From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon gender.svg

This Gender related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.



I think, according to this, "transgender" is the general term, while "transexual" is more specific and referring to the ones who have gone out of their way to get sugery.!ebafaL It's still confusing and this could need further clarification in the article. ArmondikoVtheist 08:54, 17 February 2009 (EST)

I've found that the main difference between the terms is just cultural/historical. Transexual is an older term, and has fallen out of fashion with younger trans people in the US, but is still widely used in the UK. Historically it seems to have been a term used by most trans people, especially Binary trans people, regardless of whether they had/were going to transition or not. The main reason it was dropped from what I've read is that it implies that being trans has something to do with one's sexuality, rather than it being an identity focused on just gender. — Unsigned, by: / talk
I'm trans and hover in trans circles - the main reason people don't use it anymore is because it very often used in the context of medical gatekeeping and people who actively want to exclude nonbinary people from "transgender" (often referred to as 'truscum'). And yes, the association with sexuality is another reason - remembering that this is used as a method of attacking transgender rights by branding us as sexual predators (similar to how LGB+ people are attacked) ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ talk 01:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The article ends with "Go forth and be inadvertently offensive no more.". Based on my experience, it is completely impossible to not offend transgendered people. They are quite totalitarian. -- (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC) hell, just looking at the "topics" makes my head spin. Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 21:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
@137, maybe transgender people wouldn't be so offended by you if you weren't so transphobic. (((Zack Martin))) 19:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Transgender is preferred by some young transsexual people because there is a lot of historical baggage with the term "transsexual". Activist Janet Mock reports use of the two terms as interchangeable for her. Transgender is offensive to some older transsexual people because it implies that the issue is with their gender; this sometimes seems to come down to whether one perceives trans- as a prefix meaning "to change to" or "to be" on the other side of something. Use of either term inappropriately can be offensive, despite the general tendency towards "transgender" as an umbrella label that includes transsexuals.
Given that "trans" is a perfectly valid adjective, asking people their preferred term is acceptable and generally speaking there's no context in which you should just, like, use the word to describe someone at random, it's really not that much of a problem. Note however that wikipedia, like this wiki, has basically no transgender edittors, so it's unsurprising that they're confused. (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Except for the one who started this page (me). Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 02:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
And the three others that I'm aware of. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 10:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Added a comment on pronouns and genitals before the bit about not giving offence. Perhaps it'll help some people to be less offensive? Anarchic teapot (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding in Essay:The Biblical position on transgenderism[edit]

I'm not sure where to put this, if anywhere. Should we have a separate article on the Bible and transgenderism or put all of this information together? FuzzyCatPotato of the Lovely Cabinets (talk/stalk) 18:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

How "rational" is the point of view here?[edit]

Sex is biological. Gender is, according to the RW page, cultural and sociological. There is some evidence that indicates transgendered individuals have certain brain features similar to what they claim as their gender identity (i.e. the opposite biological sex), but the concept of gender identity itself seems nebulous and resistant to empirical inquiry. That is to say, unscientific. Flabb (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)|Flabb

