Jump to content

Talk:Outline of transgender topics/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Removed from main talk page on 1.May 2004, since those debates seem to be finished.
-- AlexR 09:53, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Trans* and Drag*

I've removed

since, going by Kimiko's comment on Talk:Transsexual about the terms "transman" and "transwoman" being used for transsexual people, the link to drag isn't quite appropriate. This probably wasn't intentional, but perhaps needs more clarification as to transgendered people who partake in drag, which I'm guessing was the intent. Dysprosia 09:49, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but there was a good reason to do that, which is why I'll most likely resore it. The reason are Drag Kings, who differ from Transmen often (but of course not always) only by name, or not much more. Therefore, those two belong next to each other. And if I put these two next to each other, there is no reason not to put Transwomen and Drag Queens next to each other; everything else would be discriminating. Since its two different articles in both cases, people are supposed (and probably will; a list is not that informative) check the articles and see the differences. And please note that transman is not just a word for female-to-male transsexuals, but for all transgendered people of the female-to-male direction, therefore including per definition all drag kings who consider themselfes transgender. Same of course for transwomen.

Also, this is a list, and comments are, unless they are very short, inappropriate. How about a "Please see both articles for differences?" -- AlexR 12:47, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
P.S. And you obviously misunderstood Kimiko's statement as well, which described the use in the Netherlands only, too.

Well, I guess I did. But I have seen it's use elsewhere, in the same specific manner. Apologies. Dysprosia 10:35, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not very happy with the way this paragraph is put - "* Direction Female-to-Male: Transman and [ Drag King ]

What's wrong with putting it in this form?

In its current form, I think it is both objectionable and somewhat inaccurate. I've read the above, but to my knowledge, drag queen and drag king aren't exactly synonymous with "direction: male-to-female" or vice versa. In any case, it's an unnecessary phrase to have there. Ambivalenthysteria 05:55, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agree. Drag king/queen belong together under Drag and Transman/woman belong together under Transgender/Transsexual. Sorry AlexR, it seems you are outvoted here :o) -- Kimiko 10:31, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I am sorry, but even if there is two of you, you are still wrong. I have explained already that Drag Kings are much more than just Drag, and you are discriminating against them and take away their identity by putting them there. OK, if you insist, then only the Drag Kings will be listed next to the transmen. I will never understand that distance-o-mania some transwomen show. And Ambivalenthysteria - if you are not convinced, try a reality check, but don't discriminate against Drag Kings by claiming every Drag King does drag only. It is simply not true, whether you like it or not. -- AlexR 12:52, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm certainly not claiming that there are no transmen who are drag kings. I'm sure there are...I think I know a couple. I'm simply stating that they're not one and the same (nor extremely similar), and thus should not be listed in that fashion.
And the way they are now is pretty odd, as well. It looks strange to have drag queen under drag, and drag king somewhere else. Ambivalenthysteria 13:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I know it looks strange now, that was the reason I put Drag Queen next to transwoman, too, and suggested putting something like "Check articles for differences" or something behind it.
BTW, transman are not drag kings, and most transgender drag kings don't identify as transmen, but as Drag Kings. The difference between transgender Drag Kings (which are probably a mayority among them) and transmen is very very slight, mostly the difference is what they call themselves. Drag Kings don't identify as "man" or "male", which is why most I know reject "transman". Then again, many transmen identify as transmen because they don't want to identify as plain "man" or "male" either. So those two belong next to each other, because the differences are often very slight indeed. Of course, it's no problem, either, to find a Drag King and a transmen who have next to nothing in common, but that would be people from the extrem end of both spectrums. In the middle, the line is very blury. I know enough people of both groups to be very certain there, and I did check that it is very much the same in other countries, too. -- AlexR 14:05, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Ambivalenthysteria that it looks silly to put drag king next to transman and not under drag. But I concede that I don't know enough about this whole drag subject to have a valid opinion so I'll stay out of this debate. -- Kimiko 00:03, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I know it looks silly, and I have at various times asked Drag Kings whether there is not a better name for "Drag King", at least for the transgender ones. They have never come up with one, though, and if that is how they call themselves and/or identify, then we have to respect that. The Scandinavians tend towards "female transvestites", but that has been refused by others even more emphatically than "transmen", because most to not identify as female, and that means they are not cross-dressing, from their point of view, either. So what can the Wikipeda do? It is descriptive, not prescriptive. And we can't put it under "Drag" because it is a lot more than Drag.
And if the choice is between elegance and accuracy, as in this case, then I'll always opt for accuracy, even if I certainly would not mind if it were elegant, too. Although I am not 100% certain that removing Drag Queen from Transwomen is always that correct, either, but I think I'll wait for some input from Drag Queens for changing that again; I know that most transwomen reject the connection. -- AlexR 11:48, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I am 100% certain. I know I'm not the only one that finds the connection highly offensive. Ambivalenthysteria 04:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Are you a transman or a drag king? - Montréalais 04:05, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I was replying to Alex's statement of "I am not 100% certain that removing Drag Queen from Transwomen is always that correct, either". Ambivalenthysteria 09:05, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ambivalenthysteria, I do believe you that you are 100% certain that you find the connection offensive; lots of transwomen do. (And that is not exactly the first time I stumble onto that debate, either.) I am not 100% certain, though, that it is a correct thing to do - if a significant number of Drag Queens turn up and say that it is not a "drag" thing to them, but a "transgender" thing, then "Drag Queen" does not belong under "Drag". However, since there is, in my experience, absolutely nothing to be gained from having that I am more transwhatever than thou! debate again, and since we certainly have more important things to do in the Wikipeda, I am perfectly willing to leave "Drag Queen" under Drag until we get significant more information on the subject; I think neither of us has all that much information on Drag Queens and really can make an informed statement about exactly how "transgender" Drag Queens are. So I suggest we leave that as it is and move on; there are two more issues I'd like to hear another opinion about before I start editing anyway, see below. -- AlexR 17:38, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough. But I'm inclined to wonder that if drag queens and drag kings don't feel that they fit under drag, whether the drag article is the one that needs fixing. Ambivalenthysteria 07:42, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The problem is that the word "Drag King" is probably not very accurate, as far as I can tell, drag indeed means, at least currently, something like "over-dressed". And both Drag and Drag queen and Drag king already saw several edits about the precise meaning. However, as long as these are the words people use for themseves, and as long as there is no generally agreed upon and more accurate word that could replace whatever is inaccurate, we have to stick with things as they are. As I said, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive, so there is not much we can do here. -- AlexR 13:18, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think that transwomen are offended by being grouped with drag queens so much because they are trying to distance themselves from the image that the public has of transsexuals, which is formed mostly by trans* of the Jerry Springer variety. The dynamics in the MtF direction (whatever their exact identification) are much different and much less divisive. -- Kimiko 23:07, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A place to talk about these meta-matters:

