Talk:Transphobia/Archive 3

Noting that there are now quite a few old sections in this talk page that are no longer being actively discussed, I propose to enable archiving by User:MiszaBot I, with age of last change set to 30 days (ie archive a section 30 days after it is last added to). Any objections? Would 60 or 90 days be preferrred? --AliceJMarkham 01:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would. bot archiving wipes away all talk items whether resolved or not. I would suggest simply archiving old talk threads to keep this page tidy for those using it but not on auto. Benjiboi 06:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

MiszaBot only archives a section when the last edit has reached the specified age. If it was set to say 60 or 90 days, that means that no discussion has been added to that section for that many days. Is it still current then, or has it already died due to lack of interest? It's alway possible to bring the same subject up some time later. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm uneasy about it as there are reasons someone might post something that would help an article but then it's never followed up on or the idea is too advanced for where the article is at the moment as they are organic. Likewise pure drivel or resolved items clutter the page and i welcome their archiving to help communication. I think on project pages and user talk auto-archiving can be quite useful but I remain uneased as to their application on article talk. Having stated that if everyone else wants it then oh well. Benjiboi 08:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I vote no on this one... this page is pretty slow anyway, and it really takes no real effort at all to move the page to the next archive number, update the archive box, and copy any active discussions back to the talk page (or even link to them if needs be). It's not even nessecary (and some might argue even counterproductive) to archive a talk page that isn't that large anyway (such as this one isn't). Crimsone (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not always transphobia that can cause discrimination against a transgender employee. There are a number of systemic biases that can cause issues where even though applied to all employees, creates an unfair burden for transgendered individuals. For instance, establishing strict working hours, which would cause the transgender employee to be held accountable for hours that that employee needs to receive treatment. --Puellanivis (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is? What needs to change in the article and how? In your opinion. Benjiboi 06:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The scope of transphobia encompasses far more than employment-related issues: for example, bigotry and prejudice, healthcare issues, and violent crime, just to name a few. krimpet⟲ 07:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My point was trying to state that discrimination against trans people is not necessarily transphobia. Laws have side-effects, and some of those side-effects may discriminate against transgender people without having any intention to do so. Transphobia to me is specifically narrow to intentional actions, unconscious or otherwise. Calling someone "transphobic" before they are even aware of transsexuality, or their concerns, is placing blame for being ignorant (as in not knowing, not as the insult). And may entirely end up being not the case. I talked with a guy a lot, and we had an attraction, and when I told him that I was a transsexual, he said, "what's that?" We ended up dating for about a month, and then he broke up with me because I "deserve better" than him. The guy was entirely non-transphobic and was very much of the opinion that I was absolutely a girl, and no doubts, and if other people don't see that, then they're, in his words, "stupid". Before he knew me, he may have unintentionally made an action that impacted a transsexual, but because he didn't even know about transsexuals, it would be difficult to say that that action would have been "transphobic". Against "the trans agenda" is not always transphobia. --Puellanivis (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Trying to re-digest this. I think you're stating that some transphobia actually is either purposely or unintentionally discrimination against disabled people who may need time off for medical reasons, etc. Is that on target? Benjiboi 08:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you're addressing me, as if you were it would appear that there was a massive miscommunication. Assuming you were adressing me: No, that's not what I'm trying to say. It's called a "systemic bias", which need not be caused by transphobia, or any intentional measure of fear, bigotry, etc against any particular group. The situation arrises that a systemic bias can present a situation where trans (for therapy, etc) need perform exceptional steps in order to be permitted to attend medical appointments, or perhaps even not permitted at all, e.g. allowances for going to a medical appointment may be permitted for physical issues only, as GID is still a mental disorder, it fails to pass the muster to get permission. There are also situations where a law, entirely unintentionally, impacts severly upon a protected group. An English-only policy is a systemic bias against people who are unable to learn a new language no matter how hard they try, and the courts agreed that it would be, but that such a systemic bias was allowable only under the case that English-only was absolutely necessary to perform their job. Such a company that has a legitimate English-only policy would have a systemic bias against most foreign nationals. --Puellanivis (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, see what you mean now. I think a similar thing could be stated for almost all the discrimination related phobia articles that sometimes perceived intentions could actually be systematic bias. I would support some wording to be placed in the article if it hasn't already. Benjiboi 21:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll try and look through the article and ensure that it's not ascribing any unintentional, unintended, or even most earnestly regretful actions that impact only transsexuals. I will admit, it's hard to come up with a good example. :( --Puellanivis (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that this sort of transphobia certainly happens, however, I'm wondering if it might differ sufficiently from gay and lesbian transphobia in order to be appropriately placed in its own section? Thoughts of others? I really only know of a few differences, so I don't know if they're significant to break out, or simply enough to add a paragraph covering them more exactly. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination happens in every group and transphobia can even be found wihin the trans communities. Instead of nuancing it towards each L-G-B and T I think it would serve the readers best to explain that it does exist and here is a discussion of it. For every instance we state that such and such is in the gay male or lesbian communities can be countered with well here it is over here as well. We know it exists we should simply talk about it dispassionately enough to express the ideas needed. Benjiboi 03:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar search

