assertions contained incorrect, it does mean that the relevant passages don't belong here. If no one is willing or able to correct the deficiencies, I vote to remove the offending passages. Discussion?

MarkinBoston (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, most of the criticism templates were just added last month. Perhaps we should give editors a little more time to source things properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Perhaps "transvestite" should be a sub-category of "crossdresser" ? In my experience [source: membership of The Crossdresser Club http://crossdresserclub.com/home/index.php and many other transgender groups & forums], the argument that "crossdressing" and "transvestism" are alternative names for the same phenomenon is a purely emotional one based on the fact that "I don't like the word transvestite" or "I don't like the people [sc. psychologists] who use the word "transvestite". Neither argument deserves to be countenanced by a serious encyclopedia.

I believe there is a genuine difference between the meanings of the two words, in that "crossdresser" refers (by definition) to any person who cross-dresses whatever their motive(fashion, political, emotional or commercial); whereas "transvestite" is used to refer only to those who do it for emotional reasons. The one phenomenon is a sub-group of the other.

2.11.231.45 (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Keith Bradford (AKA Katie), regional representative of ABC France.
 * transgender should be a subsection of transvestite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.131.31 (talk • contribs)


 * I reverted the recent unencyclopedic material that was not appropriately cited. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Gallery
Is the new image gallery an improvement, and is its emphasis on very old images representative of the topic at large? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Gay Men & Women Crossdressing
Shouldn't the article mention gay males and lesbian women who crossdress in public? This is somewhat common now (at least in major cities), especially lesbian or queer women dressed in full men's clothing in public. Why the whitewash? Voss91 (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Whitewash what? I'm too tired to even explain... Yours truly, 71.42.197.66 (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentence
Changed whatever the hell this is to the dictionary definition: Transvestism (also called transvestitism) is the practice of dressing as a woman, while having genitals associated with the opposite sex or gender.

Transvestism (also called transvestitism) is the practice of dressing and acting in a style or manner traditionally associated with the opposite sex Ancholm (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Transvestite as an outdated and derogatory term
removed all mentions about transvestite being considered an outdated and derogatory term. The edit I chose to revert is this one, where Thebionicman states, "Removed a sentence which expressed an opinion which contradicts the Neutral Point of View policy." I argued, "This is a fact, not simply an opinion. It's a sourced fact. And it does not violate WP:NPOV." I also tweaked the addition. As seen with this link, Thebionicman showed back up, stating, "Removed. This is clearly an opinion; no one can state as fact what is in the thoughts of others. As a matter of some controversy, it is also a clear violation of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV WP:NPOV." I reverted, replying, "NO. It is sourced, and supported by various other sources in the literature. WP:NPOV is about what the sources state."