What about gender identity do you think is resistant to empirical inquiry? Obviously neuroscience isn't. FuzzyCatPotato of the Lovely Cabinets (talk/stalk) 18:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Neuroscience certainly isn't, but there's a basic methodological or definitional problem. The claim is that "transgender" and "intersex" are different things; intersexuality is a biological condition where a single individual possesses genotypical or phenotypical characteristics of both sexes, whereas transgenderism is a mismatch between biological sex and (mental? spiritual? sociocultural?) gender identity. The problem is that neuroscientific evidence, assuming it is accurate and reliable, falls firmly on the "intersex" side of the conceptual distinction being made. In other words, if there are such things as male brains and female brains, and someone who is e.g. genotypically and/or phenotypically female has a male brain, wouldn't that be a type of intersex condition?
The point is, neuroscientific evidence--or any other kind of scientific evidence--necessarily involves measurable, physical quantities, which means we're talking about biology. If you posit the existence of some kind of "gender identity" over and above biology, how is that different from positing the existence of some kind of "soul" or "spirit" over and above biology? Isn't that more or less exactly what is being implied in the idea of "two-spirit" (which has a currently empty page linked to in the body of the article?--Flabb (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
(1) I don't think that people propose that transgenderism and being intersex are necessarily exclusive. Do we say so, somewhere? I think it makes sense that intersex people (mental-physical mismatch) may wish, for their own mental health, to rearrange their physical self to match their mental self.
(2) See above. FuzzyCatPotato of the Lovely Cabinets (talk/stalk) 20:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Well the page on "Intersex" notes that intersexuality "is generally distinguished from transsexualism." That page needs attention as well, but it is accurate, I think, insofar as these two conditions are usually distinguished, precisely in terms of natural or biological phenomena. Intersexuality is a physical condition with quantifiable effects; transgenderism--defined in terms of "gender identity" as opposed to neuroanatomy--is not.--Flabb (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
What scientific literature can you point to that suggests that gender expectations in society is a strictly biological phenomenon? I'd hate to disagree with evidence. Ikanreed (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm a little unclear on what you're asking for. My understanding is that gender expectations are *not* biological, so for example there is nothing biological motivating the expectation that women will wear skirts or men will wear pants.--Flabb (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I'm being unfair. The thing is there's nothing irrational about giving people some leeway on stupid simplistic bio-deterministic shit society expects. Discussing some of the related science for the more general social problems is a way of edifying and clarifying. Ikanreed (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh I totally agree that there is nothing irrational about giving people the leeway to defy the conventions associated with sex roles. On the contrary I think it's important! What I'm questioning, what I think is irrational, is the idea that there is some kind of "gender identity" (i.e. "male spirit" or "female spirit") that exists over and above biological sex, independently of physical reality.--Flabb (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Social constructs aren't fictitious, and they're subjective. Discussing them is relevant in that it establishes a framework to provide meaning and context to the hard facts we do have. Which are relevant to mission because there's a lot of misrepresentation of those facts that create the social constructs being defied by trans people. Without gender roles of any sort in the picture, transgenderism doesn't mean anything. But not everything can be approached from that sterile view. Ikanreed (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Social constructs may be real in the sense that they are available as objects of critical analysis, but that doesn't make them real in the sense that atoms are real. Right?
In any case I agree with you that this issue is relevant to mission, precisely because so many religious and/or conservative people misrepresent the facts. But my understanding is that there is a difference between "gender roles" and "gender identity," namely that gender roles are social constructs (which is why they can be analyzed and subverted), but gender identity is unconstructed, immaterial, and inherent. Which to me makes it sound like a "soul" or "spirit."--Flabb (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I cannot possibly give you an answer that is both fully precise and fully accurate. Ikanreed (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
What do you perceive to be the conflict between accuracy and precision?--Flabb (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The aforementioned social subjectivity. Those phrases don't have concrete meanings that are universal, the way, say "momentum" would. That doesn't mean there's no distinction, just that you can't be precise about it. Ikanreed (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I think we're on the same page, because I wouldn't go so far as to say that the fact that something is socially constructed entails that it is nonexistent tout court. Certainly gender roles are real insofar as they have a real, and in many ways quantifiable, effect on people's lives.
But to back away a bit from pure abstraction--and perhaps sacrifice some precision for the sake of accuracy--isn't it correct to note that the quality of being socially constructed is precisely what distinguishes gender role from gender identity? On the account with which I am personally most familiar, gender identity is supposed to exist entirely independently from either a) your physical body or b) society's expectations of you. On the "Genderbread Person" it is graphically represented as being "in the head," but this strikes me as problematic for the reasons I've been discussing with FuzzyCatPotato above; in brief, it would render transgenderism nothing more than a particular, neuroanatomic form of intersex condition.
(Also, just as a side note, I'm not sure what the etiquette is for nesting replies. Do we just keep going? Do we restart with the colons at some point, just to make it easier for ourselves and others to keep track of the discussion?)--Flabb (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here's how you outdent. Nobody wants 4 character wide columns of text. As to the more general distinction, gender identity is, for all intents and purposes, what seems right about themselves for any given person. It comes from an intuition and sense of self. And there's some correlations of that intuition to some neurological characteristics. Gender roles are more about what people tend to think a given gender should do. Ikanreed (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me that!
As to the topic at hand... have you looked at the RW page for "Intuition"? If you haven't, I highly recommend that you do. "Intuition" is at cross purposes to a rational epistemology. And that's the broader point I'm trying to make: if there is some correlation between certain neurological characteristics and the feeling of gender dysphoria, all that does is make gender dysphoria (or, to be more precise, that specific kind of gender dysphoria) into a neurologically-based type of intersex condition. It doesn't categorically preserve "gender identity" as something with its own ontological existence, precisely because gender identity can only ever be "intuited" (as opposed to identified through empirical means).--Flabb (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
So I've been having the same kind of thoughts as Flabb, but have never said anything on the subject because I suspected I sounded to everybody else like the homophobic people do to me. Transgender is something I can understand even if I am not one, there is no reason to confine people to societal gender constructs. Being Transsexual however makes less sense to me. How can you need a different gendered body? (Ignoring the societal aspect which falls under my opinion on Transgender) I can't see how it makes any more sense than the Otherkin, saying they have animal souls. Madattak (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Aha! I see that calling this site "Rational" Wiki was a joke![edit]

