Talk:Trans woman: Difference between revisions

A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth.

What does that exactly mean? she was assigned male although she was female? she was male and after transition became female? is she still male? If a baby born with vulva is assigned male by a bureaucratic error and identifies as female later in life, will she be a trans woman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgebox4 (talk • contribs)

As I have tried to explain before and your comment gets at, the current definition does a poor job of educating readers on what the topic actually is. Sources usually use another family of definitions which emphasize the crucial concept of gender identity. See them at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions and feel free to add sources to that list for future discussions. Most do however use the "assigned male..." terminology; I get why this could confuse, but calling it "assignment" is more the 'fault' of the sources than of us, so there's not much we could do. At least we have the wikilink there to explain it. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's one possibility I've thought of: A trans woman was assigned male at birth and identifies as a woman. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Jorgebox4 honestly maybe a better definition would be preferable in the lead. Or maybe we could add more definitions.

But, anyway I can understand why you have issues with the definition. We just live in those times.CycoMa (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the current first sentence A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth it is brief, clear and unambiguous. Transwomen not only identify as a women, but they are recognised as women in many other ways, such as equality and civil rights laws and other ways. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Why not add more definitions? Maybe we can give more of an explanation to readers.CycoMa (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:MOSLEAD tells us that a lead section is a concise overview of the article's topic, it needs to be simple and straightforward to grab the wide range of readership. MOS:FIRST states that The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information can be placed elsewhere. The are a number of definitions at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions, but essentially they are all fairly similar as to not warrant unnecessarily confusing the reader with slight variations of the same wording. However looking again at the definitions on that page, it does appear that identity/identifies is included in about 3/4s of the explanations/clarifications and thus Crossroads (talk · contribs)' suggested wording change certainly does have merit. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

And I am going to say that "identifies as X" does not, in this context, carry the same connotations as "has X as a gender identity", so it is misleading to add up sources formulated in those two different ways as though they were saying the same thing. In particular, "identifies as" offers subtle support for the "unverifiable and unfalsifiable" characterization discussed at Gender identity, which is not at all the mainstream position presented by the best sources. Newimpartial (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the phrasing "identifies as a woman" is problematic, but I don't think it's conceptually distinct from "has a female gender identity". All the sources say something along the lines of "[male sex assignment] BUT [female gender identity]", so a similar construction seems due here, as long as it doesn't tacitly cast doubt on the validity of trans identities. I think some variant of Option 2 from the 2018 RFC is worth revisiting. How about the obvious choice, A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth but has a female gender identity. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 21:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

See below; as first disclosed last year, I now favor a slightly different construction, for reasons that are related to a recent convo on Talk:Transgender. Female gender includes more than female gender identity, and I have come to see that as a good thing. Newimpartial (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm also not really sold on "is a person of the female gender who..." as the first sentence. It strikes me as a slightly unusual synonym for woman, while still tacitly categorizing trans women as something other than women. None of the sourced definitions use that particular phrasing, so I'm not sure it's due here. If possible please link me to that prior discussion. Right now I still prefer either the status quo, or some formulation of "is a woman who ____ but ____." RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 22:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Last year's discussion is also linked below. While yes, person of the female gender is a synonym for woman, it is a more specific synonym - which has certain advantages in this instance. Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia - the only encyclopedia that cannot come up with a reasonable definition of a transgender woman that anyone can edit... Tewdar (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

How about "blah blah blah with a female gender identity whose sex at birth was discerned/determined to be male" or something like that? Tewdar (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I still prefer people of the female gender who were assigned male at birth, for the reasons I provided near the conclusion of last year's inconclusive discussion. Also, we don't have sources for discerned/determined, as far as I know. Newimpartial (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Just expand the definition of "sex assignment" using some RS then. "Male sex whatevered at birth, female gender" seems fine. Tewdar (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The term assignment is used by nearly all the 30 odd definitions gathered at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions, the is one registered and one designated. Lucky the is an article Sex assignment so a wiki link might be helpful, though article is only C rated atm. I still also prefer the simplicity of people of the female gender who were assigned male at birth ^{I meant to quote the current lead first sentence A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth. but a person of the female gender has merit} other things can be expanded in the article. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC) ^{corrected ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)}

"People of the female gender" sounds a bit ridiculous to me...I guess it's "assigned" or "designated" then. Tewdar (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe try gender if you are confused? The term can refer to gender identity, or gender expression, or other things in other contexts. Newimpartial (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

What makes you think I'm confused? "People of the female gender" sounds affected and pompous. There's no problem with "female gender" at my end, though. Thank you for assuming that I don't know that female can refer to gender, FFS... Tewdar (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I was responding to I guess it's "assigned" or "designated" then. (I was trying to AGF.) What was that intended to express, if not confusion? Newimpartial (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I meant the lede is probably going to be restricted to a choice between "assigned male at birth" or "designated male at birth". Why do you sound so disproportionately hostile and needlessly aggressive all the time, FFS? Tewdar (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

FFS. Newimpartial (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what Noam Chomsky wrote when he replied to my email the other day. He must be an academic, too... Tewdar (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Facial Feminization Surgery is indeed relevant to some trans women but not the lead sentence. Heh. Anyway, above "is a woman who was assigned male at birth but has a female gender identity" was suggested, but this is redundant by repeating the point of "woman/female". I knew that anything with "is a person" would face pushback by some saying it implicitly excludes trans women as women, which I why my suggestion avoided it, but I note that almost all of the 3/4 of the definitions that emphasize gender identity say something just like it, because they go on to explain in the rest of the sentence. I also don't agree that "identifies as" implies anything bad; another way is "has the gender identity of a woman", but that seems awkward.

What are the thoughts on this: A trans woman has a female gender identity but was assigned male at birth. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds alright I suppose. The problem is, "assigned" to non-initiated readers sounds like it might have been a mistake as seen in OP. Perhaps we can find a way of paraphrasing "assigned male at birth" in the lede? Also, it fails to include the slogan "a trans woman is a woman" so, for the sake of facial feminization surgery, it might not be acceptable. But it's better than the current lede IMO. Tewdar (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of slogans, they don't help people understand the topic; slogans by design are for political action, not education. I don't think getting rid of "assigned" is feasible since very many of the definitions use that term and it is fairly common at present for transgender topics. Even if it were possible, that would be too much of an ask for one RfC to change that also.

Newimpartial, what are your thoughts on this proposal? It's close to what you had accepted last time this was debated. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

That was two iterations ago; last year I moved to female gender-based formulations and there I remain, for reasons I have explained recently (and repetitively). Newimpartial (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

But "gender" can be an ambiguous term. The crucial sense here is gender identity, as laid out by very many of the definitions. It isn't mere gender expression alone or anything else. Bodney, since you earlier expressed some tentative support for a formulation that mentions gender identity, what do you think of this exact formulation I gave a short bit ago A trans woman has a female gender identity but was assigned male at birth.

And as far as Aquillion's comment below me: I wasn't expecting to change it without an RfC. I just had some new ideas and wanted to get a feel for how they could be received. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

My view is a bit fluid atm I like current lede sentence because of its unquestioning simplicity, but I can see merit in both yours and Newimpartial (talk · contribs)'s, a person of the female gender who were assigned male at birth and RoxySaunders (talk · contribs)'s A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth but has a female gender identity. But i need rush away in rl. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Statistics Canada is far from being the only source to invoke gender expression as well as gender identity in this context. I prefer to take the longer view, here. Newimpartial (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Not seeing a problem with the current lead, and since the relevant part of it was the result of an RFC with really massive attendance I think we'd probably need another RFC if it was going to be changed. The terminology is fairly standard and I'm not convinced from the discussions that it's causing any serious confusion; obviously it is not possible to condense every possible aspect of gender-identity and the issues surrounding it into a single well-formed sentence, but this phrasing is quite standard by now and summarizes it adequately. --Aquillion (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Well, let's compare Britannica's entry for 'transgender': "term self-applied by persons whose gender identity varies from that traditionally associated with their apparent biological sex at birth." Okay, it might not be the most bleeding-edge or hyper-inoffensive definition available, but it does succeed in doing what an encyclopedia should be doing - giving me a basic outline of what the bleddy article is about. Tewdar (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Or The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies entry for trans men: "Trans men are people who were designated female at birth but who identify and often live their lives as men" (the *trans women* entry is much less clear, however) Tewdar (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Notice "designated", not "assigned" Tewdar (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Why not add more entries to the sub-page? Newimpartial (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Because those entries are not, strictly speaking, definitions of "trans women". Tewdar (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Strictly speaking I fail to see how your chosen definitions are any more than minor wording differences in comparison to existing collected list of definitions. To state that the two you have personally chosen are the true definitions and the many slightly different variations collected by other editors are not definations, is to (put it extremely mildly) highly questionable. While sex designation is not bad, assignment is a far more universally recognised term and because of this the is an article on Sex assignment, the is not one on Sex designation. As respectfully recommended, the 2 definitions you found should be simply added to the list at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions, nothing more. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  I think Tewdar was saying that the two definitions he wrote here are not definitions of “trans woman”, but are rather for “transgender” and “trans men”. The subpage says This page is only for listing definitions of trans woman., so he did not add them. POLITANVM ^talk 13:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed, that is exactly what I am saying. I have no idea how any other interpretation is possible. "The two you have personally chosen are the true definitions" - where was this stated? They probably do a better job defining their respective topics than we manage on this article, however. Tewdar (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, perhaps the phrase "those entries" may have been a little ambiguous... Tewdar (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely sparkling crystal clear, many of the definitions on the Trans woman/Definitions page are perfectly acceptable and are an improvement on the current lede, IMHO. Tewdar (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Tewdar, how exactly does the SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies define trans woman? Do you have a link to it for the subpage? Google Books is being uncooperative. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, hang on a mo... I have the book, I'll type it out soon... Tewdar (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It's actually rather fuzzy; so I suppose it's "individuals assigned male at birth who took on traditionally female roles and dress", but they say that "a universally accepted definition of trans woman is not possible"... do you want me to paste the whole entry? It really leans towards a description, rather than a definition... Tewdar (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