Bottomline is this: The literature is quite clear that this term is commonly considered offensive these days, and this should be noted in the article. It is not a WP:NPOV violation whatsoever to include this information. And, like I tell anyone who misunderstands the WP:NPOV policy, that policy is not about what being neutral means in common discourse. It is about sourcing with WP:Due weight. I will alert WP:LGBT to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * State who's opinions we're describing. "Some sources" is vague. Is it Sarah Thompson herself that said it is currently considered offensive? If so, rewrite it to something along the lines of "Sarah Thomspon stated that ...". Add more sources to give this point-of-view credibility. Whenever any kind of emotion is involved, we should make clear who made the claims in the prose. The same goes with all other derogatory terms. ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a historically important term, and should be kept, especially as this page, according to the denied merger request, appears to be a seperate topic from cross-dressing. Since it focuses partially on the historical side of things, the name should be kept. --Rainythunderstorm (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Offensive to whom? A few special snowflakes with loud lungs. Certainly not the trannies at most local pubs who call themselves trannies. I'd suggest this push needs to be distinguished as being confined to a PC-obsessed checkbox-ticking minority at this point, rather than the wider transgender world. What's next: beeping out Frank-n-Furter for using the T word? Engleham (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To answer the "to whom" question, Google Books shows a variety of reliable sources noting that the term transvestite is considered offensive and derogatory, and that the term cross-dresser is preferred in its place. The sources usually attribute the offensiveness to the LGBT community. Of course, the term is not offensive to everyone in the LGBT community, but that it is offensive to many in that community is something that should be noted. Just like we note the offensiveness of the term queer in the Queer article, or the offensiveness of the term tranny. And why it's offensive helps provide context. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * More sources show up when searching "Transvestite outdated" and "Transvestite derogatory" separately (instead of together) on Google Books. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said, this is interesting and important content to add. If there are enough sources, perhaps an entire section could be used to describe the possible outdated nature of the term. ~ Mable ( chat ) 05:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * , what literature? And what makes a source "reliable" with regard to what is "commonly" considered offensive? Who gets to decide that for everyone? It makes no sense to say, "it's a fact" that something is offensive.
 * Not only that, but people come to Wikipedia to get information, not to check to see what terms might or might not now be considered "offensive."
 * That's why this feels like you're not trying to leave a helpful, informative note for readers, so much as it seems like you're telling people that "reliable sources" dictate is OK or not OK for them to say. And that is censorship, by definition.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; not a place to push a political agenda. I stand by my original edit, and my contention that labeling the term "transvestite" as "offensive" violates WP:NPOV.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebionicman (talk • contribs) 08:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why does "a more rich and nuanced taxonomy" sound ten times less natural to me than "commonly considered offensive"? XD I'm really so just waiting for people to bring up more sources. I can't access the one that was used before the recent edit, but I'm really curious what sources actually say about this topic. It is definitely proper to point out if a term is considered "offensive" in western cultures, however. Can you imagine how silly it would be if articles like nigger and faggot (slang) didn't point that out? That's like ignoring what the usual making of fuck is. Language is subjective by nature, as is pretty much all culture. We're here to report on how it is documented. ~ Mable ( chat ) 22:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Reverted Thebionicman again. Thebionicman asked, "what literature?" Thebionicman was pointed to the literature here, here and here. I shouldn't have to spoon feed the sources to anyone when the sources are clearly right there. Who gets to decide what is offensive? When it comes to Wikipedia, reliable sources do. What are reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards? Read WP:RS. You can stand by your original edit. Sure. But it will not fly because your WP:NPOV argument does not fly. You are the one censoring. I don't do political agendas on Wikipedia. If you really want to play this edit war game, coming back to disrupt the article every few months, then let's get on with the dispute resolution process. Tell ya what... During that dispute resolution process, I will even cite sources one by one, since I wouldn't want editors to somehow overlook what is right in their faces. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Mathglot, any idea about how to word the sentence or what to add? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Who is Sarah Thomson? Isn't there anything on this from any notable writers? Seems wrong to have only her as a source to what's "common". ? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * SergeWoodzing, did you not look at any of the sources I pointed to above? Do I have to list them here, when they are right in the links for people to easily see? I reverted you because this is not an improvement. It is WP:Weasel wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I did see them here, but not in the article. We need a better source - preferably academic or at least a notable writer - cited there if POV "commonly" is to remain in the article. (Quite involved for over 40 years with this subject, I have never heard anyone profess that the word has become derogatory. Lots and lots of people still use it without that label on it.) --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the source currently in the article is from an academic. We only need the sources to be reliable and to report on the literature with due weight. We don't need the scholars to be notable. I'll adhere to what the academic sources state, and will choose three sources from the links I provided above. The issue is not so much the sourcing, however, since Thebionicman doesn't want the matter mentioned at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The heading here is "Transvestite as an outdated and derogatory term". The word "commonly" needs much more sound sourcing if it is to remain in the article's text. As it reads now, with only that unknown author as a source, the word is unacceptable. We Wikipedians are not to tell people, on our own, what's commonly derogatory. No need to discuss anything other than that, as far as I'm concerned. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what the heading says or what is in the article, we have an editor who will not accept what the literature generally states on topic of the offensiveness of the term transvestite. And that is a problem. Whether I or you, or someone else, adds two or three solid sources for the sentence in question, the editor will object, which is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Whether we use the word commonly, often or generally, the literature typically states the same thing (with some variations): The term transvestite is considered outdated, derogatory/offensive more often than not, which makes the wording "some people consider" or similar less than accurate. If by "some people," we mean transgender people, it's still inaccurate since the literature typically relays that the term transvestite is outdated, derogatory/offensive to many or most transgender people, except for those who have reclaimed the word and/or are harmlessly using it among the transgender community (their own group). Below are sources from various reliable publications and scholars on the topic. We can use these sources to determine how best to word the text. Only one of the sources below limits the offensiveness to the United States, and only one of the sources states that the term cross-dresser is also problematic. And, again, whether the scholars are WP:Notable doesn't matter. We don't judge sources on whether or not we've heard of the author and/or whether or not the author is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeedee we do! That's where the crucial and definitive word reliable comes in. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * We don't. WP:Reliable states nothing about whether or not the author is notable. WP:Notability is about whether a subject is notable; it is not about whether an author of a source is notable. But since you are responding to an old comment because an editor has recently commented in this old section, I've gone ahead and applied my "5:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)" signature to my above comment so that it's clear that it's from me; it was clear before you recently cut in front of the "collapse" template to respond to that old comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Scholarly OK. Anybody who gets trendy text published anywhere, not OK. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * PS to clarify my standpoint: Wikipedia is not supposed to be in the forefront in influencing public opinion about what words are appropriate and not appropriate to use, what's rude and what's not, etc. Wikipedia is supposed to inform, reliably sourced, what is being used, even why, without any of the personal POV of Wkipedians (such as is so very evident in parts of this discussion) having any say whatsoever in that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia goes by the literature with WP:Due weight. If many reliable sources report on the change of terminology with regard to a word, which they clearly do in this case, as indicated by the list I provided below, then Wikipedia should as well. And that is what we have done in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