Does being unwilling to be romantically involved with someone who is transgendered amount to transphobia? I read an editorial in the San Francisco Cronicle that seemed to insinuate as much. Not that the threat of being classified as transphobic is going to make me change my position (that I would never even consider dating a transgender, pre or post-op). Just curious Gtbob12 (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, being unattracted to transpeople doesn't make one transphobic, any more than being unattracted to women makes one misogynistic. However, your comments on this page make it clear that you are transphobic anyway. --Alynna (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That said, if you were to fall deeply in love with a transsexual (as opposed to a transvestite or an otherwise transgender person - just for simplicity of analogy more than anything), and had been involved in a relationship with him or her for some time without sex(there are both transmen and transwomen), and then when she/he makes sure out of respect for you that you know of his/her previous sex you annul the whole relationship and completely disown the person, well, that could be considered a tad on the transphobic side (as opposed to remaining good friends with that person even though you felt unable to have a sexual relationship with him or her, which wouldn't be transphobic). Reason being, both before and after telling of that painful past, he's/she's still the same person. Crimsone (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be important to clarify this. The people who refuse to date a transgendered person can be put into two groups. Those who are transphobic, and those who are not. Those who are transphobic are disgusted exclusively by the idea that a person is trans, rather than anything else. Having posted a personal as an experiment, I stated that I was trans, and included a photo of a non-trans friend. Some responses I got back were from people that are obviously transphobic (with or without varying degrees of homophobia.) One response was "you're hot, too bad I'm not gay." Another told me "the picture is attractive, but I feel oddly uneased by looking at it knowing that you're trans." Any feeling of "unease" that the person was feeling was exclusively their own fabrication. There was nothing in the picture to evoke a trans response, except context. These people found the picture to be attractive, but refused to consider dating solely for the reason that they were told that she was trans. There is no justifiable "they're simply unattracted to transwomen", but rather only an unjustifiable "they are repulsed by the idea of transwomen." Now, to be honest, I'm dating (on/off) a guy who does not find me attractive because I'm trans, however, we've been together on and off for awhile, as he struggles with his emotional attraction to me competing against his physical interests. It's not being unattracted to a trans person that makes the unwillingness to date be transphobia, it's the absolute refusal to even consider the idea that makes it transphobic. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur, both your explanations are more clear/accurate. --Alynna (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything transphobic about a hetrosexual male being repulsed by an inverted penis etc. Just like normal people are repulsed by the thought of performing sexual acts with infants and animals.

just as well transsexual women don't have inverted penises then really, isn't it? Merely donor skin that forms an actual vaginal passage, situated amongst an actual labia, in an actual vulva. There's no actual penis involved - that's removed in the surgery. And no... it's not "Normal" to feel that way about transsexual people, even if there were an actual inverted penis involved in the sense that a desire to have sex with such a person is abnormal as you imply. After all, Gay people are perfectly normal. Abnormal is feeling the need to pose utterly ill-informed comments on an online encyclopedia in order to do nothing but share your prejudice. Besides, Dating != always equal sex, and Wikipedia is not a discussion forum! Crimsone (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

but would not commit violence against the transgendered/transsexual population, neither would be afraid of or hate them. How are these people to be classified? I don't fully understand the article, but I hope these people are not grouped in with transphobics who would commit violence.