"The identity trans women emerged in 20th-century Europe and North America, but traditions and identities in European and non-European societies anticipated the emergence of contemporary trans identities. While a universally accepted definition of trans woman is not possible, trans women are becoming more visible and gaining greater acceptance in the United States and other countries, even as they continue to experience pervasive discrimination, harassment, and violence [...lots of text skipped ...] people who anticipated contemporary trans women date back centuries. In fact, evidence suggests that individuals assigned male at birth who took on traditionally female roles and dress existed in many premodern cultures and were often connected with indigenous shamanic traditions." Tewdar (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking more of what the first sentence in their encyclopedia entry is. Maybe you said it already but I'm not sure. I don't expect you to copy the whole entry, which is probably not allowed copyright-wise anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it actually starts with the bit above, "The identity trans women emerged in 20th-century Europe and North America..." so it really takes a historical / descriptive approach, rather than trying to provide a copper-bottomed definition, which it later states is not possible. It really doesn't define the term... Tewdar (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.

Even a literal encyclopedia of trans studies won't offer a clear definition. I'm sure that bodes well for us. /s Crossroads ^-talk- 19:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Better to state that 'A universally accepted definition of trans woman is not possible' than to leave the lede as it is. For the the statement a 'A trans woman is a woman...' to be true, the defining characteristic of a woman must be the mind. Are there any widely accepted definitions of 'woman' that describe it as a function of the mind? Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

A universally accepted definition of anything is not possible, yet you’ll be surprised to find that very few Wikipedia articles begin that way. Respectfully, your or my personal opinions on what is “required” to be a woman are not especially relevant. If there is no suitable encyclopedic definition for this term, or there is not any consensus among reliable sources, then the burden is on you to demonstrate that this is the case, rather than simply moving the goalposts.RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 03:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I have put the case that there is no consensus by pointing to Tewdar's passage from the SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies - "a universally accepted definition of trans woman is not possible". Did you mean suitable encyclopedic definition for woman, or for trans woman?

Let me see if I have this straight:

1. A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth. (Source: this article.)

2. A woman is an adult female human. (Source: linked article on "Woman".)

3. Female is the sex of an organism that produces ova. (Source: article on "Female" linked from "Woman.)

4. Male is the sex of an organism that produces sperm. (Source: article on "Male".)

So a trans woman is a human who produces ova as an adult, but produced sperm at birth. Excellent! Amazing what you can learn from Wikipedia. 24.20.43.198 (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Also from Female: "Female can refer to either sex or gender..." I see some good proposals above that attempt to emphasize the "female gender" aspect of the definition. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the linked articles, which has been noted before, is the predominance of ova over gender at Female combined with the wikilink to Female in the lede of Woman. The WP:OWNers of these articles have resisted proposals to solve them, so the issues remain. Newimpartial (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

No, the problem is the people who won't read past the first sentence of an article and expect it to explain every detail. Those definitions are in accord with WP:DUE, and even if sources on one topic did contradict sources on another, that's society's problem, not ours. It really doesn't help, though, that many of the editors at this article insist on keeping a sloganesque wording that represents a small minority of definitions (documented at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions) in clear violation of WP:DUE, when we could easily rewrite it to mention the crucial concept of gender identity, as by far the majority of definitions do. Unfortunately not many of us are in the mood for the assumptions of bad faith that will get slung our way and general drama that an RFC to change it will bring. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm certain that ova will remain predominant in the 'Female' article, given that it's not an article specific to female humans and humans make up a tiny proportion of the variety living organisms on Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisha'o'Mine (talk • contribs)

I am well aware of this, but the consequence of Female being overwhelmingly a biological article, which is then linked from articles that are not primarily about biology (e.g., Woman), is that "gotcha" points are then scored by those inclined to do so: a process that generates more heat than light.

As far as Crossroads' point on gender identity is concerned, I still hold that "identifies as" definitions and "gender identity" definitions should not be considered identical when it comes to point scoring assessing DUE and BALANCE. Newimpartial (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no basis to assert it's a "woman" in first place. When someone is "assigned" male at birth, at least this is supported by a physical examination performed by a professional. If in doubt they also can conduct other studies. But there's absolutely no evidence that someone claiming to be a woman, actually is. An encyclopaedia should be based on facts.--Charrua85 (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There is clearly contention regarding the statement "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth". Wikipedia is meant to be unbiased, and yet this statement is clearly not neutral. It should read "A trans woman is a person who was assigned male at birth who now identifies as being a woman." Colevasquez (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

There is contention, but the current sentence does match some of the definitions gathered as Talk:Trans woman/Definitions, so it isn’t right to say it doesn’t follow WP:NPOV. Some of those definitions are more closely aligned to your rewrite. So the questions are: which sources do we trust most, and how to we paraphrase them without editorializing? I don’t know what the answer is, but I know the answer isn’t that the current definition is biased and non-neutral. Politanvm ^talk 18:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the Oxford dictionary definition: "A trans woman is a transgender person who has transitioned from male to female." or an adaptation of LGBT authority GLAAD and Stonewall's definitions would suffice?: "A trans woman is a person who was assigned male at birth, but whose gender identity is female." I think the key to a neutral definition is to highlight that it is the gender identity and not the sex that has changed, and "A trans women is a woman" does not get across this nuance and reads like a trans woman is a biological female who was mistakenly designated as a male by medical negligence. Colevasquez (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Colevasquez that the definition currently reads like reads like it could apply to people like Lady Colin Campbell, who never identified as male, and never felt as if they underwent any kind of transition. Nero Calatrava (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Lady Colin Campbell is an example of our current definition being imperfect. I am not sure there's a first-sentence definition that won't have imperfections, and I think the current version is less imperfect than some other proposals above. Firefangledfeathers 19:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

While I recognize that there is a tension between "subjective" definitions (where a trans person is a person who identifies as trans) and "objective" definitions (where a trans person is a person who has transitioned, or is transitioning, or who was assigned one status but now occupied another). That said, I don't see why editors think the Lady Campbell case is problematic in the objective sense: there was an attempt to assign sex - legally and physically - based on a decision made in infancy, and Campbell made her own decisions as an adult to change both legal sex and anatomical presentation. I don't see why it would be inappropriate for that scenario to fit the "objective" definition of "trans woman" though her subjective experience is undoubtedly different than most. Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

(OP) I don't even know what "assigned at birth" means. You're either born male or female (or rarely both). -- GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The term is Intersex, not hermaphrodite. I am quite confident the term hermaphrodite is considered offensive nowadays and wrong to use in medical/scientific settings in reference to human anatomy. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

In this politically correct era, it's difficult to know what is or isn't offensive. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Well now you know. Not exactly secret info. GoodDay, if you read the article you can easily learn about Sex_assignment at birth. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

In terms of efficiency, GoodDay, you might benefit most from reading this section, which relates to the Lady Campbell discussion. (Some other editors might benefit, as well). Newimpartial (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial's observation that ″there is a tension between "subjective" definitions (where a trans person is a person who identifies as trans) and "objective" definitions (where a trans person is a person who has transitioned, or is transitioning, or who was assigned one status but now occupied another)″ is important. I suggest that this point be included in the lead part of the article, perhaps in the very first sentence, which could state up front that there are two ways of defining a trans women and they have different extensions. Nero Calatrava (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

References

How can a "trans woman" be a "woman" when the definition (according to Wikipedia) of "woman" is "adult human female" and a female (according to Wikipedia) produces ova? Can so-called "trans women" produce ova? Are their gametes larger than a males? Do they have XX chromosomes? No? Then they're not female. So they can't be an adult human female. They cannot be a woman. Perhaps Wikipedia should change its name to Wokepedia to reflect its ideological bias. Garis (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say. You can see the discussions on this page, and the subpage with an extensive list of definitions for “trans woman”, which has a wide breadth of definitions, some of which support the way the article is currently written. Feel free to suggest better ways to summarize reliable sources, but try to avoid original research/logic types of arguments, and certainly don’t cite Wikipedia, since it’s not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. On a side note, your signature should make it easy to identify your username. Politanvm ^talk 18:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sendtoanthony If you read past the first sentence of Woman and Female you will see that both articles address that issue. As with many articles, the first line provides a general purpose definition, and then the rest of the article clarifies that definition. Thus Female refers to both sex and gender, and a woman may be trans or intersex. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If you have have an issue with other people you need to take up with someone else rather than spreading misinformation as you have done on wikipedia. I persume infertile women are also not women? RJS001 (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Article Conflict

Right now Wikipedia is contradicting itself with mutually contradictory claims, including this one:

• This claim is that a trans woman is a woman (without citations).
• The page for woman says that a woman is, in part, female (with citations).
• The page for female says that females produce ova (with citations), which trans women do not; furthermore, the same with-citations sentence defines female as a sex, not a gender identity.

