Talk:Trans woman/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Tags

Given the newly minted consensus, I'm removing the 'POV' tag from the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Spitballing expansion: trans women in media

This article could be expanded with a section on trans women in media, covering trends in the representation of trans women in media (i.e. stereotypes), and statistics on the un-/under-representation of trans women in media (as characters and as actresses). When I have time, I will try to draft something, but mention it here in case anyone wants to help or beat me to it, or argue it would be a bad idea. -sche (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Spitballing expansion: trans women and feminism

This article could be expanded with a section on that topic, with links to and short summaries of Trans feminism and Feminist views on transgender topics. As above, I will try to draft something when I have time. -sche (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Summarizing the body in the lead

The article is currently tagged for improvement because the "lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents". Here is an attempt at summarizing the parts of the article which are not currently summarized in the lead:

Trans women may experience gender dysphoria and may transition, especially by hormone replacement therapy and sometimes sex reassignment surgery, which can bring immense relief and even resolve gender dysphoria.

Trans women may be heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual or none of the above.

Trans women face a vast amount of discrimination (termed transmisogyny, a subset of transphobia), including in employment and access to housing, as well as physical and sexual violence and hate crimes, including from partners (especially cisgender men); discrimination is particularly severe towards trans women of color.

Feedback welcome: is this a good summary of what the body says? Should it be added to the lead? -sche (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That would greatly improve the lead --John B123 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've added it. :) The body itself could use expansion in some areas, two of which I've highlighted in sections below. -sche (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Discrimination section

"Discrimination is particularly severe towards trans women of color, who experience the intersection of racism and transphobia. Multiracial, Latina, Black and American Indian trans women are twice to more than three times as likely as White trans women to be sexually assaulted in prison." cites a "NTDS Report" (In quotes because I copy pasted the citation name.) But I searched that source for "intersection" the word racism is mentioned 4 times in the entire 228 page report, and not once is it used as a term to describe the correlation between racism and transphobia in regards to sexual assault in prisons. Also, the paper does actually give a graph. So "Multiracial, Latina, Black and American Indian trans women are twice to more than three times as likely as White trans women to be sexually assaulted in prison." Is unnecessarily vague because the actual victims per cohort are specified by the report, "twice to more than three times" is vague because it doesn't describe the data shown directly, are Black transwomen three times more likely? Or are they twice? and "Discrimination is particularly severe towards trans women of color, who experience the intersection of racism and transphobia." is not in citation given. ShimonChai (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy with specifying what the number would be for each cohort. To me the intersection line seems like a reasonable way to restate the first key finding given in the NTDS summary "Discrimination was pervasive throughout the entire sample, yet the combination of anti-transgender bias and persistent, structural racism was especially devastating." If you want to reword the intersection line to be more similar to how it is stated in the source though feel free.Rab V (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

“They may be heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual or none of the above.”

does this really belong in the lede? it doesn't seem directly related to being trans to me. gender and sexuality are two very different things.

also, if we're mentioning these three, why not asexuality? —mountainhead / ? 01:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It's there because, per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article and the article currently has a "Sexual orientation" section. The section was bigger than that, but was trimmed. Furthermore, people commonly conflate or confuse sexuality and gender aspects, especially with regard to transgender topics. Many people think that trans women are automatically exclusively sexually attracted to cisgender men. And so noting variety is an important aspect for the lead on those grounds as well. Many or most readers only read the leads of Wikipedia articles. If you want to add "asexual" to the lead, feel free. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

fair. I've added asexual in both spots. —mountainhead / ? 21:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

US-centrism

I feel this article would benefit greatly from a perspective regarding the treatment of trans women that isn't about america in particular. the discrimination section especially is basically 100% US issues; it's disproportionate.

american studies and reputable sources are more widespread, sure, but at this point much of the article is about "trans women in the US" more than it is about trans women in general. imo this might warrant a separate article. —mountainhead / ? 21:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced "trans women in the US" would merit an article separate from this one and other already-existing articles like Transgender rights in the United States, but I agree that this article could use more content on other countries. Transgender rights in the United Kingdom and LGBT rights in India have some references (and referenced content) we could use for expanding the 'Discrimination' section (especially with information on discrimination protections), and it shouldn't be hard to find RS to expand the 'Violence' section with — in particular someone could probably write a whole subsection on Brazil, the way there is currently one on the US. I will work on this if I have time. -sche (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware of the transgender rights in the US article you linked. but yeah, I feel much of what's in these sections would be more appropriate there. —mountainhead / ? 22:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2018

Ccangull (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC) In Turkey, Trans Women’s access to justice problems starts before criminal justice system. Trans women are considered “guilty” because of their identity. In Turkey, having a LGBT identity is not a crime, but in everyday life, discrimination against LGBT community becomes concrete especially against trans women. Research shows that trans women are marginal of marginals. Family refusal, bullying and exclusion, discrimination in business life force trans women lead risky life-styles. Thus, for trans women who are perpetrators of some incidents, there is a correlation between these incidents and discrimination in their life. The main reasons of their acts causing imprisonment are life safety threats and lack of means of living.  

