Talk:Transgender glossary

Work to do
What work is there to do? Any terms we're missing? Does this deserve bronze? 18:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How extensive should the glossary be? As for missing terms... Stealth? Clocking? Maybe. Dendlai (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I want to cover every single term. 21:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of terms, and I see there are quite a few more possible ones on http://www.tsroadmap.com/start/tgterms.html (not sure which of those are suitable for inclusion). Also Wikipedia, for example under or . --Yisfidri (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

More Fascist Overreach by GrammarCommie
Further bullying and illegitimate removal of valid edits by GrammarCommie on this page, without reason given. Defend your reversions or leave mine in place. --LogicalNerd (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are a very strange person as you seem to conflate Fascism with Communism. 23:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't strange to recognize the reality that most communist nations have been fascist in practice and, really, in virtually all but name. Regardless, defend your revisions or put mine back, or you are clearly guilty of fascist moderating. --LogicalNerd (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are a number of things wrong with your edit. First of all, you used "i.e." instead of "e.g." for a special case. GrammarCommies and GrammarFascists alike get steamed over that. Secondly, the sad story example you used itself would be atypical of a cis male as they generally are not concerned with reproduction. Thirdly, no one here cares about the drama. My advice to you is stick to editing non gender-related topics.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems to me either "i.e." or "e.g." would have been appropriate in this circumstance, no? I do realize that perhaps "e.g." would have been a better fit, but I don't think "i.e." was grammatically incorrect. Regardless, despite being a "GrammarCommie," he chose not to merely edit the syntax if that was deemed to be incorrect, but to remove my changes entirely. And on what basis are you basing the idea that a "cis male" wanting to date someone he could procreate with is by any means "atypical?" Citation needed. Oh, wait, here's the citation - turns out, you're wrong! :) I don't care about drama, either. I'm interested in science, logic, reason, and what can be measured - hence why I'm here on RationalWiki. Why are you posting here if you don't care about the drama? Thanks for the unsolicited advice, but I'll pass - I'm interested in scientific integrity and honesty, and this is one area where it seems to be severely lacking, both on this website and elsewhere. I am proud to do my part to change that, in the name of scientific reason. --LogicalNerd (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am going to assume that you are not a troll. i.e. and e.g. are not interchangeable. The former refers to an explanation, the latter an example. So, your grammar is OK, but your diction is at fault. Males are primarily interested in having sex, not reproduction, most of the time. I do not believe that requires a citation. That is not to say that men never want children, so your argument is specious. You need to get out more often.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I find it impossible to believe this edit: was made in good faith, so I'd go with troll. Dendlai (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't diction a matter of personal preference? I appreciate that it changes the meaning slightly, but if it was grammatically correct, then there's no error. Yes, I do believe your claim that men only want sex absolutely requires a citation, especially given that I already gave one that specifically and clearly shows that what you're suggesting is not only wrong, it's grossly wrong. I'm sorry that your personal experience on Tinder hasn't been great. Maybe you should try looking for men somewhere where they aren't all looking for a one night stand. However, this experience isn't representative of reality nor the majority of men, as evidenced by the link I gave in my previous post.
 * As for you, Dendlai, I am absolutely arguing in good faith. The lines I removed make a bold claim that speaks on behalf of all trans people, with no citation, presuming that all trans people - individual humans, not to be lumped together as if they were some kind of stereotypical conglomerate, mind you - have the same agenda. Given that I don't think one random (and extremely annoying, uneducated, and, apparently, completely incapable of logical, rational thought) trans person has the right to speak on behalf of an entire group of people, especially not without a citation, it's absolutely reasonable that I removed it. Perhaps you should cite your sources when making a bold claim - that might help them not get removed when they don't stand up to scrutiny. --LogicalNerd (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The term trap isn't related to transgenders
Just going to point this out
 * It's certainly not the same as being transgender, but it's somewhat related as a term used for some trans people. A small minority of trans people even refer to themselves as traps (usually if they work in the sex industry). The article should explain differences. --Annanoon (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The term originates from the same place (a 4chan thread about Bridget from Guilty Gear) but has seemingly sprung up with two different definitions after that. Amongst transphobes it is often used disparagingly to refer to trans people, yes, there is no denying that. The complication comes in with the anime fandom, where the term is used to refer to "Otokonoko" type characters (really simply put, male crossdressers or really feminine boys who by all accounts behave and act like girls). These characters often aren't written as trans and tend to still explicitly identify themselves by male pronouns (I can think of literally a single exception, and that is Re:Zero's Ferris, and that sole exception kinda proves the point I'm making here). These characters also tend to cause massive amounts of drama in anime communities whenever they are discussed, since well... these two definitions tend to cause confusion to people not super-familiar with anime terminology, but who often have experience with the term as it's used by transphobes. The result is that it brings out all the far righters in the anime community who proceed to try to apply the first definition to the people who complain about the term and sparks fly for a bit until it dies down again. To put it mildly, the term is pretty controversial in anime fandoms as well. Relating this back to transgender folks though, from talking with trans folks about the term, most folks I know personally are okay with the term if it's purely used to refer to those types of characters (but will find the term to be highly offensive when it's used on real human beings, which makes sense since.. well, what we have on the mainspace rn covers that pretty well I think). Maybe the section needs a clarification on that. 20:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ferris Argyle
He’s not trans. Stop trying to erase feminine men. I’m tired of people erasing my identity. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:88 / talk
 * The above may be unsigned, but it's also accurate. Felix (or Felis), who does often go by Ferris, isn't gay or trans.  He's just a demihuman cat-person who happens to have extremely effeminate looks, and who crossdresses.  At most he's a transvestite, not a transsexual.  And, well, in the anime he mostly does it to mess with people's minds, and to encourage the opposition to underestimate him.  The article needs correction. Kencolt (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nuked this one for irrelevancy reasons. There are loads of anime characters who play with gender roles, assignment and expectations who get used a lot by trans communities (usually at least one per season lately). There's not much that makes Re; Zeroes variant of this archetype stand out compared to the rest of them. 09:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Images?