There are multiple possible solutions here, including modifying the page for female, modifying the page for woman, and modifying the page for trans woman. I am going to do the latter, as its claim is the only one made without citations. I not going to modify the sentence directly, per the embedded comment saying not to do so without an RfC, but I think it should be changed from "is a woman" to "is someone who identifies as a woman", in order to match other Wikipedia articles, but I should add that the page for female does not match the modern common usage of the term, which is based on identity, not objectively verifiable attributes; furthermore, the current page for female includes no discussion of how different cultures may define the word differently. For now, I am going to add a citation needed claim to the trans woman page sentence this is about, as the sentence is contradicting two other sentences on Wikipedia that both have multiple citations.Quindraco (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The references-as with most statements of fact in the lead-are in the article body, where they should be.

Also, have you read any of the 17 or so discussions of this topic on this Talk page? Newimpartial (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Not that I necessarily want to question the lede sentence here, but exactly which reference is being used to support this statement? The article body does not provide such a definition, unless I am mistaken.

Obviously, definitions identical to this can be found on the famous definitions subpage which I can't be bothered to link to right now. But they don't seem to be used in the article. So, either add one of these to the body (better option), or add an inline citation to the first sentence (worse option). 😁👍  Tewdar  13:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The key phrase is in the McKinnon source cited in the terminology section. Which isn't to imply an objection to improvements to be made to that section, in clarity and sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

When did Wiki become political?

To state "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth." is to make a highly controversial decision affirming a particular side of a debate

What is this based on? Why have Wiki editors chose to side with one side of a debate?

Montalban (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki editors don't take sides in a debate, or at least, shouldn't. You are not the first to ask this question, and you can be sure that the wording in this article and the lead in particular has been discussed numerous times, one could even say ad nauseam. The article didn't end up this way by accident, but through thousands of edits by hundreds of editors over a period of eighteen years. Which isn't to say the article can't be improved, and if you wish to improve it, I urge you to read the discussions above and the Talk page archives first, where this very question has been discussed many times, at length, and then come back with your suggestions for improvements, where other editors can discuss it with you. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the many archived discussions on the phrasing of the lede, see Talk:Trans woman/Definitions for an examination of how RS’s define this term. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 12:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I see there has been an RfC before. I say we have the discussion to change this sentence to A trans woman is a person who was assigned male at birth but identifies as a woman. This sentence was one of the 2 options the community accepted at some capacity and the closer of the RfC said there is no prejudice against having an RfC for this phrasing. This sentence is most consistent with what RS regards a trans woman to be. Lets take a look at what Talk:Trans woman/Definitions provided by RoxySaunders above. I do not believe it is appropriate to use definitions 4 (biased LGBT advocacy group), 12 (Newsweek post-2013, unreliable at WP:RSP), 16 (a book by someone who does not appear to be an expert who is merely supporting "reproductive rights"), and 30 (biased LGBT advocacy group). So with that, lets see if the literature likes to describe a trans woman as a woman who was assigned male at birth or a person who was assigned male at birth but identifies as a woman.. RS supporting person who was assigned male but identifies as a woman in the Talk:Tran woman\Definitions count to be 28. Many of these RS are among the most credible, including the Lancet, American Psychological Association, American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, Centers for Disease Control, Cornell University, American Academy of Pediatrics, John Hopkins Medical School, Princeton University, and the National Health Service. Just to count the sourcing that supports the current revision, I count 6. Of these the most credible is the ones from Harvard Medical School and the BC Centers for Disease Control. 3 RS are not particularly credible, with one being a standard dictionary, one from the American Society for Engineering Education (they certainly don't have expertise on this issue), and one from a government website. I'm really not seeing an abundance in literature to use the phrasing we have now. We should do what RS says and change this sentence. An RfC may be warranted. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

As has been noted before, the problem with "idenfifies as" language is that in contemporary discourse it tends to imply "... but is not". Sources that use "has a female gender identity" or "has a gender identity as a woman", for example, cannot be read as supporting "identify as" without severely distorting their meaning, and few recent sources use "identify as". But other options could certainly be considered - I would suggest that multiple editors propose and try to whittle down options before any future RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

How about this: A trans woman is a person assigned male at birth whose gender identity is female. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The ratio of WP:MEDRS's using one phrasing over the other is a valid concern, but not a brand new one. To paraphrase L235's closure of the Archive 4 RfC, some said the lack of sources which explicitly say "is a women" supports the more neutral "is a person". Others said the sources' use of the phrase trans women at all implies that the authors do still believe we are women (otherwise they would say MtF trans person or some-such alternative).

There are lots of valid points either way, and I'm not violently opposed to either version. I do, however, empathize with the concern that any variant of "person who identifies as female" implicitly casts doubt on trans womanhood, so I favor the status quo.

Regardless, this is a perennial discussion, and it seems as if every possible angle has been argued ad nauseum, to no conclusive result. I'm careful not to improperly invoke the WP:Snowball clause, but unless there's a new and highly persuasive argument in favor of Option 2, or a clear change in the consensus of sources or editors, I really don't think rehashing the RfC would produce any useful result. Sincerely, RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 03:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

There's going to have to be another RfC at some point.

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, you may be interested in the discussion above: #A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth. As the question there shows, it's a confusing sentence if one is not already familiar with the discourse in this area. The current definition does a poor job of educating readers on what the topic actually is. Sources usually use another family of definitions which emphasize the crucial concept of gender identity. The current wording is reminiscent of a political slogan, rather than being educational, and is in clear violation of WP:DUE based on the abundant evidence of the subpage.

Newimpartial above alludes to sources that say "has a gender identity as a woman", and while they say that this doesn't support "identifies as" for our text, I would argue that regardless, the reverse is true - that definitions mentioning gender identity as "identifies as" support it. So perhaps a viable proposal - still requiring passing an RfC, but this is just brainstorming - would be:

A trans woman was assigned male at birth but has a gender identity as a woman. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Agree with referencing Gender identity for the sake of a complete and useful definition, but not exactly sure of the best way to do so. I see the merit in sidestepping the woman vs. person debate (doomed to continue for eternity), but I don't love starting the article with "A trans woman was/has ...", as it reads more like a general factual statement than an actual definition (MOS:FIRST). The phrase "... has a gender identity as a woman" seems a bit clunky (not sure whether Newimpartial was actually quoting any particular source), but some addition along these lines (e.g. "... but has a female gender identity" ... "... but identifies as a woman" etc.) seems due and well-established by sources.

My preferred option (proposed in the linked discussion, and evoked generally favorable reactions from Newimpartial and Bodney) is still just to extend the current sentence with such a clause, i.e. "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth but whose gender identity is female." What do you think of this? RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 05:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said then, I really think this reads poorly due to redundancy - "is a woman...but whose gender identity is female". It jumps back and forth with gendered terms and probably satisfies no one. It has a similar potential for confusion with unfamiliar readers by immediately using the term "woman" which carries a lot of baggage and assumption of female sex/sex-assignment. I wrote A trans woman was assigned..., yes, largely because it cuts the Gordian knot of "is a woman" vs. "is a person", but I do think it still works as a definition. Personally I have no issue with the latter anyway, and it outnumbers the former handily in the subpage. Perhaps I am overestimating the opposition to it. Another thing is that we shouldn't expect all of us here to come to full agreement - that is why an RfC was necessary in the past and will be in the future. All the same, testing the waters is still worthwhile. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders: why is it beneficial to say A trans woman is a woman...? It's redundant and clunky phrasing. To support this awkward phrasing, you need to provide abundant RS support. I think saying A trans woman is person... or a A trans woman is an individual... is obviously more readable and consistent with how nearly every source is saying. I don't see the argument or in saying woman twice together like that. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this phrasing is fairly common, no? E.g. international airport: An international airport is an airport with customs and border control facilities enabling passengers to travel between countries. Loki (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The main issue is this is not what the majority of RS are saying a trans woman is. However, I contend that the wording isn't great, same is true for international airport. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that "A trans woman is a woman..." is redundant. If you mean that the definition repeats a portion of the headword, then yes—obviously it does; but this is not a bad thing, and is not "redundant" with respect to a definition of a compound expression like "trans woman". While one might make assumptions about the meaning of a compound expression based on its elements, language is not logical and assumptions may be incorrect and should not be left to the imagination of the reader. A definition should define, even if it means repeating a core element, and not leave the reader guessing. A flying boat is not a boat, and a silent butler is not a butler. What is an electric car? It's not a car with a battery that starts the car, runs the on-board computer, adjusts the fuel mix automatically, and operates the signaling system, the entertainment center, and the heater electrically. If reliable sources support "a trans woman is a woman...", then that is exactly what it should say; anything less, *especially* in such a fraught topic, would be a gross disservice to the reader. As far as "a trans woman is an individual...", see elongated yellow fruit. Mathglot (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