At "sex reassignment therapy" I removed some part of the "controversy" section because of the use of weasel words, but only that section I could find that mentioned people who thought sex reassignment therapy was immoral, but were not transphobic.

This point of view seems to make up a significant portion of the population and as such would seem to be encylopedic. Cornince (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

They would however, discriminate against them - if not by deed then by word, as Sex Reassignment Surgery is considered a clinically nessecary procedure for those that qualify for it, and the fatality rate for failure to treat the condition runs in the region of 20% (equitable with conditions such as anorexia nervosa). Those who would advocate against the procedure on grounds of immorality are thus advocating for these peoples deaths, as there is no alternative treatment for the procedure. The procedure itself incidentally, carries a 97% success rate, higher than most other medical treatments available for most conditions.

If of course they hold such a belief and keep it to themselves letting it affect neither ther deeds or their words, then naturally this article has nothing to do with them.

Transphobia is the name for a form of discrimination. It does not nessecarily confer violence, hate, or fear (though often includes one of the three)... one should also define a "significant proportion" of the population however, by means other than original research. Never the less, SRS is quite a distinct entity from transphobia, nor is transphobia usually based on it in particular. As such, a statement to the effect of "A number of people feel that it is immoral to perform sexual reassignment surgeries" does not warrant inclusion in this particular article. Even if it did, the increasing reams of supporting evidence against that view would also have to presented, as well as the reasons for the argument against it, which would require an entire section that would thus be completely out of place in this article - Wikipedia after all is not the place for debate or discussion of such issues. That's what the rest of the world to do. Crimsone (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also add that similar to other employs of rhetoric against minorities, such as Jesse Helms against LGBT and black people, their words and ideas often translate to violence by those who act upon the ideas expressed. In the recent 2008 Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting the shooter was said to be acting on the ideas and words of those opposed to democratic and LGBT issues/ideas. Sadly, this kind of justified violence seems common. Banjeboi 17:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Anytime a medical condition is viewed as immoral it creates a situation for bias, discrimination, and "phobia". Take for example lepers. They were (and in some parts of the world still are) considered to have gotten leprosy by immoral behaviors. This caused the lepers in the bible to be treated like literal crap, despite the vast odds that they would not spread leprosy. Leprosy is caused an extremely weak bacterium... very few people with healthy immune systems are susceptible to getting leprosy. In the same way GID seems to be even more rare than susceptibility to leprosy, yet it is still viewed as "immoral". At least some islam cultures have recognized a difference between someone who has no choice, and someone who does. (Such that, not all transgendered people are immoral)

"Literal crap"? Don't you mean "litteral crap"? 208.54.85.170 (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

So will it be the case that those who believe that transsexual transition is immoral and unethical, though they probably make up the majority of the population in the US and most other countries, will not have a place for discussion without the context of transphobia? Cornince (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not my experience of the human population of the west. Nor the experience of most people. It's certainly the not the case for the vast majority of those that have researched and know anything about the condition... and it's curiously enough one of the only medical conditions where people who know absolutely nothing about it feel qualified to speak on the subject.