1. This 2006 Routledge International Encyclopedia of Queer Culture source, from Routledge, page, 568, states, "A variety of derogatory terms are still used to describe any aspect of the transgender condition. [...] The term transvestite being older [than cross-dresser] and associated with the medical community's negative view of the practice, has come to be seen as a derogatory term. [...] The term cross-dresser, in contrast, having come from the transgender community itself, is a term seen as not possessing these negative connotations."

2. This 2006 News and Sexuality: Media Portraits of Diversity source, from Sage Publications, page 129, states, "Trannie is a word much like fag or nigger. It may be permitted in conversation between members of the same group but it is deemed an insult when applied to a transsexual by someone who is not transsexual. Transvestite is deemed a derogatory term when applied to a transsexual. Indiscriminate use of these three words, along with the others, shows a lack of training in and understanding of minority relations."

3. This 2008 The Fenway Guide to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health source, from ACP Press, page 353, states, "Certain terms, such as transvestite and hermaphrodite, have derogatory connotations and are best avoided."

4. This 2010 Serving LGBTIQ Library and Archives Users: Essays on Outreach, Service source, from McFarland page 29, states, "Cross-dressers usually refers to people who choose to wear the clothing generally associated with the opposite gender. Cross-dressing is a way to express all of whom they are, both masculine and feminine. Use this term, rather than the word transvestite, which is outdated and offensive to many people."

5. This 2011 Safe Spaces: Making Schools and Communities Welcoming to LGBT Youth source, from ABC-CLIO, page 142, states, "Cross-dresser/cross-dressing. (1) The most neutral word to describe a person who dresses, at least partially or part of the time, and for any number of reasons, in clothing associated with another gender within a particular society. Carries no implications of 'usual' gender appearance, or sexual orientation. Has replaced transvestite, which is outdated, problematic, and generally offensive since it was historically used to diagnose medical/mental health disorders."

6. This 2013 Sexuality and Gender for Mental Health Professionals: A Practical Guide source, from Sage Publications, page 162, states, "The term transvestite should not be considered to be a safe term, and should certainly not be used as a noun, as in 'a transvestite'. Instead, and only when relevant, the term trans person should be used. [...] There are some people who have reclaimed the word transvestite and may also use the word tranny or TV to refer to themselves and others. [...] The term cross-dressing too is somewhat outdated and problematic as not only do many fashions allow any gender to wear them -- at least in many contemporary Western societies -- but it also suggests a strict dichotomy being reinforced by the person who uses it."

7. This 2014 Mental Health Issues and the University Student source, from JHU Press, page 92, states, "The terms transvestite and gender-bender are considered derogatory and should be avoided."

8. This 2015 Transgender Communication Studies: Histories, Trends, and Trajectories source, from Lexington Books, page 174, states, "Eventually, the transvestite label fell out of favor because it was deemed to be derogatory; cross-dresser has emerged as a more suitable replacement (GLAAD, 2014b)."

9. This 2016 Sex and Gender in Acute Care Medicine source, from Cambridge University Press, page 217, states, "Cross-dresser: A term for people who dress in clothing traditionally worn by the other sex but who generally have no intent to live full time as the other gender. The older term transvestite is considered derogatory by many in the United States."

