| There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with |
Talk:Transmisogyny/Archive1
Citation needed[edit]
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[citation needed] and we can collectively get round to it eventually. ·FemiliskSJ 14:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Does basic shit need citations?[edit]
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 We do not cite that cis people are actually cisgendered, we do not need to cite that trans women do not benefit from male privilege, that is totally fucked up.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;DRwalls 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'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.
Don'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. ·FemiliskSJ 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'Blivion (talk) 03:15, 31 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. ·FemiliskSJ 18:10, 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