In any case, the place for such a discussion, should anybody wish to hold it, is with the science, the scientists, the medics that have studied it, and transsexual people themselves. The place to discuss it is not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Crimsone (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Further, there are four primary reasons behind a view of treatment of gender dysphoria being immoral. One is "God made man and woman... nothing else", which apart from being contradicted by the existance of intersex conditions, is a religious view, and not all people are religious. Indeed, it's a view that not even all religious people believe in. The second is unconscious fear - the lines between the traditional understanding of what a man or a woman is become blurred in the eyes of the observer, which can present a whole host of issues. The third is that it's considered decietful and/or delusional - that transsexual men or women are just going around pretending to be what they appear to be, and unsuspecting men and women are being decieved by them. Finally, the fourth is that it's wrong to pander to a delusion and allow transsexual people to believe that they are who they are - which a long history of medicine, and indeed, a history of various cultures around the world proves wrong. So far, nobody has come up with a rational argument supporting the premise that transsexualism is immoral besides a variation on one of these four points, and each of thes four points can be demonstrated to be wrong (or in the case of religion - feel free to believe what one likes, but it doesn't mean it applies to the rest that don't believe in it). As such, and considering what the non-treatment of gender dysphoria means, it's impossible to have a discussion of the premise that treatment of gender dysphoria and allowing people to live how they see fit (which is pretty harmless to the rest of the world in the case of transsexualism) is immoral without the context of transphobia, because any of the four main fundamental bases of the argument can be demonstrated to carry with them a degree of transphobia, let alone the consequences of non-treatment. Speaking out against "transsexual transition" or "transsexual surgery" is speaking out against transsexualism and the condition itself (A condition proved to exist). Except in incredibly rare circumstances, it's not possible to speak out against it without a degree of transphobia. People are free to hold their opinions if they like, but the only way no not be covered under the reach of the term "transphobia" is to refrain from advocationg on the basis of them... or as the old saying goes "live and let live". Crimsone (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "GLBTphobia" :
  • {{cite web |last=Weiss|first=Jillian Todd|title=GL vs. BT: The Archaeology of Biphobia and Transphobia Within the U.S. Gay and Lesbian Community|url=http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~jweiss/glvsbt.htm|accessdate=2006-07-07}}
  • GLBTphobia

DumZiBoT (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  Resolved

 – Consensus doesn't support this merger. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am suggesting that the Tyra Hunter article be merged here it fails WP:notability for a biography per WP:ONEVENT because the notable event is the discrimination that took place not the person. benjicharlton (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The Tyra Hunter article needs a lot of work but like many high profile deaths it has transcended the one event and became a rallying cry for action and change - in this case, transgender communities. I think you'll find there is more than enough to turn that into a good article. Banjeboi 12:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per above Crimsone (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as per above --Puellanivis (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Thats cool if you think it can make WP:N Then you had best make it do so....and keep in mind that as you have pointed out the issue that the article centres around is the death of Tyra Hunter ....NOT Tyra Hunter the person...the problem really is that the article is a biography which is not notable. I see why the event itself is notable, but not why Tyra Hunter is ... notability is not inherited. benjicharlton (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