I am not sure that this discussion page is the best place to talk about such things that concern several of the related articles. I don't mind doing it here, but I did want to ask whether somebody feels there is a need for a Project:Transgender or something similar. Mind you, I am not particularly hot for one, but the debates in Heteronormativity with a member of WikiProject Critical Theory and the generally spreading number of projects made me want to have some comments on these matter. -- AlexR 17:38, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.
Or maybe we could just start policing the various T* talk pages a little more and move anything of a general nature to a central talk page like this one?
-- Kimiko 23:44, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That is another option, of course; and if it works, and no other reasons for a project come up, a perfectly sufficient one. I have also been thinking about something like a mailing list (practically just a list of adresses, I'd say, not a full-fledged list), used only to alert those of us who usually keep an eye on these articles, in case we have another case of vandalism or trolling; like Heteronormativity just experiences; I myself did not catch that one when it began for days. It is only a matter of time until these articles get the same problem; after all, the Sam Spades of these worlds are still out there to to "defend society against horrors". We'd have to be a bit selective about who gets on it, though, I think. -- AlexR 01:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think both of these are a potentially good idea. Do we need a WikiProject? I don't know whether that would be necessary, as I think most of the necessarily articles already exist. But if we're talking about vandalism/POV garbage, then a mailing list could be a good idea. Ambivalenthysteria 07:42, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Why won't the usual functionality of the watchlist suffice? Dysprosia 07:51, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. I'd prefer to keep this within the standard Wikipedia framework of talk pages or at most project pages. The subject matter doesn't merit a mailing list IMHO.
If you're getting tired of edit wars, take a step back and examine your own motives again. It takes at least two POVs to keep up an edit war. -- Kimiko 08:58, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I did not mean a full-fledged mailing list, rather an alert system so that even those people who might not check their watchlist daily would get informed it something goes on; the transgender artcles, which fill 90% of my watchlist, were often rather quite for months. (I am more active on the German Wikipedia.) Anyway, if most people feel there's no need for one, then there is probably not; such an alert list would not be of much use if it hadn't at least a few participants.
As for edit wars, excuse me, but all it takes is one vandal or troll to start one, and one person (or several) who try to keep the article NPOV and/or factually accurate ot whatever. If for example somebody would start to throw every biblical reference to transsexualism, whether accurate or not, into the article, along with a section on how well reparation therapy would work; and maybe a few insults into the bargain, like the aforementined "defending society against horrors", would you really feel that you had to examine you own motives before trying to stop that and keep the article NPOV? I somehow don't think so. -- AlexR 13:18, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Vandals only make a few edits before they leave again. They can easily be dealt with by reverting an article to a previous version. Those who are intent on doing damage won't stop at an obscure topic like T* and will be caught by the admins pretty quickly.
Trolls are best dealt with by not feeding them. If someone only reverts your edits to make you angry, just ignore them for a while and they will go away to bother someone else.
If someone is really interested in a topic they will want to learn about other points of view, just like you do. The very fact that you both keep editing the article to reflect your own POV, NPOV though you may think it is, shows that it really isn't completely neutral. If you're not willing to work towards a compromise maybe you should look for a forum that allows ownership of articles.
Of course, this doesn't mean that your POV isn't better than theirs. It's obvious that it is, if only they would see the light the way you have seen it.
Then again, as you have said yourself, Wikipedia is not about telling people what to think/believe but about telling them about what people think/believe.
What horrors are you defending society against? -- Kimiko 23:34, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Excuse me, Kimiko, but what you say is not only extremely naive, but also is becoming personally insulting. Have a look at the history of Heteronormativity, those trolls did not go away, and obviously have no intention of learing about any other point of view, either. And many attempts at compromises have been rejected by them, too; they don't want compromises. Which is, especially with Sam Spade, old news, btw, just as it is old news that he does not give up. And it was not me who "wanted to defend society against these horrors", either, which should have been obvious from what I wrote. The horrors Sam Spade wants to defend society against is, among others, you and me. (And he won't care very much about the differences between us, either.) LGBT people. Everything that is not WASP probably as well, judging from the history of his edits in other articles. Should people like him really run wild on the transgender articles? Those people do not go away if we ignore them, and I doubt that they would consider vandalising transgender topics as being below their dignity, either. So sorry, we absolutely disagree there, and I would appreciate very much if you would, in the future, refrain from insulting me. -- AlexR 00:37, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Outline_of_transgender_topics/Archive_1&oldid=967399085"