Talk:Travesti (gender identity)

Pierce quotation
Rumba Samba Mambo, In this edit of 18:10, 20 July 2021 you added content which included this claim by Joseph M. Pierce which attempts to point out a characteristic of travesti by contrasting it with the meanings of transgender and other terms:"While transgender, trans, and transsexual are terms that refer to changing gender and sex through legal, corporeal, or social mechanisms, a travesti may have been assigned 'male' at birth but does not necessarily consider herself a woman (though some do)." In my opinion, the portion before the comma is WP:FRINGE (and dubious), and the article should not contain it. I don't dispute the second part of the sentence, but the article should not include this quotation as representative of what transgender is about. If transgender or the other terms have different meanings in Argentina than they do in English-speaking countries, then that could be pointed out (with sources), which would make the Pierce statement make more sense.

Even minority views may be included in an article with in-text attribution, so arguably this could be kept if placed in a context that made it clear that the majority view was otherwise, but in the current context of the article, I think the quotation needs to be replaced by a source that better represents the majority view. Alternatively, a different Pierce quote could be chosen, that commented on travesti without making dubious claims about transgender or other terms. Mathglot (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I edited the section again to put Pierce's quote more in perspective. I'd like to point out that he does not mention only Argentina, but also Uruguay and Chile; and repeatedly specifies that he is talking about the Latin American region. I did not notice I was adding information that was dubious. I believe that what Pierce is saying—while citing other writers such as Lewis, Ochoa, and Vek Lewis—is that travestis do not necessarily reject the sex they were assigned at birth; some travestis would define themselves as women, while others as men, as mentioned in other references in the article such as Don Kulick.


 * I don't think Pierce's views have such a fringe quality in the context of the article. For instance, a few paragraphs below, the article reads: "The imposition of the transgender and transvestite categories by Anglo-American academics over travesti identities has been considered by some to be colonizing and westernizing in nature, and has been met with resistance by the community." It is not so far from what Pierce writes: "... I do want to insist on the political and specifically class-based consciousness of travesti and trava identifications. For many travestis the term transgender depoliticizes a violent history of social and economic marginalization. The term travesti, in contrast, retains this class difference and popular resonance, and is thus a political, rather than a psychological, or even corporeal identification."


 * I believe Pierce's text is a valuable reference for the article, so I'm interested to know what you think of the new edit I made, or maybe another suggestion on how to better incorporate it. Thank you for your effort in improving the article; I am glad that an article that was so poor before has now grown so much. All the best! --ℜ𝔲𝔪𝔟𝔞 𝔖𝔞𝔪𝔟𝔞 𝔐𝔞𝔪𝔟𝔬 🌠 (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Handling neologisms/Hispanicisms in English
I've made an attempt to better handle the Hispanicisms travestism (note: no 'N') and travestility in the article. These are neologisms in English, and are used rarely outside of South American authors writing in English about the travesti topic. Most of this information has been moved out of the lead and into the #Terminology section, along with a couple of highly detailed paragraphs about the subtleties and distinctions between various terms not of interest to general readers who may never get past the lead. Mathglot (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible copyvio issue
Rumba Samba Mambo, I initially wanted to write a brief paragraph here about possible WP:EDITORIALIZING (a very minor peccadillo) in your use of the word curious in the expression, "curious phenomenon" in this sentence, from revision 1035444862 of 18:27, 25 July 2021: "In recent years, there has been a curious phenomenon in advertising, which is hiring trans women but always demarcating this place from travestis.&#91;76&#93;" While I was at it, I was also going to mention the unusual choice of words demarcating this place in that sentence which I couldn't understand, but that's probably even more minor. Since I read Portuguese, I went to the source to see what might have been the source for something you rendered as "demarcating this place". Unfortunately, I found this near-equivalent sentence about 2/3 of the way down the article, in the section about Roberta: ", principalmente nos meses de janeiro e junho, meses da visibilidade." The English sentence you added, is nearly a word-for-word translation of the boxed portion above, before the clarify tag. This is, in my opinion, a copyright violation and thus must be removed immediately per Wikipedia's licensing requirements, or summarized in your own words, to remove the violation. (As an aside, instead of translating that as demarcating this place, more accurate in this context would have been distinguishing them from; but you can't use that either, as it's direct translation.)