to flesh out what I am saying... there is no doubt the events surrounding this woman's death are notable. However not in context to her life, but more so in context to the effects that Transphobia has on the life of Transexuals. I cannot see any more information about Tyra Hunter that would make her any more notable, or any more information about her that is relevant in this context. Please keep in mind this is a discussion not a vote... per nom "votes" dont really count. You need to make a case. So Benjiboi's point is valid, but I think he sort of shoots it in the foot.. when he says that its a rally cry for the community. It indicates that further information contributed to the article would be about the effect the single event had as it relates to the discrimintation against transexuals, NOT Tyra Hunter. I looked at all the references supplied in the article and really there is not much more to the Tyra Hunter angle that what is written. Can you see what I am trying to get at...? I will caveat this with.. this is not my field. I am looking at this from the angle as to whether this person warrants an biographical article...IE an article about their life....? I mean no disrespect to Ms Hunter or her family regarding her importance. benjicharlton (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I understand what you're saying. From waht I've seen we do generally treat these as biographies as I believe it allows for additions of information that come out later, like when books, documentaries, movies and fictionalized accounts come out. Often those same researchers will publish material previously unavailable. See Brandon Teena, for instance. There are a lot of references that have yet to be added but that's a part of regular editing. Articles always need iproving and that one needs a lot of work - but that's what we do. Banjeboi 23:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Okay.. so I hate to harp on a point. BUT is the consensus here that Ms Hunter is notable for one event? BUT the theory applied in the creation of the page is the one day in the future someone may write a biography. or a movie etc in which case Ms Hunter may reach notability. (which I still debate because I maintain her notability is defined by "TRANSPHOBIA") If this is the case I still believe the information in the page should be merged and the page redirected to the related section on this page. Once more information is available it can be recreated as an article in its on right. My belief is that if this article was put to the wider wiki community as an AFD debate, the article would get deleted...FOR entirely the wrong reason. There are enough stupid people out there that would join the discussion with the wrong motivation. That should not be allowed to happen. I believe that the merge and redirect leaves the article open to expansion at a later date if that happens but at the same time prevents needless repetition of the current information available. As a side effect I think the addition of information improves the transphobia arguement as it shows exactly how serious certain states are on this issue. ie the degree of compensation achieved. As a side note the articles sources are decidely not neutral. The case is covered from the gender public advocates office and a statement by the president of the GLAA. It may be wise to add any articles of news coverage that can be found to improve the neutrality. benjicharlton (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• A quick google search shows 40+ books mention her - there are tons of sources that can be added. -- Banjeboi 20:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. There is now also a drop in centre named after Tyra. Rather than merge into the main Transphobia article it would make more sense to extend the Tyra Hunter article to include information of the drop in centre named after her —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theban Moon (talk • contribs) 20:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this also the case for Rosa Parks??? I guess she at least got to live after the whole bus thing... I guess we need transphobes to do a better job at silently wiping out trans people before they become notable even for being dead, still in the mean time maybe we can settle for erasing them from wikipedia, even if they can't entirely be erased from history.--81.86.105.166 (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The article hould maybe include excerpts from religious views on transgender people, which indicates that some religions have at least some transphobic elements. ADM (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If they are sourced extremely well and presented NPOV I think it may be helpful. -- Banjeboi 02:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to be careful in ascertaining what is a religious view and what is homophobia. Places that have expressed religious views in the UK are the Parakleo Ministry, the UK Evangelical Alliance, and there is discussion in the Church of England's book "Some Issues of Human Sexuality". Some Anglicans do not agree with 'Some Issues', either in part of in total, some do. Many Evangelicals would concur with the EA report "Transsexualism", but some do disagree (Accepting Evangelicals, for example). It is hard to see who Parakleo speak for apart from the organiser himself. I hope this helps. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Equally important is that a religious view belongs to a religion or a person of that religion... there is no proof or additional respect for it in secular terms - only in religious terms. As such, the outward application to trans people of a religious view that stands aganst trans people in a non-religious setting becomes transphobia. In a non-religious setting, such a view belongs only to the religious person, and cannot be said to be in any way definitive (or civil, decent, or polite). As such, religious views of trans people are irrelevant to the subject of transphobia, except where those religious views are used as an excuse for it. Crimsone (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There really needs to be some balance in this article. It simply describes the transexual campaign position, without any real discussion, and includes many assumptions; for instance that transexuality as defined by transcampaigners is a real condition, rather than for instance a mental delusion (a man who claims to be a horse is surely delusional- if he claims to be a woman, this is presumed to be objectively true. If he claims to be a mare, is only the horse part a delusion, but the gender part real? And so on). Whether or not men can be women "inside" is surely a controversial issue.

There are notable inconsistencies in the position which are not discussed. For instance, it is presumed by the article that a woman who objects to sharing a changing room with transwomen is suffering a phobia (which in this usage implies an irrational hatred). A transwoman who objects to sharing a changing room with men is being "demeaned" and should be supported. Either there is merit to gender segregated facilities or not (which is beyond the scope of this article) but the article is saying that only transpersons can reasonably desire gender segregated facilities; non-transpersons are being discriminatory. Clearly this has not been thought through.