Nothing about transgenderism is actually rational. It's delusional. Enjoy your aut0gynephi1ia, "Rational" Wiki. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I thought this was supposed to be a RATIONAL wiki!!!!!! Scribbinus (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Saved from the edit filter, to test the edit filter. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 16:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your informed and well-evidenced opinion. Do UCSF know you're using their network to spread hate speech? Anarchic Teapot (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Do we need the how to?[edit]

This page is fairly well written, but does it need the WikiHow style topic at the end? As far as I'm aware, this isn't an instruction manual, and users should be linked to some sort of howto located elsewhere. (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Brain Development[edit]

By constantly thinking you are the opposite gender can't you change your brain development? I mean like how you can become sick by thinking you are sick. I haven't seen any studies on it so I'm wondering if you can change yourself during development by thinking in a certain way, thus causing certain hormones to be triggered.--(ノ°Д°)ノʇsədɯəꓕ nɹnɯıꓤRimuru Slime.png 17:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that transgenderism is psychosomatic I fear you're barking up the wrong tree. Very real symptoms caused by stress or anxiety (and which disappear when the cause of said stress is removed) are not the same as very real symptoms which cannot (yet) be scientifically explained. It is more than likely that transgenderism, like intersex conditions, has a number of causes. AS for your question about mentally changing your own hormone levels, the answer is no. Anarchic Teapot (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


There is a brief mention on the Trans-exclusionary radical feminism page about prevalence of transgender people and a discussion on the talk page. The article gives a prevalence as 1 in 30,000, but there are clearly a wide variety of different studies on this and it will depend on the questions asked, survey population and methodology and general extrapolation issues. However, giving the prevalence in that article seems to me to be out of place and it should more appropriately be put in here. I suggested there that it might be good to simply list a number of studies and what they conclude rather than picking one figure. Thoughts? Zeno (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Spriggina (beszélgetés) (közreműködés) @ 02:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The more accurate our articles are the better. Comrade GC (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting study[edit]

It seems trans people are more likely to have ADD.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting article.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 04:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Studyチーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 04:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
So, is this evidence that gender is not a social construct? Does it matter?Ariel31459 (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

When discussing non-binary peoples sexuality[edit]