A transwoman is biologically male, not "assigned male". What our own article says: "Male (symbol: ♂) is the sex of an organism that produces the gamete (sex cell) known as sperm". Do trans women do this or not? If yes then they are clearly biological males with a female identity. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC) According to WP policy. the editing of this article is to be based on the reliable sources on this topic, not by your feelz. Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Are you sure it is my "feelz" that are the issue here? Also "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth." does not appear to have any RS so your argument about it does not seem to have any merit. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC) You don't seem very good at finding and reading sources. Pro tip: they are normally found in the article body. Newimpartial (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Assigned by whom (sounds like weasel wording overall) and by what criteria? Biology is not mere "assignement" and the article for "male" here defines male biologically. Not as some kind of mere arbitrary "assigment" by an unknown party. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC) What part of In humans, the word male can also be used to refer to gender do you not understand? Also, the answers to your first questions are readily found in Sex assignment, which is wikilinked from this article. You want to argue against the reliable sources on this topic, but that isn't what Talk pages are for. Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC) "can". But is that what "assigned male" means? Maybe people who are clearly POV (your being genderqeueer and your editing history speaks volumes) on an issue and so emotionally engaged in it, should stay out of it? Also, if trans women are simply women, what are they transitioning from? 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Also, that claim has no RS and so should be removed. :) 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC) IP, I take it from your criticisms that you have no gender, and are therefore, supremely neutral. I am fascinated by this and would love to know more. Do you offer a pamphlet or some such? Dumuzid (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC) If your belief is that one simply cannot be neutral/factual, that's all on you, but I would have to ask then, why are you here? 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC) My point is that criticizing someone else's objectivity for their gender positioning is like accusing them of being biased because they breathe oxygen. Also, with regard to neutrality, I would urge you to do some reading in the philosophical domain of epistemology. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Again, if you cannot comprehend that someone could be neutral/factual, that's on you. "Through yourself, you get to know others." But why are you here if you cannot be NPOV? 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Well, first of all, perhaps you should re-read WP:NPOV, because it's really more about fidelity to reliable sources than neutrality. I don't care for the nomenclature, but it's a bit late for that now. I am not saying neutrality is impossible (though I do think it requires one to analyze one's own implicit biases). You have said (I paraphrase) "given your beliefs on gender, you cannot be neutral." And I am saying you also have beliefs about gender. Thus your criticism can be aimed just as much at you as anyone else. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC) "You have said (I paraphrase) "given your beliefs on gender, you cannot be neutral." And I am saying you also have beliefs about gender." So you're saying that biology is a mere belief? Fascinating. What else is mere belief? 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Again, this is where epistemology would serve you well. It's a bit dense, but Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a classic starting place for such an inquiry. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC) I'm not asking Kant, I'm asking you. You know, the pseudointellectual one. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC) And I think we're done here. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Kibbitzing here, but the terms we use for people who refuse to read the reliable sources on a topic don't normally include neutral/factual. Just saying. Newimpartial (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Again, you're clearly very emotionally engaged (as these "creative" ways of saying "you're mean and stupid" demonstrate) so should probably stay away from articles where you cannot be NPOV. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC) IP, if you read the article Male - as I have repeatedly suggested you do - you will see that it provides a reliable source. As far as your earlier comments are concerned, of course "assigned male" refers to Sex assignment. Is the article text not clear to you? Newimpartial (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC) "In humans, the word male can also be used to refer to gender." That's it. No [source] there. Again, is this "assignment" some arbitrary opinion or is it based on biology? :D Anyways, I didn't come here to argue with you, it is clear that facts will not sway you, and you are entitled to your beliefs - but you are not entitled to censoring the talk page. That is all really. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC) The source, which I have given above for your convenience, is in the body of Male, exactly where it is supposed to be. You know that most Wikipedia articles have a lead section that summarizes the body, and the references are generally in the body, yes? And I don't know why you keep asking questions about "assignment" that are answered in sex assignment, which is wikilinked from the lead text you were complaining about questioning. At some point, a degree of competence is required for any collaborative project. Newimpartial (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Speaking of the "sex assignment" article, the sources there likely need serious review. Take source 23 for example, is https://books.google.se/books?id=IfcuCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA301&redir_esc=y "Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive" ..Are such really to be regarded as reliable source? :D What is the criteria applied for reliable source there? Was there any at all? 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Please read WP:RS for that information. An article Talk page is not a tutorial. Also, sticking out your tongue after each question doesn't really radiate civility. Newimpartial (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Besides what has been said it is a true statment backed up with extensive reaserch. And wikipedia is not a place to bring a debate on people's self as this talk page edit by you seems to be attempting to say. RJS001 (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC) References

"Assigned"

This is obviously going nowhere. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

"Assigned male"? The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male seems to contradict this and defines male in no uncertain, biological, terms. "Male (symbol: ♂) is the sex of an organism that produces the gamete (sex cell) known as sperm, which fuses with the larger female gamete,[1][2][3] or ovum, in the process of fertilization." Indeed, the word "assigned" does not appear a single time there. Why this contradiction? It would seem plain as day that this article is not NPOV. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Please do not make personal attacks, as you did in your edit summary here. I'm confident you wouldn't have said that cis people were unable to achieve NPOV when writing articles on cis people, or white people on white people, amirite? Newimpartial (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC) "Please" do not remove talks simply because they hurt your feelings and I won't have to point it out. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Oh, I didn't do any such thing. I removed a comment that is off-topic and cannot possibly contribute to improving the article. But you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS again. Try to be CIVIL. Newimpartial (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC) I'd be more civil if you were. But removing talks because you dislike them is not. Pointing out a contradiction (and in a statement that is unsourced) is not forum.. But you seem intent on turning this into one though, all while saying it shouldn't be? I'm not the one who started arguing with you and engaging in editing wars, that's you. :D 78.78.132.116 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC) How can your opening comment here contribute to the improvement of this article? I am at a loss. Your first full sentence is false - The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male seems to contradict this and defines male in no uncertain, biological, terms - showing you didn't even read the entire lead of the article you are citing. What is more, your quotation, "assigned male", doesn't kink to Male; rather it is part of the phrase "assigned male at birth" which is wikilinked to Sex assignment. Not only is there no contradiction: your (possibly rhetorical) questions are actually answered directly in the wikilink that you have presumably declined to read. So how is any editor supposed to use your comment as a means to improve this article? This article is, as it should be, based on reliable sources (reals) and not on POV (your feelz). You have not pointed out any contradictions or unsourced statements whatsoever - all you have done is vent your spleen on a topic you apparently don't understand, and that isn't what Talk pages are for. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC) So your argument is based on a single part of the article which also happens to be about the only unsourced part. :D Provide a source for that part of the male article then as it doesn't have any. Without that, there's no reason to take that claim seriously. You should probably also add a good motivation for why human sex should be treated differently from that of any other animal. I'm sure you have one, right? 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Well, I prefer not to be killed and eaten by humans - or owned by humans, for that matter - so I would certainly rather be treated differently from ... any other animal, in many respects. There are lots of concepts - like nationality - that don't apply to non-human animals, and it just happens that gender identity and sexuality are two of these. As far as the unsourced nonsense goes, the source is at the place in Male where it is supposed to be. WP:CIR, baby. Newimpartial (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC) So you're saying saying that human biology is inherently different? Do you have some sort of fact to back that up? Something that would justify such ideas influencing wikipedia articles? Your emotional beliefs or rants about being eaten do not really count. 78.78.132.116 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Nobody is saying that human biology is inherently different; we are saying that humans have dimensions other animals don't. You can't "raise a filly as a boy", for example, but you can certainly socialize humans based on their sex assignment (and most cultures do). Newimpartial (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Images perputrate steryotypes

Im concered with the images in this artcile as they seem to be based around finding a steryotype of trans women to show here and I dont think that is helpful. It would be like having someone dressed in a sterytypicic clothes for an ethnicities page. some people do look and dress like that but everyone at all. RJS001 (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The people in the photos are trans women. I don't know what else we could do. RJS001 are you saying you want some pictures where they are dressed less flamboyantly? Even if that is your concern, I wouldn't say the images of Rachel Levine and the one with Andrea James and Calpernia Addams are dressed in the stereotypical way I believe your implying. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

eh its not the dress so much as i feel sorta like the way they looked thye tried to find trna women that met steryotypes on trans women more than anything RJS001 (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

We are limited by the images available in commons. If the images are flamboyant not much we can do. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 08:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I know because I'm the one that's added the majority of the images in the lead of the article and spent many hours on that. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 09:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

are you saying this because you think they look trans or is it because they pass as cis? — Tazuco 23:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Some of the pictures seem out of place in their sections; for example, I'm not sure what the connection is between Rachel Levine and terminology, or between Laverne Cox and sexual orientation. Also, I think there's too much of a focus on entertainers and beauty pageant winners; I suggest swapping in some pictures of people who work in other fields, like Clara Barker (engineer) or Sophie Wilson (computer scientist). Cheers, gnu57 01:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I like the suggestion of spreading the focus of the images of trans women. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think thats a good idea, but perhaps its best to add the pictures rather than swap them, at least regarding the existing pictures of trans women from under-represented racial backgrounds. I'd hate for the page to be overwhelmingly white trans women for a number of reasons. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 08:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

BTW I'm not entirely sure what images we could use for sections like sexual orientation. To my knowledge there's no images of trans women's weddings or other stuff like that. Same with terminology, as adding an image to an abstract linguistic section will always be hard. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 08:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if you meant trans women's weddings literally or rhetorically as an example, but there are CC-licensed photos from Ruby Corado's wedding. Politanvm ^talk 01:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