This article reads as a polemic on behalf of transactivism, not as an encyclopaedic description of transphobia, which must to be meaningful discuss whether transpobia is itself a meaningful concept and why, in gender segregated facilities, the transexual should use the facilities *they* would *personally* prefer rather than the facilities that non-transexuals are obligated to use by virtue of their primary sexual characteristics. If women can be morally obligated to put up with the presence of transwomen- that is, men in drag- in their facilities, why cannot the men in drag be morally obligated to put up with using the mens' facilities?82.71.30.178 (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is insulting other members, and insulting an oppressed community. Marja Erwin (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you just saying that because transsexuals are the one of the last minorities that it's socially acceptable to pick on? JessicaSideways (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Holy Christ. Transphobia isn't even a word and there's a whole article on it. What's wrong with this whole Wiki concept? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.164.199 (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a word? WTF do you mean? Marja Erwin (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

[[1]] Mish (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with 82.71.30.178. This article is basically an editorial advocating people with gender identity disorder. Of course, it will never be rewritten or deleted because Wikipedia is mostly written by ultra-liberals (as evidenced by Marja Erwin's hysterical "don't criticize us, we're oppressed people" outburst). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidepoint2 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. WP:NOTAFORUM - MishMich - Talk - 21:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting how you think trying to get the article re-written from a pro-gender identity disorder point of view to a scientific point of view somehow relates to that "What Wikipedia is not" policy. (By the way, your use of "WP:NOTAFORUM" is incorrect because you are using it as an acronym, which it is not. To be grammatically correct, you should say "Wikipedia is not a forum.") Of course, it is to be expected that you try to so dismiss legitimate arguments, seeing as you are a member of a hermaphroditic organization called "Organisation Intersex International." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidepoint2 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Remind you of WP:UNCIVIL. Intersex, not hermaphrodite - which has nothing to do with this topic, BTW. Any real 'scientist' in a relevant area would know this, of course. - MishMich - Talk - 22:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you still haven't learned how to properly use acronyms. There is no need to capitalize every letter of the word "uncivil." And intersex is just some new-age word that means exactly the same thing as hermaphrodite, which is similar to transsexualism because they both involve confusion of one's sex (although hermaphrodism is purely biological, whereas transsexualism is a psychological perversion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidepoint2 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I was notifying you of the pages which give the policy on these things. Just as I am now: This is not a WP:SOAPbox. This is a now a notice that your tone borders on being insulting and aggressive, and there can be consequences for that. As you are a new editor, I recommend you take some time to learn about the guidelines and policies used by this encyclopedia, such as the ones I have already pointed out. - MishMich - Talk - 07:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's reputation on this subject and its so called great editors is so poor on this subject that I can't believe that it has the gall to have a section on this subject. Not sure this subject will ever be right because the subjects are full of non-sense. Do we need a lesson on how transphobic some feminists have been ...no... is it just America... no. See uk and Julie Burchill controversy. The issue with this article is that it will be one-sided in that prejudice hate should always be written from the victims point of view, and discriminators are always offended more by being called prejudice than seems credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Beake (talk • contribs) 17:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That Soapbox policy you link to perfectly describes this article, particularity the first point—"Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment"—for transgendered people. This article also violates the so-called "Neutral point of view" policy. — Guidepoint2 (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Then take it to the noticeboard, and get feedback from neutral editors. - MishMich - Talk - 00:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Noticeboard"? I looked for that, but can't find anything. 172.56.26.49 (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Serena Montaldo (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)I agree with the original poster. This article is biased: it says anyone who disagrees with the validity of transsexuality is transphobic. This opinion however IS BIGOTED, because disagreement is different than hate. Finally just because a group is oppressed it doesn't mean it's above criticism (what about pedophiles? -not comparing the two) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serena Montaldo (talk • contribs) 23:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is what it is, because it's describing what transphobia is by the definition of the term. Naturally, it does not explain what transphobia is now because that would be unencyclopaedic. Transphobia is a genuine term with a genuine meaning - while you might not like what it means, and may feel that many of the things it describes by definition are justifiable for one reason or another, that does not change the fact that the term exists, nor does it change its meaning. The reason there is no "opposition to the use of the term transphobia" section is because it would be obsurd to have such a section in an encyclopedia article in the same way that it would be obsurd to have an opposition to the term ageism/racism/homophobia/etc section in an encyclopedia. Such a section could only say that some people are opposed to the use of the term because they believe transsexual people are wrong/immoral/unnatural/abominations/etc ... which would fall foul of WP:SOAP, and probably the civility policy too as a result. Crimsone (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is very biased, the only way to deal with this issue is to report "x considers y to be an example of transphobia" rather than "x is transphobia". This is a very complicated issue, but the whole article rests on the trans-activists' definition and understanding of transgender issues, which are not shared by a majority of scientists, never mind the public.

