Talk:Transphobia

Topic
It's a piece of crap, really.  ħ uman  03:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And the hate on so many sexually advanced speakers and thinkers, from this one blindered perspective, is incredibly embarrassing.  ħ uman  04:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that arguments with the people mentioned in the article are a huge issue in the trans* community. Don't forget, it is possible to be progressive on some issues and completely bugfuck on other closely related issues. EVDebs (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Remind me
when I get back from my exciting lunchtime equivalent period at the carton bank, to write something about trans panic. Sophie Wilder  10:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Remember to write something about Trans* panic--Token Conservative (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me to write about Trans[insert symbol] panic. Sophie  Wilder  14:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience section could use expansion
Currently, the "pseudoscience" section of the article focuses entirely on autogynephilia. This is only scratching the surface in terms of all the pseudoscientific nonsense mustered to attack trans* folk. The most common I've seen, from wingnuts and TERFs alike, is the "biology is transphobic" argument. The people who use these arguments claim that science is not on the side of transgender people because "you can't change your biology" or similar, framing it as TruFax vs. political correctness. Recently, someone on the GMOLOL Facebook group, who I thought would know better, argued about "sexual dimorphism" in humans as though this was some inescapable reality. She ended with what was basically a strawman, claiming trans advocates think that "a small number of intersex people means sexual dimorphism does not exist." I did not engage her, as I did not wish to argue with someone with TERF sympathies in a derailed discussion, but it got me thinking about how poorly informed the public is about this topic. To someone not well-versed in biological sciences, this can be frighteningly convincing, making it important for us skeptics to promote scientific literacy in this area. In this example, her argument is bunk because sexual dimorphism consists of phenotypic differences, i.e. secondary sex characteristics. These can be changed with HRT, so human dimorphism is something we can control using medical science (and so not destiny). Another little nugget of info to use against the "But biology!" crowd is that actual biologists recognize no less than three types of biological sex: Genotypic (genetic), gonadal (genitals), and phenotypic (the aforementioned secondary sex characteristics). Phenotypic and to some extent gonadal sex can be changed, and while genetic sex can't be changed (as far as I know), biologists consider it the least important type when assessing the sex of animals, especially where it contradicts the other two. Anyway, I'm surprised there is little on this wiki in the way of debunking transphobic cargo cult science. It would be cool if we had a more thorough takedown of the transphobic argument cluster, perhaps similar to the FAQs we have on nuclear energy and GMOs. The One They Call Mars (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

could anyone tell me how to change wikipedia
seems like the wikipedia entry on radical feminism on terfs is incredibly biased in favor of them; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism#Views_on_transgenderism

what can i do?
 * More or less the same as you can do here - so long as you conform to WP:Neutrality. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

support of conversion therapies
Is there really going to be no examination of the common belief that people who advocate that effeminate men/masculine women should be converted and surgically/chemically altered is transphobia? Or is that out of bounds since there are official psychological associations that share such a bigoted view?
 * If you wish to add it, then go ahead and add it. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Add it Bazer63 (talk) 15:52, 04 January 2015 (UTC)

Transphobia and Non-bianry idenities
Someone should add a sextion on this. 15:52, 04 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One person one gender is the goal. I'm a transmenstrualhemorrhoidwouldbelabia and I deserve respect.145.64.134.245 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your argument is a ridiculous strawman on-face and you should know that. 15:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Truscum section
I didn't want to have to do this, but here's the talk page section. Call Gerard or one of your other monkeys to ban me if it becomes necessary, I don't care. I know that the section is horrible and I will stand by that view. If Aleksandra96 (I don't know how to usertag) wishes to rewrite it and justify their claims with faulty evidence then that's fine, but the section is snarky with no point of view because it presented nothing to view other than its own assertions, with no sources, links or even a "for example" clause.--23.116.173.152 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Autism?
I obviously don't believe autistic trans people are just following a special interest. I am autistic and trans myself. Gender is a special interest for me now, but only after I came out. Before that, I had a different special interest, but still woke up thinking I should be female, had gender dysphoria, and wanted to be a really convincing crossdresser because it was the closest thing to actually being female. Also, special interests are usually temporary, whereas gender identity is usually consistent.