Would it be useful to include an image or two of TERF dogwhistles being used "in the wild" on Twitter or Tumblr? Splainer (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It can be triggering or infuriating.--Delibirda (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Fair point! The section kind of unavoidably contains triggering content, though, since it's trying to document TERF dogwhistles. My suggestion wasn't to include a screenshot of TERF rhetoric, but of a seemingly unobjectionable Twitter/Tumblr bio, in order to illustrate the way dogwhistles work. For example: "🕸️Adult human female. I like books and K-dramas. 🕸️" It looks innocent at first glance, but if one is familiar with TERF dogwhistles, they can see the hidden message. Splainer (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Add.
Add "feminine dick", please.--Delibirda (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Time to split this article?
The "TERF terms" section seems to have grown long enough to warrant splitting it off into its own article. I also think it's less than ideal to have a trans glossary and a TERF glossary in the same article. That is, someone wishing to look up terms used by trans people and the trans-rights movement may not want to engage with TERF ideas, even in a critical and documentary context. Splainer (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Bump. "TERF terms" is growing increasingly long, and I think this option ought to be considered. Splainer (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is far too long. Splitting makes a lot of sense, the more obscure terms should just be removed as well but I’m not the person to do it. Christopher (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the terms on this page seem particularly obscure. They're all things I've encountered to some degree. In any case, obscurity is actually an argument in favor of inclusion. The point of a list of dogwhistles and codewords is to educate people about bigotted terms they might not know about or recognise otherwise. Splainer (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, a separate TERF glossary would be a good idea. TERFs are very inventive in their use of dogwhistles, so it's important to document them. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. TERFs are continuously inventing new dogwhistles in an attempt to fly under the radar. Like how they've recently shifted away from the chequered flag and the red square to using the UK suffragette colors (🟪⬜🟩). It's easy enough to see through their act if one is familiar with their tactics. But someone encountering the UK suffragette emojis on a Twitter profile without knowing much about TERF dogwhistles might not see anything out of place. Splainer (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

trap
"[the term trap was] based on the idea that trans women are just men disguised as women to have sex with men, and that dating (or merely being attracted to) a trans woman somehow makes one gay, because being gay is somehow bad. Keep in mind that because of this way of thinking, many people will refuse to enter relationships with trans people or will even murder them."