Boynamedsue (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This article has problems with POV but its major concern is that every second claim made seems to be original research. It reads like an essay rather than an article and, as has been mentioned above, it often assumes that things are objectively trasphobic when this often boils down to a case of mind-reading and subjectivity (the article is justified doing this in cases of court judgements, but otherwise it should refer to it as a who's-saying-what). To show the problem spots of the article I've marked up the current form of the article in the sandbox here to highlight what content should be sourced, revised, or removed (as I say there, not to dispute the content itself but rather its encyclopedic nature). Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 05:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Good work comparing the prose to the sources. I suggest you tag the article with the deficiencies you have identified, and if noone comments in a day or so delete offending material per policy.– Lionel ^(talk) 08:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Can I please just ask here.... and no, I don't refer to the association of LGB and T.... what exactly does mainstream gay have to do with transphobia such that is should be in the see also links? Trans people are not mainstream gay, and in fact, are not nessecarily gay at all. It's not really a related topic. Homophobia, being a similar form of discrimination with similar mechanics in many ways would be a valid see also link, but mainstream gay? Crimsone (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. Page was AfD'd anyway so I've reoved the link. Crimsone (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(This got formatted strangely; disregard)Dgiovagnoli (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm more of a lurker than an editor, most of the time, but I've read this section several times, and keep coming away from it with the impression that it's, perhaps, not a neutral discussion of the issues at hand. Specifically, these sections jump out:

"While many gays and lesbians feel that transgender is simply a name for a part of their own community (i.e. the LGBT community), others actively reject the idea that transgender people are part of their community, seeing them as entirely separate and distinct. Some feel that bisexuality and transgenderism are detrimental to the social and political acceptance of gays and lesbians. This phenomenon has been called internalized homophobia, meaning an irrational fear and dislike of other homosexuals.[20]

This presumes that transgender people are, in fact, "homosexuals", a descriptor which is often hotly debated, but with little real meaning due to the nature of the differences between gender and sexuality – for example, if a transwoman is attracted only to other women, then she is either lesbian by nature of being a woman, or is otherwise a heterosexual man. However, the latter statement could only be made by someone who is deeply transphobic."

This says that there is a separation between gender and sexuality. Fine; that's perfectly reasonable. It links the issues of bisexuality and transgenderism, though. As sexuality and gender are seperate issues, why are they linked like this? And from this, why is an exclusionary attitude from the lesbian and gay community against transsexual individuals and bisexual individuals combinded into one idea? Shouldn't the latter be on biphobia's page? What is the core neutrality issue here, though, is that it implies that a misunderstanding between what constitutes gender and sexuality is inherently transphobic -- deeply transphobic, even. To top it off, there's no citation for that second paragraph, and it comes off as an attack, and not an encyclopedia article.