What about adding a picture of Liniker? She is gender non-conforming, black, and trans woman.— Tazuco 21:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we have good images of her. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

definitly agree on that. racial diveristy in the images needs to be made sure its there. RJS001 (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2022

Re: 'Trans women have a female gender identity', this is incorrect. Trans women have a gender identity that is that of a woman (social construct) not female (biologically based) 81.174.151.54 (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

OUP/Lexico has changed the dictionary definition of trans woman used on this page to remove the phrase 'transitioned from male to female'. The updated definition is: 'A person whose birth sex was male but who lives and identifies as a woman; a transgender woman.' (see https://www.lexico.com/definition/trans_woman) 81.174.151.54 (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The words 'male' and 'female' are also used to describe genders. Look it up. -Daveout(talk) 14:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

"Discrimination against trans women" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Discrimination against trans women and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 25#Discrimination against trans women until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Tazuco 17:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Section on the cotton ceiling

Hi all,

I’d like to add a section on the cotton ceiling. What kinds of sources can I use? Thanks Quiefe (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Quiefe:, Several issues to consider here. First, to answer your question: you can use independent, reliable, secondary sources to support added content. You will find that there are plenty of opinions about the cotton ceiling in self-published sources like WP:BLOGs, or on YouTube, but these are generally inadmissible at Wikipedia. If in doubt, check the reliable sources noticeboard.

However, reliable sourcing is not the only requirement for new content; there is also the issue of WP:DUEWEIGHT: considering the voluminous amount of information available on the topic of "trans women" in dozens of published books, hundreds of scholarly articles, and thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of web pages, does the relatively limited topic of the cotton ceiling have enough support in reliable sources to be worth a mention here at all? It's basically a question of proportion: we can't cover every possible issue about trans women; this is an encyclopedia article, so it's a summary, so it covers just the more important things. You might have a better chance at an article with narrower scope, such as Transmisogyny, but even there the issue of WP:DUEWEIGHT would arise.

Another approach, where WP:DUE WEIGHT would not be an issue, is to write an entire article about it. But then, other requirements would come into play, such as WP:Notability. I've considered this topic before, and imho it's not notable; it was a flash in the pan for a while when it first came out, with opinions flying all over, but not much serious coverage; since then, it has had little staying power, and most of what's available is inadmissible opinion articles and first-person accounts. But that's just my opinion. If you'd like to consider that option, you could try starting a WP:DRAFT such as Draft:Cotton ceiling. Fair warning: writing a new article is more difficult than just adding content to an existing one, and in the end, if the topic is judged to be not notable, your new article will never get past the draft stage, so that's a risk. You could try asking at the WP:LGBT Studies WikiProject or at Wikipedia talk:Notability whether folks there would consider this a notable topic or not. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

it has an entry at wiktionary. Quiefe (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Quiefe Well what are you looking to say about it? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary is hardly a standard of notability for an encyclopedia article. Equivamp - talk 21:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary also has definitions for abibliophobia, honorificabilitudinitatibus, and clbuttic, but these would not necessarily be notable encyclopedia topics. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 22:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders:, clbuttic is my new fave word. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Clbuttic is actually covered under Scunthorpe problem (and is even a redirect there.) In theory I think "Clbuttic mistake" or the like could be a valid title for it based on a quick search, it's just not the one we went with. --Aquillion (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Nonsensical Article

We’ve all had fun you must agree but obvious Wikipedia:SEALION is obvious and this is clearly going nowhere. Dronebogus (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth." Can anyone explain this sentence because it appears to be nonsensical? The Wiki article on 'woman' that is linked in the sentence states that a woman is an adult female and that female is the sex that produces eggs. To be assigned male at birth is to be of the sex that produces sperm, not eggs. What am I missing? Mr Miles (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC) This article in 2017 had an intro that was coherent: "A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a person who was assigned male at birth but who identifies as a woman.". And in 2004 it had an even more coherent intro: "Transwomen are transsexual or transgendered people who were assigned male sex at birth (or, in some rare cases of intersexuality, later) and who feel that this is not an accurate or complete description of themselves, and therefore strive to present in a more female gender role." What happened?! Mr Miles (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC) This article has caught up to reality, and its sourcing. The daisy chain of references from here to Woman and from Woman to Female has not. Newimpartial (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC) ...or rather: this article has trans rights activists as gatekeepers, whereas Woman and Female has feminists as gatekeepers. Seems you're implying that Woman should be changed to 'person with a woman's gender identity' - and what do you propose for Female, the same? Mr Miles (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Please don't employ WP:STRAWMAN argumentation; I wouldn't support either of the changes you mention here. Also, I am a feminist. (And you ought to be aware that "trans rights activists" is sometimes employed as a dog whistle, though that is more true of the initialism.) Concerning your POV on these matters, are you still under the impression that the Singular they represents "Critical theory" and will be dropped once the detransitioners class-action lawsuits start? That's a fairly, err, "robust" POV for editing in a discretionary sanctions area. Newimpartial (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Ok, so provide me with a steelman, what is the 'reality' of woman if not female human? Mr Miles (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC) The reliable sources demonstrate conclusively that "female" has multiple, differing and overlapping, meanings depending on context. For human beings, many/most of those meanings concern Gender. So I deny the premise of your implied syllogism. Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Female is not a synonym for gender, as you must know. Mr Miles (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Let’s WikiWalk this: this article: trans women are women who were assigned male at birth woman: a woman is an adult female human female: in humans female can refer to gender, and don’t pretend like you don’t know what that’s supposed to mean in this context this isn’t hard Dronebogus (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC) It isn't? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female EvergreenFir (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC) You're referring to this: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/merriam-webster-changes-the-definition-of-female/ Mr Miles (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Mr Miles, if you have reliable sources that you would like us to consider -- or even better, proposals for concrete changes backed by reliable sources, that would be a helpful way forward. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC) The Intro is currently incoherent. For one thing, intros should reflect the content of the article which, eg, states: "trans women... identify as a woman.", whereas the unsourced intro states 'are women'. And the point I've already made, that the linked article woman states their identifying characteristic is being female, so trans women are not women but are males who identify as women. Mr Miles (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Mr Miles - Sure, but these arguments are not particularly persuasive from a WP:NOTSOURCE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sort of perspective. It would be more helpful if you could provide reliable secondary sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Please refute or accept my first point. Mr Miles (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC) "Debate me bro" is similarly not a persuasive argument. Dumuzid (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC) That's not my argument. As it stands, the article intro is unsourced and doesn't match the content as I've indicated. Mr Miles (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Perhaps one of the relevant sources from Talk:Trans woman/Definitions should be added, then. Newimpartial (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC) That's not how this works. You are disrupting this page to make a WP:POINT by demanding others debate with you. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC) "disrupting" - I'm giving an opinion on an article on its talk page :) Is this a cult? Mr Miles (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC) What even is your first point? Dronebogus (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Intros should reflect the content of the article which, eg, states: "trans women... identify as a woman.", whereas the unsourced intro states 'are women'. Mr Miles (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC) They identify as and are women. Latter is shorter and explains the gist well enough in context. The end. Dronebogus (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC) The source doesn't say and are women it says identify as Mr Miles (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Okay now you’re just being petty Dronebogus (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC) You don't think there is a distinction between being something and believing yourself to be something?! Mr Miles (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC) What reliable source on this topic uses "believing themselves to me a woman" rather than "identifying as a woman"? (I swear that goal post was right over there.) Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Perhaps one of the relevant sources from Talk:Trans woman/Definitions should be added, then. Newimpartial (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Sure, many of them are (unlike the current intro) coherent. Eg, from the BBC, "those assigned male at birth but living as a woman" Mr Miles (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC) No editor is obliged to WP:SATISFY you, Mr. Miles. However, I will point out that there is no consensus within the RS that (anatomical or chromosomal) "femaleness" is the uniquely defining characteristic of Women. Also, your statement that trans women are not women but are males who identify as women is a WP:POV statement full of whistling dogs, and us not supported by RS. Please don't do that, because dog whistles are distracting and potentially disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC) There is far more RS consensus that anatomy and chromosomes define female than there is that gender idenity does. As for 'whistling dogs', adjust your outfit because your bias is showing. Mr Miles (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Maybe proofread before arguing about gender “idenity”? Dronebogus (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Bad faith. Mr Miles (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Like your whole point of Wikipedia:SEALIONing this article isn’t? Dronebogus (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC) As far as I can tell, Mr Miles has never produced a source for his POV that is usable in this article. But he as produced greatest hits like this 2020 gem: classic Mr Miles Yes, the condition that leads a man to feel he is a woman is biological. But obviously, that doesn't mean that his feeling about himself is literally true in the face of his male biology. And anyway, many trans women don't believe themselves to be literally female; they just believe(/hope) their dysphorial will diminish if they can try to be female. Actually, that's a good point, many trans women don't believe themselves to actually be women, but still 'identify'/live as women. Mr Miles (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Now that's at least a cognizable Wikipedia argument. But to this point, you have only backed up your argument with ipse dixit. Again, not terribly persuasive. Dumuzid (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC) There is no such consensus that anatomy and chromosomes define Woman, which is the term linked from this article ("female", in this context is a red herring). And I'm afraid that my ears are not very sensitive; I have frequently seen editors banned from GENSEX for using dogwhistles I could scarcely hear. Yours are more prominent - perhaps more a bobby whistle than a dog whistle. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Yes, that's why this article and others on the subject are nonsensical, because gatekeepers will attempt to get banned anyone who doesn't conform to a very narrow ideological position. That you're bragging about it is incredible Mr Miles (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Claiming that I (or any other editor) will attempt to get banned anyone who doesn't conform to a very narrow ideological position is a clear and unsubstantiated personal attack. If you can conduct WP:CIVIL discussion within the topic area then you are welcome, regardless of your views. However, many of those who use dogwhistle language - especially when they do not realize they are doing so - are likely to become disruptive and to be banned from the topic. Claiming that I (or any other editor) will attempt to get banned anyone who doesn't conform to a very narrow ideological position is a clear and unsubstantiated personal attack. If you can conduct WP:CIVIL discussion within the topic area then you are welcome, regardless of your views. However, many of those who use dogwhistle language - especially when they do not realize they are doing so - are likely to become disruptive and to be banned from the topic. (For the record, the only filing I made against such an editor, to the best of my recollection, was this one, and the editor in question was indeed found to be disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of Gallery of images at the top

