This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |
RE: Two-Spirit[edit]
Rather than re-visit an older discussion that hasn't seen activity in a month, I'm opening a new topic to suggest re-adding a phrase similar to what was removed. "Some two-spirit people may also identify as transgender." The source originally used can still be discarded; better sources appear to exist, including a source cited in, and obtained from, the Two-Spirit page, a document from the Tribal Law and Policy Institute, and the Indian Health Service. An additional source can also be found the National Domestic Violence Hotline website.
Input is welcome. King keudo (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
how can vatican's guidelines be dated in the future?[edit]
> Dated October 31, 2024
is this supposed to be 2023? 86.127.80.188 (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Exactly that. I've fixed it. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ga 174.103.242.116 (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
"Transgenderism" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
The redirect Transgenderism 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 9 § Transgenderism until a consensus is reached. Raladic (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The word transgenderism[edit]
This falls foul of WP:NOTFORUM as it has nothing to do with improving the article. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Okay... this bothers me so much that I just have to have to make a thread about it. I wrote the article ICD-11, which includes a section about Gender incongruence. In it, I used the term transgenderism. It was removed by User:Raladic, because it was supposedly an insult!! They even nominated the transgenderism redirect (see above), pointing out that some idiots used that word to claim that transgenderism is an ideology, instead of an inborn condition. And that's why no one should use that word. What kind of nonsense is this?! So just because a few alt-right bozos are unable to understand gender, we should not use this word, because *they* said so?? Transgenderism is an -ism. Isms don't just refer to ideologies, but to phenomena in general (journalism, realism, recidivism), including scientific phenomena (magnetism, Darwinism, atavism). From an etymological viewpoint, there is nothing inherently insulting about the word transgenderism. In itself, it is a neutral, general-purpose term for all things related to being transgender. You can throw in all the sources that say otherwise, but those people are WRONG! Thus, User:Raladic is also wrong for calling it a slur, because it's not. Thanks for reading. - Manifestation (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
|
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2024[edit]
The part of some identifying as transexual is depreciated and redundant. Transsexual was replaced by transgender to remove sexual annotation that Gender Identity relates to sexual orientation. It has been depreciated as a derogatory term: similar to Asperger's being replaced with ASD in the DSM5 because if the negative history for it as well. StonyPonyAmy (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- A reliable source would be needed for such a change (also, edit requests should include an exact change). Its true that broadly describing trans people, transness, or medical transition as transsexual(s/ism) has largely fallen out of favor, but this sentence is about the minority of trans people (mostly older people, or subscribers to transmedicalism) who identify with the term as an individual identity label. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 01:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Counterpoint: Buck Angel EvergreenFir (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)