But why would it matter if autistics were likely to be trans or have gender dysphoria (not the same thing)? Autistics are more likely to have depression, anxiety, OCD, epilepsy, and IBS. Nobody would say that this proves these disorders are just fixations or attempts to find acceptance. Maybe LGBTQIA+ communities should stop trying to distance themselves from the icky autistics?

Also, apparently, some people call themselves autigender. More power to them, I guess. Snokw (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

On removing quote
I suppose I should have stated my problem with the quote you have just restored before I had removed it. I have no idea what it does. Is it meant to express a sarcastic opinion of denialists? If so, is denialism the main problem to consider? I don't know. It seems obscure. Maybe replace it with a quote that makes a declarative statement instead of a riddle.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a sarcastic response to transphobes. However, I will agree that it may need some context in the quote attribution section In addition I'd like to point out that when you removed the quote for "lacking reference" (it does actually, in the link labeled "archived") you also removed the brainstar and the navbars. 14:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. I made a mistake there. I did not mean to remove anything but the quote. I should have discussed it first. Thanks.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed
We need a citation for the part that says “The evidence that transsexuals have chromosomal, neural, and even genital traits more similar to their identified sex than their assigned sex?” LuodiWang (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Transgender. 21:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I’m not seeing anything about chromosomal similarities. LuodiWang (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And I'm failing to see signatures on your posts... 21:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me. However, this is a classic example of the Whataboutism fallacy since you failed to address my original question and decided to chastise me for something completely unrelated to the original topic. LuodiWang (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read about the brain science, but I admit the chromosomal and genital stuff is new to me. 21:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m not even necessarily saying it’s wrong. I’d actually like to learn more about it if it means we can use it to fight transphobia. LuodiWang (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't whatabouism, merely me getting annoyed that you weren't signing your posts. 21:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It was also you outright ignoring me. REPEATEDLY. LuodiWang (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Neural, yes. I've seen no evidence for a statistically significant difference in chromosomal/genital resemblance to the identified gender among transgender individuals. Those statements should be removed. 23:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. 23:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So do we know who made that claim in the first place? LuodiWang (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter honestly. 00:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, but maybe we should find out if it is true or not. LuodiWang (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This information has been up for 5 five years. 13:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you saying we should re-add the now deleted content? 14:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We need to figure out why it was added in the first place. If there is truth to this content, it is important that we include it with the citations that verify it. LuodiWang (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "The evidence that transsexuals have chromosomal, neural, and even genital traits more similar to their identified sex than their assigned sex?" I'm not sure about the chromosome part, but neural and genital part is correct. For example, when a trans woman transitions, her brain becomes indistinguishably female. Sex reassignment surgery helps recreate a vulva, and just recently womb transplants can be done. However, for trans woman, she won't have a genetalia that's completely indistinguishable from a female. Recently, there was the first successful penis transplant where a trans man could shoot fertile sperm. The catch is that it's not the genetic data of the trans man but of the source male. As for anything scientific on this wiki, sourcing is key. I've posted studies at Talk:Transgender. 16:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a real problem with the statement is the fact that it is a quantitative comparison: X is more similar to Y than to Z. It is perhaps true sometimes and false other times. Here is an interesting article questioning the "current drive to stabilize and ‘sort out’ intersex classifications through a grounding in genetics." Ariel31459 (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Were any of you able to find any information on the part about chromosomes? LuodiWang (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Transitioning doesn't affect chromosomes (yet). It would require modifying every single cell's DNA. 20:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, but is it possible that trans people have SOME cells with sex chromosome pairs of their identified sex? Look at the freemartin, for example. A freemartin is basically an AFAB calf (mostly XX) that has masculinized behavior because of a few blood cells with Y chromosomes. LuodiWang (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The wikipedia article doesn't mention it happening for humans, aside from folklore and fiction. 01:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just looked at the article:
 * "Another report of a human chimera was published in 1998, where a male human had some partially developed female organs due to chimerism. He had been conceived by in-vitro fertilization."
 * So it affects intersex people it seems. Thanks for the lead. I take what I said back. 01:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