I've honestly heard more people call themselves gay or lesbian than gynophiles or androphiles, so i'm not sure how necessary that line is about most enby's using those terms. Also the term MOGAI is a big can of worms within the LGBT+ community, I wouldn't say it is as much a shortening of LGBT+ as they have the same number of characters, and its more a very specific part of the internet which doesnt always get along with the larger LGBT+ community — Unsigned, by: / talk

Transgender people and autism[edit]

I found some articles that suggest a link between gender dsyphoria:

Between 8 and 10 percent of children and adolescents seen at gender clinics around the world meet the diagnostic criteria for autism, according to studies carried out over the past five years, while roughly 20 percent have autism traits such as impaired social and communication skills or intense focus and attention to detail. Some seek treatment for their gender dysphoria already knowing or suspecting they have autism, but the majority of people in these studies had never sought nor received an autism diagnosis. What’s more, roughly the same numbers of birth males and females appear to be affected — which is surprising, given that in the general population, autism skews male.

Any thoughts on this?—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Another articleチーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't check the link. Did they rule out any potential confounding factors (such as people with autism more likely to be aware of the transgender community)? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 05:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Nope.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 02:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Apart from supposing dysphoria and autism might have a common causal ancestor, I don't know what to think about these reports. Would such a connection upset some applecarts if it were correct? If so, I don't see why. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure these studies can be used to invalidate trans people and let people to lump them with otherkin.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 02:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Otherkin? As in the "people-who-believe-they're-fae-so-White-Wolf-had-to-tell-them-that-Changeling:The-Dreaming-isn't-a-confession-that-WW-are-also-reincarnated-fae" otherkin? RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes and cis people will and have argued that trans people are just like otherkin. I never said it was a valid argument, it's just that I'm sure people will use these articles to fuel their transphobia, while totally disregarding that 10% of trans people are estimated to be autistic.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 02:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Otherkin is fantasy play isn't it? A real person believes they are an unreal animal-person. That seems quite different. Also, being autistic is far from a delusional condition. It seems to me that the connection, if it exists, is further proof of the validity of transgender conditions.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Added some stuff debunking the detransition - and I would like to give credit to this reddit comment for collecting the sources I used. ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ talk 09:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarification on brain science[edit]

Within this section we have:

"as transgender individuals' brain structures may have a strong resemblance to the brains of their identified gender"

This gives me a nice warm feeling and all, but feels disingenuous. The quotes and evidence supplied show a far more complex answer, not simplified preferred sex "brain resemblance". If such a conclusion could have been made, it would have been. Could we stick to being genuine with the articles wording and remove this line, sticking to the published conclusions? (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This comment was a while ago, but it could still do with improvement. There may be some resemblances, which are worth mentioning, but it's all contested, so "strong" is an overstatement. Also trans people's brains are "quite peculiar"???? You wouldn't say that about other minority groups. --Annanoon (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

List of transgender people at the bottom[edit]

Why is only Laura Jane Grace listed with her deadname? I mean, aside from that being kinda shitty, it's not consistent with the rest of the list entries. — Unsigned, by: Gwenhope / talk / contribs

Could this article use a discussion on the etiquette of deadnaming?Ariel31459 (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Removed. I don't understand why that nonsense was in the article to start with. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Nonbinary flag[edit]

The nonbinary flag should prob be added to the gallery --Cheb (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it different from the gender queer flag? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 07:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ talk 09:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Nonbinary-flag.svg ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ talk 09:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

City Hall oppressing trans people[edit]

[1] Is this OK? Trans Crusader (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by ok? RationalHindu (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Jessica Yaniv[edit]

With the recent comments by Really-Edgy Gervais bringing her back into the public light, should we have a bit mentioning Jessica Yaniv, and how conservative/alt-right/TERF-y publications are using her as nutpicking against Trans acceptance? This discussion in Canadaland and This Medium article provide some info about her. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)