Hello all -- recently QueenofBithynia removed the gallery from the top, citing MOS:ETHNICGALLERY. I then subsequently reverted. I tend to think she has a persuasive argument, but thought consensus should be achieved before the change was made. She opened a discussion at the Images page on the Manual of Style and I would ask anyone interested to share an opinion there. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

In archive 8 there was a rough consensus for the Wanzer image which had been added back on October 4, 2021.[1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's the discussion from June-September 2021 on what representative image(s) to include on this page. FWIW I doubt any single image or gallery of images will make everyone happy... Funcrunch (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to this discussion. I will ping them for the MoS discussion for further comment - this is something that needs sitewide consensus, not just on the talk page of this article, considering that (as it stands) this seems to violate MoS. QueenofBithynia (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

What needs sitewide consensus? Images of single individuals (or pair) as lead images for groups of people? We've had discussions at Woman, Human, etc. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The guideline at MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY does seem to discourage such treatment, and pretty much for the reason Funcrunch mentions (among others). Mathglot (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Option 1 and Option 2 at the 2018 RFC (Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4#RfC on introduction) were:

1. A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth.
2. A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a person who was assigned male at birth but identifies as a woman.

The RFC close stated (emphasis in the original):

On the whole, there is consensus that both option 1 and option 2 are superior to other presented options. There is no consensus as to whether option 1 or option 2 is preferable. In the absence of affirmative consensus, the status quo (which appears to be option 1) holds. This does not preclude any subsequent discussions about the article content, but participants should in all cases refrain from edit-warring over the content of the lead or the article more broadly.

This talk page and the archives are filled with those subsequent discussions. Two years ago, Talk:Trans woman/Definitions was created. It seems to me that out of the 37 definitions currently listed on the page, unless I'm miscounting, 6 support Option 1 while 27 support Option 2:

• 5 definitions state "is a woman" (or similar), without mentioning "identity" (or similar), and 1 definition states "are women" and "identify as women":

6 definitions like Option 1

1. "A woman or girl assigned a male sex at birth." Harvard Medical School - Sexual and Gender Minority Health Equity Initiative 3. "a woman who was identified as male at birth" Merriam Webster - Trans Woman 24. "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth. Some trans women prefer to simply be referred to as women, whereas others feel being trans is an important part of their gender label." Victoria, Australia 26. "Trans woman: A woman who was assigned male at birth." BC Centre for Disease Control, Canada 35. "a trans woman is a woman who was assigned the sex male at birth" - The Effects of Gender Trouble: An Integrative Theoretical Framework of the Perpetuation and Disruption of the Gender/Sex Binary DOI: 10.1177/1745691620902442 15. "Trans women are women who were assigned male at birth and identify as women." Fired Up About Reproductive Rights - Jane Kirby - Between the Lines

• 27 definitions state "identifies as a woman" (or similar) without stating "is a woman" (or similar):

27 definitions like Option 2

2. "A person whose sex assigned at birth was male but whose gender identity is female" Planned Parenthood - Transgender Identity Terms and Labels 5. "A child or adult who was born anatomically male but has a female gender identity" Princeton University: LGBT Center - The Language of Gender 6. "Someone assigned the male gender at birth who identifies on the female spectrum." Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine - Glossary of Transgender Terms 7. "A person whose sex assigned at birth was male, but who identifies as a woman" American Psychological Association - Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People 8. "Generally refers to someone who was identified male at birth but who identifies and portrays her gender as female." Glossary of Gender and Transgender Terms - Fenway Health 9. "A person whose birth sex was male but who lives and identifies as a woman; a transgender woman." Lexico - Powered by Oxford 10. "people who were assigned the male sex at birth but identify as women" Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 11. "Children assigned male at birth who identify themselves as girls" American Academy of Pediatrics 12. "A transgender female or transwoman identifies her gender as female, but was biologically considered a male at birth." Family Dynamics and Romantic Relationships in a Changing Society - IGI Global 13. "A term to describe a person who was identified male at birth but who identifies and portrays her gender as female" Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Healthcare: A Clinical Guide to Preventive, Primary, and Specialist Care - Springer 14. "A person assigned male at birth who identifies as a woman or in similar terms (eg, as a “trans woman” or “woman of transgender experience”)." Transgender people: health at the margins of society - The Lancet 16. "individuals assigned male at birth who identify as female." Cornell University 17. "an adult who was assigned male at birth but whose gender identity is female." Dictionary.com 19. "A transgender person who identifies as a woman." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 21. "a transgender woman may be assigned male at birth, but transition to living as a woman consistent with her gender identity" US Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 22. "The term transgender woman typically is used to refer to someone who was assigned the male sex at birth but who identifies as a female." U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: "Fact Sheet: Bathroom Access Rights for Transgender Employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964" 23. "MtF: an abbreviation for male-to-female. It refers to a transgender person who was assigned male at birth, and whose gender identity is that of a woman. This person would also be known as a transwoman. Egale Human Rights Trust (Canada) 27. "Transgender describes someone whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth (this can also be shortened to “trans”). For example, a transgender woman is someone who was listed as male at birth but whose gender identity is female." Washington Post gender identity glossary 28. "Transgender woman: A term used to describe someone who is assigned male at birth but identifies and lives as a woman. This may be shortened to trans woman"Stonewall, a UK LGBT charity 29. "‘trans women’ are those born with male appearance but identifying as women." GIRES - trans education and research charity 30. "A person with a female gender identity and male assigned sex would be referred to as a 'transgender girl/woman,' 'transfemale,' or MTF (male to female)" "Transgender youth: current concepts", Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism 31. "Transgender woman/transwoman/transfeminine individual - Person with a feminine gender identity who was designated a male sex at birth" UpToDate, clinical decision support resource 32. "This refers to individuals assigned male at birth but who identify and live as women" "Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline", Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 33. "We use 'trans woman' for someone who was registered male at birth and now identifies as a woman" NHS Digital Service Manual: Inclusive language 34. "a “trans woman,” is a genetic male consistent on all five biological definitions who identifies or thinks of herself as a female, and has “taken social, medical, or surgical steps to physically or socially feminize her gender expression or body”" - Handbook of Population (2019), Dudley L. Poston Jr. 36. "a trans-woman is a transgender person assigned male sex at birth but whose gender identity is that of a woman" - 2017 American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry Annual Meeting Gay and Gray Session: an Interdisciplinary Approach to Transgender Aging 37. " a trans woman is a person who identifies as a woman and was assigned male at birth" - Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (A Complete Clinical Guide) DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-38345-9

• 2 definitions say neither "is a woman" nor "identifies as a woman", and instead say "living as a woman"; and 2 definitions say none of the above:

4 definitions like neither

4. "A transgender woman lives as a woman today, but was thought to be male when she was born" National Center for Transgender Equality - Frequently Asked Questions about Transgender People 25. "those assigned male at birth but living as a woman" BBC 18. "a transgender or transsexual woman" Collins Dictionary 20. "Transgender woman": "This category includes persons whose sex assigned at birth was reported as male and whose current gender was reported as female. It also includes persons whose current gender was indicated as transwoman." Statistics Canada: Classification of cisgender and transgender

I don't know if the list of definitions at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions is complete, or a representative sample of the scholarship, or if all the sources should be given equal weight. Personally, I believe a trans woman is a woman, but looking at the definitions, I can't ignore that they tilt very strongly towards Option 2 and not Option 1, and I wonder whether we should have an RFC with those two options (one somewhat-minor quibble: I would change the "but" to "and" in Option 2). Levivich 04:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing the definitions and their sources, I have to 100% agree with you that "Personally, I believe a trans woman is a woman, but looking at the definitions, I can't ignore that they tilt very strongly towards Option 2 and not Option 1..." EvergreenFir (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support Option 2 - Firstly, I'd like to thank Levivich for providing the above information in an organized manner. Option 2 is clearly the definition that is supported by reliable sources. A margin of 27-6. Furthermore, it's the type of sourcing that supports Option 2 is particularly strong. Sources such as Princeton University, John Hopkins School of Medicine, the American Psychological Association, Centers for Disease Control, American Academy of Pediatrics, The Lancet, Cornell University, and NHS all support Option 2. Those sources are among the most credible and prestigious in the world. Only one such source, Harvard Medical School, endorses Option 1. The decision IMO is clearly in favor of Option 2. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 05:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would like to add that I'd be in favor of an RfC. This issue has come up before, and it needs to be settled. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 05:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Same. It's time to put the subpage to use and settle this issue in accord with WP:DUE. Levivich's detailed analysis is very helpful. It's clear which definition reliable sources think is a better and more educational explanation. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

In the interest of not fanning the flames of controversy, (and yet another NOCON RfC) we should try not to frame discussion as if we are determining the verifiability of trans identity itself, but rather, what is the best, most neutral, concise definition of this term. Sources which say "is a person" shouldn't be taken as "is something other than a woman"

If we are going to propose RfC options, I agree with changing but to and. Likewise, and has a female gender identity is preferable in my view to but identifies as a woman, and roughly as prevalent. I believe Crossroads at some point suggested a construction like A trans woman was assigned male at birth but has a gender identity as a woman, mostly with the intent of sidestepping the thorny issue, so that too may also be worth discussing.