New section
I suggest adding an "Atheist Transphobia" section to this page. Atheist transphobes tend to see trans identity as something to be debunked and view trans people as either deceitful, delusional, or both. Atheist transphobes tend to believe in gender essentialism and see biological sex as something concrete, binary, and (if their not selective about their transphobia) fixed. Biological sex isn't a single factor but rather is made up of multiple different sex characteristics that don't always align even in cisgender people and most of which we have the technology to change; the only primary sex characteristic we don't have the technology to change is sex chromosomes (somebody please double-check me on that). Atheist transphobes will put on airs of intellectual superiority as they espouse prejudice. They might characterize trans acceptance as buying into mystical mind/body dualism or as indulging somebody in a fantasy. Although there is some evidence that suggests gender identity is a biological phenomenon, a definitive scientific explanation for transgenderism does not yet exist (somebody please double check me on that as well). Many atheist transphobes will try to pathologize transgenderism in order to deny the validity of trans identity. Atheist transphobia, especially transmisogyny, tends to intersect with prejudice against the mentally ill.
 * I'm not sure where the atheism part motivates transphobia though. What makes atheist transphobes different from the garden variety, as a lot of these beliefs you describe are, well, transphobia by pure definition? 17:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't this also be part of the article?
Several comments on the internet (mostly by transphobes), keep saying stuff like "If you're dating a tranny/fucking a tranny (this part comes from porn sites), then you're a fag. No straight man has sex with a fake woman!" Is it? TBH, I don't think a straight man who has sex with a trans woman, watching trans women porn or date a trans woman is gay or bi (unless they identify themselfs as being bisexual). The only argument these types of people bring forward is the "muh dick" argument, which isn't one to begin with imo. Some trans women get rid of that part aswell. Still going to call a heterosexual man that dates a trans woman, gay? Correct me I'm wrong on this. I did a google search once, and it gave me this article, which confirms my first impression on this matter. Gunther1987 (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Silver
Highly missional, especially now. Could be fleshed out more, but of course, that's going to be a bit of a fight. I endorse silver. 20:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Too many "citation needed" tags. Page needs work. 21:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Plz add that
Some rtansphobes like to bastardize trans people under 25, citing that their "brain develops under 25". The reality is that gender identity develops and becomes permanent at the age 4 and detransition rates of such young people are no lower or higher than those older and that those 18 years old are often old and developed enough and know their gender identity enough to consent for hormones and surgery. Being trans isn't some kind of decision - it is more about self-knowledge than a conscious decision.

After the age of 25, some changes become irreversible - that's exactly the type of psychological and bodily damage transphobes look for. Don't fall for this primitive propaganda. 212.51.219.245 (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Taboo against deadnaming
In the article, the following is asserted: "There is not a universal taboo against deadnaming in the LGBT community." This is false, at least as a prescriptive statement. If it's true as description, that's solely because transphobia is still rampant within the community as a whole, and not because deadnaming isn't seen as extremely harmful and hurtful. It is not acceptable to deadname trans people, full stop. The only exception is where the person in question is not out fully and needs you to maintain their false identity to whoever they're not out to, because another universal taboo in the queer community is against outing people without their consent. Referring to a trans person pre-transition is not licence to deadname them. Please amend the article to remove this (unintentional, I'm sure) horrible bit of transphobia. Thank you. Cereal chick (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

huge list of studies
https://www.reddit.com/r/196/comments/sigle7/science_rules/hva4yxd/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 04:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)