10. This 2016 Empowerment Series: Introduction to Social Work and Social Welfare source, from Cengage Learning page 239, states, "It should be noted the term transvestite is often considered an offensive term."


 * Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

hm, wouldn't you also agree that all our "gender" related topics are in acute danger of being overwhelmed by political hysteria based in unencyclopedic WP:RECENTISM. Sure, "someone in 2014 has observed that some people in America find this term derogatory". This may be factual. But is it at all notable in a sense that it belongs in an encyclopedia as well as in a twitter rant? Yes, it can be noted that this "has been pointed out". But no, in my opinion it cannot be used to police the vocabulary used in Wikipedia articles. I feel that I am perfectly justified in continuing to use "transvestite" as a neutral descriptive without implicit or explicit ill will towards anyone, and we certainly cannot make a statement in Wikipedia's voice that the term somehow "is" offensive. This is because "the literature" for me extends beyond cherry-picked examples from after ca. 2010. --dab (𒁳) 15:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * dab, while it's interesting that you decided to follow me from Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans, there isn't a WP:RECENTISM issue here. And I didn't state that there was one at that article; I noted that, with the new information, we need to be careful to avoid WP:RECENTISM at that article. As for this article, this isn't a case of "someone in 2014 has observed that some people in America find this term derogatory." I take it that you are not familiar with the literature. Either way, it's common for words to change as the world changes. See the Reclaimed word article I linked to above. Transvestite used to be fine, according to the social settings at the time. Now it's commonly not fine. And not just as far as America is concerned. Same goes for a number of other words many people find offensive. And what do we do here at this site for those other articles? Note the offensiveness of the terms, and what support the terms might have. The offensiveness aspect regarding transvestite is nothing new, and I provided a variety of reliable sources above relaying the current state of the term. The sources show that this matter is encyclopedic. Unless you or someone else can provide just as many sources stating that the term is generally fine, we should indeed note in the article that the term transvestite is commonly, or often, or generally considered derogatory and that term cross-dresser is usually considered a more appropriate replacement. That's not policing anything. That's doing what should be done, per the due weight policy. I am more than willing to try a dispute resolution method like a RfC or similar now that I've gathered sources to support my argument. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And I'll go ahead and note that I am more than fine with stating that some transgender people don't find the term offensive and/or have reclaimed it. That's why I provided sourced material on that above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I do believe these sources, ranging from ten years ago to today, are adequate to be used to at least state that the word is often considered derogatory today. These sources do not state that the word is derogatory; they state that the word is considered derogatory. If we'd have an established journalist saying "transgender shouldn't be used anymore because it is now derogatory", we would only note that as an opinion. If we'd have multiple journalists saying "transvestite is often considered derogatory", we can consider that a "fact." It's terms like "fell out of favor" are great for verifying this. ~ Mable ( chat ) 20:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Maplestrip. And the current text in the article does say "Today, the term transvestite is commonly considered outdated and derogatory." Of course, given what the sources I provided above state, I do think we should add a little more on the topic, such as why it's considered such and that some transgender people don't find the term offensive and/or have reclaimed it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand why the sources are all accounted for here, but no more have been added to the article. Can't we have three good citations in the article's text after what some feel is a controversial opinion? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Any one is free to add any of the sources I provided. I have not yet added any more sources, because not only was I busy gathering them, discussing matters here at the talk page, and later busy offline for a number of hours, I was waiting for others to propose and/or agree on wording. Above, I clearly pinged Mathglot for an opinion on the wording. Mathglot might still weigh in. When I provided sources, I stated, "We can use these sources to determine how best to word the text." dab weighed in afterward. I discussed wording some more. Maplestrip addressed wording. I suggested that we should add more to what is already there. I see no need to rush, especially since Thebionicman doesn't care if the material is sourced or not. The material being sourced is not why Thebionicman objected. The main issue so far has been Thebionicman's repeated removal of sourced material. And Thebionicman has indicated a disregard for whether the material is sourced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This claim still needs better sources, and I will keep noting that in the article text, in one way or another, until such are added to it - there. It is not (not) sufficient to place reliable citations only on this page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding this and this, done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional edit here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks fairly good - nice work, Flyer! :3 ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead image change
I reverted Scewing on trading File:Gloeden, Wilhem von (1856-1931) - n. 0923 - da - Amore e arte, p. 32.jpg for File:Daguerreotype of Transvestite c1850.jpg. I feel that the previous image is the better lead image and that Scewing's trade is not an improvement. But Scewing reverted me. Thoughts?