That last sentence surely needs a citation. There are other, presumably more prominent reasons why someone would not want to want to enter a relationship with a trans person. Similarly, I don't see the above as being a notable source of motivation for murder. Kauri0.o (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, it's not like gay/trans panic defense is something new, so "notable source of motivation for murder" is hardly controversial. The fact that "I found out the were trans, so I panicked and murdered them" has been enough of a thing to be explicitly banned as a legal defense in several US states. Dendlai (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The current framing implies people go out of their way to murder trans people because they think they are just men disguised as women to have sex with men etc etc. Your example of gay/trans panic is different; that is that people murder trans people after finding out they are trans; that is not necessarily the same as thinking they are just men disguised to have sex with women. There are any number of transphobic reasons why that might disgust or otherwise upset someone. Kauri0.o (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For full disclosure, I'm bi and I would not want to date a trans person. Kauri0.o (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The trans panic defense is a non-sequitur on saying that the word trap is a slur. 09:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Rewrote the entire section. It always was an eyesore to me. Before anyone tries to flame me; neither cis nor a male. The word is a complicated one to say the least with a lot of history behind it. 10:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well-written. Thankyou Kauri0.o (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Pickles
While I know that pickles are definitely a meme among trans circles, I'm not sure that's enough to warrant its inclusion in the article. It doesn't really have a meaning below surface level, and if we're adding memes, there are probably way more in trans circles that deserve inclusion (blåhaj, boymoder hoodie, etc), so I would lean against removing the section. armed_roomba (she/her) 19:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It was added in this diff, back when we had a few more memes listed on this page (most of which eventually got either de-memed into just being words such as Egg or were struck because of irrelevance such as Ferris Argyle). Personally I'm in favor of striking it. Memes are inherently contemporary and may be confusing after a while. I'll also remove the memes part from the header. -- Techpriest (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Those dumb neologisms should not be included here, they're only used by transpeople because they sound funny. There's also "turtle", "potato", "bee", "onion", "noodles", "banana", and while we're on the topic, "FART" aka Feminism-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobe solely exists because it is funny. I'm opposed to the inclusion of information like this in serious articles, especially as they're fads. After a while, everyone stops using them, rendering their usage as neologisms worthless. 12:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Can someone remove the "egg" section
Per the above discussion. It is a weird neologism that is only used because some folks find it funny. 12:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Slurs
Any reason why we have an entire section cataloging words that transgender people find offensive? Especially considering the overlap with TERF glossary I'd say the entire section should go. At this point the section works as a source for people looking for slurs. GeeJayK (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Consider me in for support. 04:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Quantumgeek333 (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While I'm in agreement that we shouldn't have a glossary that lists every transphobic slur under the sun, I think we should at least keep the "Trap is/may be a slur" discussion given how it pops up from time to time in weeb circles (and there isn't an entry for it in the TERF glossary). Maybe relabel it as "Trap (as a slur)" or something. Thoughts? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you. In fact almost pinged the author of the "trap" entry because that one is really good. GeeJayK (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that some of these removals were excessive. When such terms have been used within the trans community, more nuanced explanations could be given:
 * Cross-dresser: keep since there's a link to a main page. It's important to explain that cross-dressing is not inherently transsexuality.
 * Ladyboy/Kathoey: probably worth adding
 * Shemale: widely used in porn; it's not like someone looking for that slur is going to find it here. Also controversially used by RuPaul.
 * Tranny: not used in the trans community nowadays but it was widely used.
 * Transgenderism/Transgenderist: historical usage, not strictly a slur
 * Trap: keep
 * The slurs can further be explained in the historical evolution of the trans community from marginalization to mainstream. Slurs were more commonly used within the community to toughen each other up in the marginalization era (I recall this was the case from Andy Warhol's films), similar to African Americans' Bongolian (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose to these suggestions, but I don't have time nor knowledge to make the changes. I also think that, since these words aren't so offensive, we can add them on the "terms" section instead of using the "slurs" label. My main concern was in fact with words like "troon", which I believe are only used by TERFs and the alt-right. GeeJayK (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I will put the ones that I suggested into the main list unless there are any objections.Bongolian (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As the author of the trap section (hi I have the page watchlisted); yeah feel free to integrate it in the article itself as a term. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm done for now if anyone wants to review what I did. Bongolian (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Newhalf?
I recently bumped against this word. Never heard of it before and after doing a google search, I found a topic on Reddit where most found it disrespectful. But that topic is 10 years old, so I don't know if this still is seen as a slur. 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:95B6:CE0F:72C8:4FBF (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fairly sure newhalf is a term mostly used in Japan right now, though I couldn't tell you how respectful it is. It's 100 percent more kind than the word Okama, but that's a subject of its own. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 18:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Kathoey (ladyboy)
Is this considered offensive? I believe "ladyboy" is generally considered offensive by most people in the west; and the Wikipedia page suggests it's derogatory too. I'm not qualified to say whether this term should be removed from the glossary, but a note could be added to indicate if it's derogatory/offensive. --Annanoon (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether it's offensive depends on context: Most notably, who is using it, and how? As a general rule, I suggest using culturally-specific terms like "kathoey" or "two-spirits" only when one is part of that culture, or when describing a person of that culture who explicitly identifies with that term. Otherwise, at best you're probably missing a lot of nuance — such terms do not map perfectly to ideas and expectations of other cultures and subcultures — and at worst you're being grossly offensive. Heywood (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Should we split out AFAB, AMAB, and AGAB into their own sections?
AFAB, AMAB, and AGAB are all combined into one section (partly my fault, since I just added AGAB) and the section simply redirects to "Sex assignment at birth". Sex assignment at birth, on the other hand, is a bit unwieldy at present. I wonder if it might be better to give AFAB, AMAB, and AGAB their own succinct entries, each including "See Sex assignment at birth." Thoughts and opinions are welcome. Heywood (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)