The chief concern raised with person who... but identifies as a woman, or any of the various amalgams of woman-gender male-assigned biomale woman person thing is that it treats gender identity with an WP:UNDUE amount of skepticism and surprise. I don't want to slip into an us-them mentality, but my hesitance toward it stems largely from the innumerable editors who have argued for this change specifically because they believe it validates their FRINGE anti-trans POV that trans women are either men, or a third gender. As an admittedly weak analogy, imagine a sentence like: Homeopathy is a system of medical treatment based on the principle of homeopathic dilution, and considered by its many practitioners to be an effective at curing disease, but which scientists identify as pseudoscience. Technically accurate, definitely not neutral.

Oh, and in the interest of assessing due weight and recency, it would also be nice if we had dates associated with each of our listed sources. Biologically yours, –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Dropping in to say I agree wholeheartedly with Roxy's explanation of the and/but difference. Also credit to Levivich for bringing the issue of the lead sentence up in such a well thought-out fashion. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 11:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I added dates to Talk:Trans woman/Definitions. It looks like the Option 1 sources are 2016-2020, the Option 2 sources range 2015-2022, a bunch are undated, but I'm not seeing any trends along date lines, e.g., one category being newer or older than the other. Levivich 14:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for doing that. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• I should note that this discussion does not exist in a vacuum: there is a long running dispute of the definitions of Female and Woman which ties into this. Further, consideration should be given to Trans male, since the wording of the leads of trans male and trans female are aligned. I also quite agree with Roxy: the use of "and" rather than "but" is more appropriate. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Object to framing of the question - it is still my belief, as I have expressed approximately 103 times previously, that it is simply incorrect to lump together a range of formulations (as Levivich just has) as though they support identifies as a woman. In particular, whose gender identity is that of a woman, whose gender identity is female and similar, do not mean the same thing as identifies as a woman, and neither for that matter to all the identifies and portrays definitions (that include gender expression alongside gender identity) in that long list. Only identifies as sources can be used to support that (minority) wording, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Out of 37 definitions, only 6 say what Option 1 says, "is a woman", while 31 do not say that, they say something else. That's the part that needs addressing: "is a woman" is a distinct minority, and by a 5:1 ratio. That's an enormous discrepancy that just shouts WP:UNDUE.

  If you think they're not properly grouped, please group them properly and show us what that looks like; it might help us in thinking about these definitions.

  Finally, can you cite some sources that explain the difference between "identifies as a woman", "whose gender identity is that of a woman", and "whose gender identity is female"? Levivich 15:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I can do that at some point, but first to clarify: the main distinctions I see are: (1) between the vague "identifies as" (along with the pseudo-precisions "identifies themselves as", and so on) on the one hand, and the more precise "has the gender identity of" a woman/female on the other (with no meaningful distinction between "woman" and "female"), and (2) purely identity-based descriptions vs. identity and expression descriptions (the latter including "lives as", etc.) I hope this helps. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I appreciate that, but it doesn't help if it's just an editor's opinion. If sources make the distinction between "identifies as" and "has the gender identity of", then it matters, which is why I'm asking for sources that state that these two do not mean the same thing.

  The identity/expression distinction I've already seen in sources, but that isn't relevant, because a distinct minority of definitions (only 2 out of 37) mention gender expression ("lives as a woman").

  It seems to me, based on the definitions, that identity (but not expression, and not being a woman, whatever that may mean) is a core component of "trans woman" (and "trans man"), according to mainstream scholarly consensus. To Eek's point above, what I see is that the sources seem to avoid defining "man" and "woman" at all, and what they generally say is that there is no real consensus definition of those terms, and that gender is complex and poorly understood; i.e., nobody really knows exactly who is and who isn't a man or a woman, and the sources don't presume to state it definitively. I also wonder whether the sources are avoiding perpetuating the gender binary, e.g., by not trying to label everyone as either a man or a woman. Hence, it seems most of the definitions use "person", as in "a trans woman is a person who...", which I frankly think is a better way to start the definition. (I would similarly think we could say "A man/woman is a person who...".) Levivich 16:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Without getting into the weeds, yet, I want to make three basic points:

  (1) Five of the definitions you listed here refer to gender expression, by my count: three using "lives" and two using "portrays";

  (2) you seem inclined to interpret definitions saying "an X is A and B" as though such definitions are additive towards "an X is A" and "an X is B", as well as towards "an X is A and B". I dispute this approach;

  (3) there is some kind of a slope between "defining A as X" (but not as Y) and "defining A as X but not as Y". I am not at all convinced that many of the sources on the subpage intend to define a trans woman as a person who identifies as a woman (but is not one). On the other hand, many editors have come to this Talk page to do just that. In choosing among language supported by reliable sources (and I too prefer "person" language in this context), we should try not to leave the reader with the impression that a trans woman identifies as a woman (but is not one) unless the sources support this rather strongly. Newimpartial (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  On #1, that's true; two mention expression only, and three mention identity and expression, so overall, expression is mentioned in 14% of the definitions (5/37), and identity is mentioned in 73% (27/37). I don't understand #2: if X is A and B, then X is A and X is B, no? On #3, point taken, and I agree that one of the advantages of "with a female gender identity" (suggested below) over "identifies as a woman" (option 2) is that the former doesn't carry the potential implication of "(but is not one)". Levivich 17:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• How about something like "A trans woman is someone with a female gender identity that was assigned male at birth"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would support that, but suggest this slight revision: A trans woman is a person with a female gender identity who was assigned male at birth. If/when Draft:Female (gender) is moved to mainspace, we could update that link; otherwise, we link "gender identity" but not "female" per WP:SEAOFBLUE and WP:OVERLINK and WP:AVOIDDRAMA. Levivich 16:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I like the linking. Any reason to go for "is a person" vs. "is someone"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I feel that "someone" is vaguer than "person", but that's really just a stylistic preference, not like a material content thing. That's just, like, my opinion, man. Levivich 16:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  On further thought, it's about the potential connotation that "someone" is referring to someone specific. To me it's clearer to say, "A trans woman is anyone with a female gender identity who was assigned male at birth" rather than "someone". But I still like "person" better than "anyone", because for some reason, "anyone" feels to me like we're imposing a rule. Like as if we're saying, "Anyone with a female gender identity who was assigned male at birth shall be a trans woman". Levivich 16:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Cool. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  It’s basically OR, but I do (stylistically) prefer “someone” and “individual” over person. For lack of a better word, it feels less explicitly non-gendered. There is an emergent gender trinary in English (man/woman/person, he/she/they, etc.), where the neutral variants are (mis)taken as embodying a gender unto itself, not just indifference to or absence of a traditional binary identity. In queer spaces, “my person” is sometimes used as the explicitly non-binary equivalent to “my boyfriend/girlfriend”. “Someone” does not carry that same baggage, and (in my view) makes no such judgement about the gender of the someone described. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Relatedly (and again, based solely on my personal biases) I also support formulations which state gender first and sex assignment second. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I still prefer my previous proposal to use "female gender" rather than "female gender identity". However, I have no problem with this format of definition in general (and prefer "person" to "someone"). Newimpartial (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I forgot about that. Would it be "with a female gender" or "of the female gender"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think person of the female gender is correct, of course that is just a slightly long-winded way of saying woman. Identity is the thing you have (as in, has a female gender identity), whereas gender itself is embodied (is female… is of the female gender… etc.). –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Of the 37 definitions:

  • None use the term "female gender" (except as part of "female gender identity", which is in #5 and #30)
  • 3 use the term "gender" without referring to identity (#20 "current gender", #24 "gender label", #34 "gender expression")
  • 12 mention gender identity: 10 use the exact phrase "gender identity" (#2, #5, #8, #17, #21, #23, #27, #30, #31, #36); #12 uses "identifies her gender as female"; #13 uses "identifies and portrays her gender as female"
  • 1 mentions both gender and gender identity (#6 "assigned the male gender at birth who identifies on the female spectrum")
  • 15 mention identity but not gender (#3, #7, #9, #10, #11, #14, #15, #16, #19, #22, #28, #29, #32, #33, #37)
  • 6 don't mention identity or gender (#1, #4, #18, #25, #26, #35)

  So of 37 definitions, 15 speak of identity but not gender identity; 12 speak of gender identity; 3 speak of "gender" but not identity; and none use "female gender" (except in "female gender identity"). I do not think the sources support our using "female gender" instead of "female gender identity". Levivich 17:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Your close analysis is very much appreciated—female gender doesn’t seem well-supported, it looks like has an identity and equivalents are more prevalent.