As this is literally the only sentence I examined among your recent run of 31 edits (ending 21:49, 27 July 2021), I'm worried that there may be other occurrences of copying, or direct translation without attribution. This might require rolling back to revision 1034639183‎ of 01:41, 21 July 2021, or possibly undoing an earlier batch of 115 edits of yours back to the version of 18:10, 15 March 2021. Rolling back the 31 edits would not be difficult, as there are no intervening edits by other users. The larger rollback would involve reinstating a few dozen edits by 15 other editors, not an easy task, although many of them are modifications to your added material, and so would be moot if rolled back.

Pinging for an opinion. Rumba Samba Mambo, I trust your good faith, so if you could weigh in and just clarify how many other examples of direct translation, or direct copying you have done from other articles in your recent edits (a: since 21 July; and b: since 15 March) and where they are, that might help us figure out whether it's easier to go forward from the most recent revision and remove or modify problematic material, or whether it's easier to rollback to one of the two points mentioned, and go forward from there. If you're not sure or don't remember, just say so. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello . You can remove the content if it is against the rules. In those sentences I translated the material, but believed that the distance between each language (the product of any translation) did not constitute a copyright violation. My intention was never that, I love editing Wikipedia and expanding access to information that is important to me. Sometimes I turn to direct translation when I'm editing (before putting it into an article), with the intention of paraphrasing it later; perhaps another similar issue within the article has escaped me. I honestly don't know. But I can assure you that most of the content has involved me summarizing a lot of information in a few paragraphs, changing words and trying to make complex and long postulates understandable to the average reader. In fact, the travesti article is a direct translation of an article I wrote for the Spanish Wikipedia (which was sadly deleted with no solid argument and all administrators ignored my appeal) and resorts mostly to sources in Spanish. This proves that practically the entire article is not copied verbatim, since I used sources within the same language. You may rollback to the revisions you consider most accurate. I apologize if I have violated the site rules. Thank you, --ℜ𝔲𝔪𝔟𝔞 𝔖𝔞𝔪𝔟𝔞 𝔐𝔞𝔪𝔟𝔬 🌠 (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I know you don't intend to violate the rules since you are still learning them. If you can fix up those sentences, and add any forgotten attribution for earlier copy/translations, we won't need to roll back. So, just fix it up so they are not a direct translation from Portuguese Intercept, then I think it will be fine. Maybe you can spend some time double-checking your recent edits since July 21, to make sure any content you translated and intended to summarize, is in fact, summarized.
 * To the extent that the article is a direct translation of the travesti article, that's a different situation than direct translation or copying from an outside source. Copying or translating from another Wikimedia project, like Spanish Wikipedia is permissible (see WP:CWW, WP:TFOLWP), but requires a formal attribution in the edit summary, so it goes into the revision history as a permanent record. If you copied or translated from the Spanish article and forgot to add such a statement, you can still do that now: please see WP:RIA for instructions on how to do it.
 * There's one tricky aspect of this, which is not on you to fix, but Diannaa might comment about it, namely that in theory, when copying from another Wikipedia, the other article's history should not be deleted, since our attribution depends on their history. I'm not sure what happens, when they delete the article.  Maybe we can ask for the history to be reinstated, I'm not sure if that's possible.
 * But that's not your problem. The things you need to do, are:
 * Change the part you translated from The Intercept so it's not a direct translation, but a summary,
 * Add a dummy comment so you can repair insufficient attribution for the version(s) of the article that you translated from the Spanish Wikipedia, and
 * Check back over your editing history at the article, and if anything was copied (or directly translated) from an outside source (like The Intercept, etc.) then change the text so it is a summary, instead.
 * Here's a list of all your edits to the article, to help refresh your memory. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought I didn't have to attribute because the article was removed very fast and because I was the sole editor of it. You can see here --ℜ𝔲𝔪𝔟𝔞 𝔖𝔞𝔪𝔟𝔞 𝔐𝔞𝔪𝔟𝔬 🌠 (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, if you are the sole author, then it's true, you don't have to attribute it. How are you doing with the other issues? Mathglot (talk) 07:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Jut to note that another way to provide the required attribution is to list the authors. That's what we in effect do when we link to another article, but creating a list of authors manually is another possibility.— Diannaa (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Changed in 1980s and 1990s False Spain
Spain: "... advent of the medical model of transsexuality in the late 1980s and early 1990s, in order to rule out negative stereotypes."

I note there is no reference to that as it is false. This change happened post 2010 in Spain. Rustygecko (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)