I don't know how to re-write it, which is why I tagged it; plus I figured that it would be reverted, without consensus. This is not an attack on transgender issues; I just think that this comes across as awfully one-sided. Dgiovagnoli (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Well, it would certainly provide some balance to note that some trans people, whether reacting to perceived exclusion or not, view themselves as outside the LGBTQ... community and feel no connection to or common cause with gay, lesbian, or bisexual people. Moreover, both of these sides can be noted without imputing homo- or transphobia as the explanation (which would be desirable from a NPOV point of view). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.173.144 (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The term seems to be a neologism. We should rename the article to "Discrimination against transsexuals." – Lionel ^(talk) 03:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Is a term a neologism when it used by governments, United Nations officials, civil rights organizations, etc? And if transphobia if a neologism, then what about terms like heterophobia, which are never used in any official capacity? Yes, transphobia is not as widely used or as established a term such as homophobia - but the term is now increasingly used by government officials, UN officials, etc. I doubt that it is a neologism anymore. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 14:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice: Several comments following this were removed per WP:FORUM, User:Lionelt has chosen to restore his/hers. The following commentary may be provocative, uncivil, and in violation of WP:FORUM. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 10:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: Deleted "joke" by Knowzilla can be found here – Lionel ^(talk) 10:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Go blow up something in Norway?" What kind of joke is that? – Lionel ^(talk) 00:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: deleted response by Knowzilla can be found here. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of the tragedy in Oslo. I just had to make sure you were making a joke out of the murder of 69 people, mostly children. This is without a doubt the MOST HEINOUS and REPREHENSIBLE exchange I have ever had with anyone on Wikipedia. My God some of these children haven't even been buried yet. Have you no human decency??? No compassion for what these parents are going through at the loss of their children??? – Lionel ^(talk) 08:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: deleted response by Knowzilla can be found here – Lionel ^(talk) 10:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FORUM? --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 10:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed a large amount of material from this article because it is contentious and either unsourced or falsely sourced (the referenced material does not make the claim the article makes). I will list the removed content below, in the case that it is challenged.

Many trans people also experience homophobia from people who associate their gender identity with homosexuality.^[1]

The citation does not corroborate the content. I've left the statement in as it's rather universally believed, but I've added a refimprove tag because none of the claims in the opening paragraph are sourced.

Often it can be difficult for gender patients to receive proper health care and treatment, because medical gatekeepers who are transphobic will refuse to administer necessary treatment; in at least one case that included the refusal to treat Robert Eads, a transman, for ovarian cancer, of which he subsequently died.^[2][3]

The second source (removed) is merely a list of deceased people without enough information to attribute motives (most are crimes, having nothing to do with medicine); the first source speaks only of a particular instance . There is no mention of "gatekeepers" and I find this comment warrants removal.

This phenomenon has been called internalized homophobia, meaning an irrational fear and dislike of other homosexuals.^[4] This presumes that transgender people are, in fact, "homosexuals", a descriptor which is often hotly debated, but with little real meaning due to the nature of the differences between gender and sexuality – for example, if a transwoman is attracted only to other women, then she is either lesbian by nature of being a woman, or is otherwise a heterosexual man.

Well, it's a whole book, but it appears to make no reference to transsexualism except to say in the introduction "Homosexuals are ... distinguished from 'bisexual,' 'transgendered,' and 'transsexual' persons." Therefore without reading the entire book I presume it would not call this "internalized homophobia."

The nature of the terms man and woman also become unclear in a similar way under this philosophy, and many feel that the only real recourse is to accept that the mind and feeling of a person is the only thing that gives that person identity, and so a person that has a female identity and mind is indeed a woman, as agreed by much legislation in Europe enabling transsexual people to have the sex recorded on their birth certificates amended accordingly.^[5]

The legislation notes cited here describe the act; they make no statement on intent or philosophy. The former statement seems to be derived from the reference that follows this one (Jillian Todd Weiss).

Lastly I've added an original research tag because the extent of the uncited or falsely cited material makes it apparent that the authors are taking their material from verifiable, encyclopedic sources. Overall I haven't done much compared to the problems this article has, but I hope to clarify what must be addressed. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 08:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)