Scewing, do you think it is best to revert an editor restoring a long-standing image after your WP:Bold edit? You do know that editors are not always going to agree to your image changes, and that many lead images already have WP:Consensus, correct? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Flyer22 Reborn, let me apologize. Undoing your edit was a mistake on my part, I got confused about not seeing my recent change on the page.  It was not my intention to revert your change.  Feel free to put back the old image.  I changed the image in the first place because in my opinion I felt that the new image added value.  This new image is a circa 1850s daguerreotype image, and therefore is perhaps one of the earliest photographic images of this type. In general, I usually feel that an article can benefit from an periodic change of the lead image. Again, I apologize for reverting your edit.  Cheers! Scewing (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Scewing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Article name change
The term "transvestite" is considered derogatory (which, I might add, the article explicitly acknowledges). So, why not change the name to Cross-dressing? Why continue to use this language when there are alternative terms available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.157.47 (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We already have a Cross-dressing article. And the Transvestism article notes the derogatory use of transvestism. So maybe what we should be considering is a merge. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Would agree to the merge. Which term to use as title I leave up to debate. For myself, I self-describe as a transvestite and find that "cross-dresser" brings to mind images of purely fetishistic behavior, but am well aware that many others have the exact opposite reactions to the two words. --Khajidha (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

"Dressing and acting"?
From where do we have "acting" in the lead? Trans-vest literally means cross-dress. Wouldn't the acting be a complicated thing to apply to everyone? Just askin'. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It all depends on what we are including in "transvestism". Does a man wearing a pair of panties purely for fetishistic reasons of sexual arousal with not attempt or intention of appearing to be a woman count? Is "transvestism" the same as "cross-dressing" and, if not, what does each term mean? I identify as a "transvestite" and as "bi-gender", all of which means that, while I am biologically and anatomically male I fairly often dress and present as a woman. To me, "cross-dressing" implies the more fetishistic behavior mentioned before, but many others use the terms in exactly opposite senses. --Khajidha (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

pathologization
-ism is considered very pathological. why don't we all start replacing it with transvestiteness (travestilidade)/transvestibility (travestibilidade) or transvesting/transvestiment (travestissement/travestimento)? because travestismo is associated with transvestic fetishism (fetishistic transvestism)… linde 09:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not (not) invent new words, no matter how worthy a cause may be. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Transvestite as an outdated and derogatory term
The term transvestite is well-documented to be considered outdated and derogatory now. Yet recent versions of this article freely used photos of real people, including modern people, and used wikivoice to label them as transvestites. Since transvestism mostly exists as a historical label now, the article should reflect that, and be limited primarily to the medical and historical context that the term was used in, as well as linking to transvestic fetishism. The main article for cross-dressing phenomena is cross-dressing. Hist9600 (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agreee, but common usage is the main criteria for figuring out which of two equal terms to use, as we are not a respecter of feelings here except at the margins. So on that... according to this google Ngram, the use of "tranvestite/ism" and "cross-dresser/ing" is about equal (in English-language books). "Cross-dresser/ing" seems to be gaining, but not super fast, and we are conservative about extrapolating into the future. So, as far as the name of the article, "Transvestism" and "Cross-dressing" looks like a coin toss; we generally go with stare decisis when that's true, but on the other hand if one is offensive (at least to some people) and one isn't, why offend people if you don't need to, all things equal.


 * So... if the title of the article remains "Transvestism", then "transvestite" would be proper term to use in the article most of the time, and if changed to "Cross-dressing" then "cross-dresser" would be the proper term. So, I suppose, if you wanted to change it, you'd go with a name change request and if that succeeds (quite likely I suppose), changing the term used within the article would be mostly automatic.


 * But wait! There already is an entirely separate article named Cross-dressing, and it's hella longer than this one. Assuming that the two terms are identical enough to be covered by one article, the best way forward might be to just merge the (small amount) of material in this article into Cross-dressing and just turn this into a redirect.


 * I'm not expert or interested enough to do that -- maybe there's more to it than I've laid out here -- so I'm not going to do it, but IMO it might be the best solution of one of y'all wants to. Herostratus (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with merging.  thetechie@wikimedia  :  ~/talk/  $  01:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)