Violence against trans women is legitimized, but being trans is reason for remission even in homicide cases. Cases in which trans women are perpetrators result faster. In other words, trans women’s crimes result faster than the other people in Turkey.

They are mistreated by the police in police stations before their lawsuit process. These maltreatments include incidents of not being taken seriously, unanswered complaints about the police’s mistreats, public defender’s absence, the discriminatory attitudes of the judges etc. These are the trans women’s problems for access to justice.Ccangull (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)http://www.kaosgldernegi.org/yayindetay.php?id=184

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2018

Remove the link to "woman" in the opening the sentence and replace with either "person" or "man". It is biologically incorrect to refer to a transgender woman as a woman. The article as currently drafted is scientifically wrong. Transwomen are transwomen. Women are women. They are different. And there's nothing wrong with that. Wikipedia should support science and facts, not political language. Hopefully this suggested edit will be approved. Chrestomathy37 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• rejected — this lede section has been thoroughly vetted. scroll up a little and you'll come across a rather long discussion that resulted in this consensus.

you're also completely missing the point. this is a strawman. "woman" and biological female are entirely different concepts. nobody is saying trans women are biological females. actual medical professionals will disagree with you. —mountainhead / ? 20:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

However, of course, not all academics believe that trans women are women. https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/06/changing-the-concept-of-woman-will-cause-unintended-harms The above RfC concluded that there was no consensus on the best lede. Userwoman (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

There was also, however, a general repudiation of Userwoman's POV on the matter. Newimpartial (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Discrimination against racial minorities

I removed part of the lede which said that trans women who are racial minorities face more discrimination due to the intersectionality of transmisogyny and racism. It certainly may be true, but we'd need to clarify which racial minorities in which countries are being referred to. It was then added back by PeterTheFourth who noted that in the 4th paragraph of the Criticism section, it clarifies that US trans women of color (indigenous, black, latina) are the ones facing discrimination. I'd be amenable to such language in the lede, but it needs to be specific. Further, that's only speaking to the experiences of trans women in one specific country--obviously the scope of the article is global, so it could be too US-centric to put that in the lede. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The wording originally stated "discrimination is particularly severe towards non-white trans women, who often face the intersection of transphobia and racism. " I changed "non-white" to "racial minorities" in an edit I made yesterday, to be consistent with a global perspective, since the article as a whole is not specific to any one location. Obviously, a trans woman who, as an example, is Asian and lives in Japan would not be expected to face discrimination for being non-white in her own country.

I do, however, agree that it should be sourced and/or further clarified, and better specified in what parts of the world it is relevant. Vontheri (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I reverted an edit made by ModerateMike729 who had changed "racial minorities" to "of color" with the edit summary "per talk". What talk was being referred to? This here is the only discussion about this that I am aware of. I would be fine with something like "discrimination is particularly severe towards trans women of color in the United States [or where ever it applies], who often face the intersection of transphobia and racism." But saying just "of color" or "non-white" without specifying where fails to be consistent with a global perspective. Also a citation is needed. Vontheri (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that 'of colour' is a better term than 'racial minority', which is more specific and less euphemism-y. If we want the article to be less US-centric, 'of colour' is a term that we should avoid. How would we feel about this proposed wording (inserted words in bold):

[...] discrimination is particularly severe in some countries towards trans women who are members of a racial minority, who often face the intersection of transphobia and racism.

We don't specifically need references in the lede if the information is contained & referenced in the body of the article, and I personally think avoiding references in the lede produces a better looking article. In my proposed wording, if there was a better word than 'some' that didn't have the implication of a certain percent of countries (some vs many, etc) that would be good. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

My point is that we can't claim a "global perspective" if we're only citing data/sources about the US. We can either specify that we mean trans women of color in the United States, which I admittedly should've included in my edit, or we can remove the sentence entirely. But in its current form, we're trying to put a global perspective in the lede that's not in the body, so I'm inclined to agree with just avoiding it in the lede entirely. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "of colo(u)r" is not the most optimal word choice. I would be fine with the sentence suggested by PeterTheFourth, "discrimination is particularly severe in some countries towards trans women who are members of a racial minority, who often face the intersection of transphobia and racism." as long as there is a reference for which countries somewhere in the article. (Perhaps "certain countries" would be better than "some countries"?) I would also be fine with just taking the sentence out of the introduction if that is preferable. Vontheri (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. Either is alright with me but I lean more toward just taking it out of the introduction entirely. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

[For the UK,] I can find Stonewall research and a GIRES document saying LGBT POC face racism even within LGBT communities, and that trans ones face transphobia, but I'm not sure if there's data specifically about trans women of colour facing both intersectingly. I also spotted this i-D article on black LGBT people in Brazil, but again, it doesn't get into TWOC specifically. I'll try to look into this some more when I have more time. -sche (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)