Talk:Transmisogyny/Archive1

Citation needed
Hey I have some citations for violence against transwomen of color as compared to white transwomen if that is what is needed. However the citations I have do not reference hypersexualization directly.-Dgener8 (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Add those for sure, and just leave the and we can collectively get round to it eventually. 14:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sweet I have one for the gender presentation too.-Dgener8 (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I totally misunderstood you, I meant leave leave the citation needed on the ones you don't have references for. Silly me! No worries, rectified. 14:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Does basic shit need citations?
Let me lay it straight here-- it is not an 'assertion' that trans women are women, and not men, and thus are not treated like men by society. This is not debatable, trans women of color suffer the highest rates of murder in the USA, they are locked out of housing, they are discriminated against in hiring, they do not enjoy the privileges that men enjoy. You do not need a citation, I feel, to assert that trans women are women, and not men. Trans women are constantly told to justify that they are in fact women and not men, all the time, by society, every day, by nearly everyone. We do not cite that cis people are actually cisgendered, we do not need to cite that trans women do not benefit from male privilege, that is totally fucked up. I understand the need to source and cite things to make sure they are true, but the idea that people are really the genders they say they are and are treated as such by society that accepts/rejects them is something totally unquestioned for every cis person talked about on the site. We don't need to cite if cis women suffer misogyny, that's basic shit we all know is true, we do not need to cite if trans women suffer transmisogyny. ±KnightOfTL;DR walls of text while-u-wait 15:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Does basic shit need citations? Probably not, though no harm done by citing stuff. The question you're missing here, though, is that the entire category of trans-related issues is not necessarily "basic shit" for people who don't spend a fair amount of time reading/researching/doing activism on behalf of trans issues. The following is anecdotal evidence, for sure, but I have had numerous conversations with people, especially people of an older generation, who really have no idea what trans means, besides some vague notion of hermaphrodism. I know lots of basically well-educated people who do not have a meaningful understanding of the difference between sex and gender, people whom if you told them gender was a construct or performative, whould screw up their faces in a confused look and say "huh?". What is "basic shit" to some is advanced theory to others, and there is no harm -- especially on a website where these sorts of questions are, to some people. pretty far off the mark of the core questions that drove the original concept of the project -- in turning simple assertions into well-documented arguments with evidence. Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if you've had the privilege of higher education and a peer group for which these things are important, then they are trivial and obvious. But not to most people, because most people don't actually have that. They sit around, assume sex and gender are the same concept, know nothing of the non-biary genders or sexualities outside "straight" and "gay" and think it's a kerffufle over nothing. To them it's not trivial and basic. You're also misunderstanding the point of citations on RW, as we do allow original research and synthesis of new ideas and opinions, which is to provide readers to more information on a subject that may not be suitable for the article or might be written differently, or just to credit people with a good write-up on the subject. They also do go a long way to making it look like we aren't just pulling things out of their arses. The fact tags are almost always placed for that reason, not because the actual factual status of an assertion has been questioned. Scarlet A.png't click here 16:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with the point KnightOfTL;DR is making. But also agree that adding references in certain places is useful as a "please for the love of goat read more on this topic" prompt. However, the important point was that we don't specifically need references that "cis women suffer misogyny". Duh, we don't. We definitely don't, in fact all we need is to link to misogyny somewhere in this article (done). So, yes, we do need links to feminist articles outside RW to help the uninitiated, but no point specifically having references for misogyny when that article exists. 18:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Two years ago, I would have had no idea what a "cis women" was. I imagine many of the people I know have no idea what a "cis woman" is. As this is not GenderIssuesWiki, editors need to assume that many readers will not have the specialized knowledge that drives many of the arguments in these sorts of articles. Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't disagree on this. Not sure why cis needs a reference, though. It can easily be explained on the RW itself and then have further reading. 10:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a cisgender article.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 *  that's basic shit we all know is true [citation needed]. Acei9 11:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I mean. We have an article we can link to. 20:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Gender presentation
The way its worded is unique to trans women, while others face parallel issues they are for different reasons and have different effects while on the surface appearing similar. Sorry but being accused of men pretending to be women is just not something that happens to trans men. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Laurelai / talk / contribs
 * Fair enough.
 * Also:
 * In addition: Please watch out for "its" vs. "it's".
 * Nullahnung (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The way it's worded is "This kind of horrible catch 22 is unique to trans women". We could say that this specific catch 22 is specific to trans women, but when talking about that kind of catch 22, I don't see it as dissimilar to the situation faced by trans women - being accused of being women pretending to be men seems pretty comparable to being accused of being men pretending to be women.  07:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In theory, that parallel makes sense, but I'm not aware of trans men coming under that kind of scrutiny, and I think it's because of the way society perceives masculine and feminine behavior. Masculinity takes many forms; there is less pressure on a trans man to conform to one specific "type" of masculinity than for a trans woman to conform to a particular form of femininity.  Think about your typical sitcom:  a cast of men with wildly different personalities, but one woman who is just The Chick.  Our culture sees masculinity as heterogeneous and femininity as homogeneous, so deviation from a norm is more permissible in men (so long as they don't embrace femininity).   07:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But there is also pressure on cis women to conform to a particular form of femininity. 07:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but without the threat of not being considered a "real woman" underlying it, or at least not to nearly the same extent.  07:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Y-yeah. I'm pretty sure tomboys, while facing some amount of pressure to be more feminine I'm sure, are still considered cool/desirable/acceptable, or at least moreso than effeminate men. It's a different kind of pressure and similarly to that maybe we should also just consider the pressure that trans women and the pressure that trans men face as different kinds. Nullahnung (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the points you all are bringing up are the very crux of the whole issue- and don't have a solution that you are looking for, because it is at the core of why gay men are harrassed, and trans women vs., trans men (if I'm using the terms right). Giving up your penis is about the single worst thing you can do in this society, cause it's saying you don't want to be the NORM, you are choosing to be the Weak, the Evil (as in Eve), the oppressed.  I suspect there is some level of harassment against women who become men as "pretenders" or "fake" or "trying to get a leg up" in society, though I don't know.  but the harassers *understand* it, because who wouldn't want to be the Privileged white male.  To deny yourself the privileged - well that's just sick and wrong! My own personal view of this article and conversation is that we shouldn't try to fix and balance it, but treat it as what it is, a place for discussion of theories about gender in our culture.  Just my 3 cents.One tin soldier (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't try to fix it? Surely addressing misconceptions deeply rooted in culture is bang on mission? 15:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From speaking to trans friends, the bigots view transmen as women dressed up and therefore mere women, just as they view transwomen as men dressed up but less than real men (and never mind their penises twitching). YMMV big time, of course - David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Degendering?
Is degendering primarily a media representation issue or is it broader? Is the media text in the article just a good example and not the sole degendering issue? MarmotHead (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Its broader. --Laurelai (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's definitely broader. I would argue that it affects both transgender men and transgender women negatively (for instance, the "lumping together" of transgender people often leads to the presumption that the only transgender people are transgender women, in turn leading to identity erasure of transgender men) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No im afraid thats not how it works. Umbrella terms set the default as center, read Heterosexualism and the Colonial / Modern Gender System --Laurelai (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)