  I would like to remind the viewers at home that while tallying can be helpful in determining due weight and settling factual disputes, it is not policy that the article text must be a verbatim reproduction of the unweighted supermajority of RS. I think trying to split sources over the exact word choice might be counterproductive compared to the higher-level views presented earlier.

  Conceptually, we’re divided between “a woman who is AMAB (i.e. transgender)” vs. “a human with woman identity who is AMAB”. Sources generally prefer the latter, and I agree: it’s far more explanatory. But we as encyclopedia editors we have considerable leeway in determining the best way for Wikipedia to phrase that statement, as long we’re not diverging materially from RS. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, and I agree with that, and would also add as a reminder to viewers at home that even though I've been the one doing the tallying, not every source is equal in weight to every other source, so a simple tally isn't dispositive. For example, some of the definitions are from sources like Harvard Medical School or the American Academy of Pediatrics, while others are news media. The news media is RS, even top news media, but still not on the same level as top medical schools and medical organizations. It's quite possible that a weighted analysis would yield different conclusions (although in this case, I don't think so, because I see broad agreement for FFF's proposed wording among a supermajority of definitions). Levivich 17:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree on this point. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 17:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Something that needs to be considered still is "female gender identity" vs. "gender identity as a woman" (with those exact wikilinks). I prefer the latter as it has more useful wikilinks and matches the sources more, which usually describe identity with "woman" rather than "female". With "gender" vs. "gender identity", I agree that the latter is WP:DUE by a large margin, but it's also clearer. It is that specific form of gender that is the defining factor here per RS. With "is a person" vs. "is someone" vs. dodging that with e.g. "a trans woman has a gender identity as a woman...", naturally I do favor the last of the three as I did suggest it a while back, but for this one I think we should go with whichever has the most likelihood of being chosen in the RfC. I still think that would be my suggestion, but this needs more discussion. Finally, for "but" vs. "and", I believe "but" reads better, but again, we should choose whichever is more likely to be accepted.

So in full my suggested proposal reads: A trans woman has a gender identity as a woman [but/and] was assigned male at birth. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I still prefer Levivich's proposal; yours sounds like trans women aren't women because it is not mentioned explicitly. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 10:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I did another count:

• When referring to gender, 23 use woman/women/girl (#'s 1 3 4 7 9 10 11 14 15 18 19 21 23 24 25 26 28 29 32 33 35 36 37) and 13 use female/feminine (2 5 6 12 13 16 17 20 22 27 30 31 34). One (#8) uses both ("girl/woman/female" -- whoever wrote that definition clearly had the same discussion we're having).
• As for the conjunction between gender and sex (e.g., "[gender] but [sex]" or "[gender] and [sex]"), 18 use "but" (2 4 5 6 7 9 10 12 13 17 21 22 25 27 28 29 32 36), 5 use "and" (15 20 23 33 37), and 16 use neither "but" nor "and" (1 3 8 11 14 15 16 18 19 24 26 27 30 31 34 35).

On the "person" construction, I'm not sure that's it will be obvious to the reader that a trans woman is a person if we don't say that explicitly. Now, it's obvious that a trans woman is a person to anyone who already knows what that term means, but for someone who has never heard of the term (imagine the hundreds of millions of people for whom English is a second [or third, fourth] language and who live in non-English-speaking countries, perhaps with cultures where this is far more taboo than it is in the West), it may not be so clear, and subtle hints like the punctuation of the title may not be apparent. For example: Nasty woman is a phrase, not a person; New Woman is a feminist ideal, not a person; Pioneer Woman is a statute; Invisible Woman is fictional character; Angry black woman is a stereotype; No Woman is a film; Black Magic Woman is a song. A reader may not know that a Trans woman is a person, and not a stereotype, phrase, idea, statute, fictional character, song, film, etc., unless we say it explicitly. Levivich 14:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd count that much differently. Of the definitions referring to gender or gender identity explicitly:

• 8 use "female" (2, 5, 12, 13, 17, 20, 27, 30)
• 1 arguable uses "female" (6)
• 2 use "woman" (23, 36)
• 2 arguably use "woman" (21, 24)
• 1 uses both (8)
• 2 use neither option (31 uses feminine, 34 has "feminize her gender expression")

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You don't think that, for example, #7 ("identifies as a woman") refers to gender or gender identity explicitly? Is "woman" an implicit reference to gender or gender identity? If so, then I think it would be better for us to be explicit than implicit about gender/gender identity in the first sentence, which would mean "female" is categorically better than "woman". But I would call "woman" an explicit reference to gender. I'm not sure what the sources say. Levivich 15:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking that since we are being literally explicit about gender or gender identity, as in using the words, that it's much more common to use "female" than "woman". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're saying. Out of the 37 definitions, 16 contain the word "gender". Of those 16, 4 contain the word "woman" (but not "female"), 9 "female" (but not "woman"), 1 "feminine", 1 "feminize", and 1 both "female" and "woman". Ergo, when describing gender (or gender identity, or gender expression, etc.), "female" (or similar) is much more common than "woman". I understand now, thanks. Levivich 16:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding [[female]] [[gender identity]] vs [[gender identity|identity]] as a [[woman]], I think the idea behind the latter is just to include a useful link back to Woman (a problem we only create if we remove it in the first place), given that Woman is presumably a somewhat more relevant target than the Female article.

Regarding person/someone/individual, I agree that the point is probably moot; an RfC option should probably just stick with person. But it is worth noting that (by my count) only 10 of the sources listed in support of Option 2 actually use "person". 6 use "someone", 3 use "individual", and the remaining ones sidestep it.

I'm still unconvinced by the implication that is a woman in Wikivoice is UNDUE based on the existing sources, although certainly many editors would like for it to be. "Woman"^{[1 2 3 4 5 6]} and "person" ^{[2 7 9 13 14 19 23 30 36 37)]} are of course not mutually exclusive, so it is misguided to present the sources which don't explicitly include it as if they are actively in contention with those that do. It was suggested in the RfC that mere usage of trans woman (in place of alternatives) implies a baseline acceptance of trans womanhood.

To be especially creative, we could also treat these as two distinct facts to be verified. I've suggested this a half-dozen times now (and the criticisms are noted; it's just an example), but in the effort to have our cake and eat it too:

A trans woman is a woman^[1–6] who was assigned male at birth but has a female gender identity^[7–37].

Without being glurgy, I also want to say I'm grateful for the civility and constructiveness of this discussion, and that while an RfC is a very probable outcome of this discussion, that we're not blindly rushing to rehash the previous one without first attempting to advance the consensus and map out the likely survey choices. Controversial site-wide discussions conducted too soon tend to generate more light than heat. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Ooh, I quite like that approach Roxy. I see no reason that the descriptions must be mutually exclusive (though again I suggest the use of "and" instead of "but"). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I find the approach borderline SYNTH. Also a bit confusing. I don't understand why its needed to say woman twice. It's already established when saying "trans woman" that they are a woman. It quite literally has woman in it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 19:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers I think it makes sense to say woman twice? In my experience, a lot of folks are confused by the terminology, and thus try to work themselves in circles. I.e., if you say trans woman, they will conclude that what you mean is a what would be correctly classified a trans man. So I think a little repetition doesn't hurt. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The confusion you are explaining is solved by the "assigned male at birth" part. That seems to make it pretty clear. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

woman...but has a female gender identity is redundant and doesn't really make sense (and same for "and"). Stating both things together reads very oddly. It, ironically enough, implies that some or many women do not have a female gender identity. "Is a person" is not saying "is not a woman". I would have to oppose this. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment - This isn't strictly about the lead sentence, but it is related, and I'd like to raise it before the temperature in the room changes. In examining the lede, it occurs to me that the concept of gender expression is downplayed in the lead but also equally in the body (it is virtually only mentioned in the terminology section). This may reflect the sources actually used in the article presently, but I'm not sure it reflects the available sources for this and the related concept of "presentation" (which doesn't appear in the article at all). Perhaps I am burdened by disputes at Conversion therapy and elsewhere, where editors seemed inclined to remove well-sourced references to gender expression, but I feel (based on my sense of the subject matter) that an article space discussion centered on identity, to the near exclusion of expression, does not do justice to the topic.

Now I recognize that different contexts produce different meanings and different outcomes, and not all jurisdictions have followed Canada in treating gender identity and gender expression as two equally protected characteristics in our legal framework for human rights - so my sense of the subject matter is to some extent parochially Canadian. But the MEDRS literature also deals with gender expression (and its synonyms) at fairly great length IMO, and while not all of these sources relate to Trans women and Trans men, undoubtedly the great majority of them do. So in an ideal LEADFOLLOWSBODY world, I would like to engage editors to think about expanding references to gender expression in the article before finalizing the lead RfC (since any lead that passes an RfC will most likely become very difficult to change ex post. Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I think in discussions about complex and nuanced articles like the one about trans women it is best to stick to simple questions and straight-forward dialogue. For now I believe we should stick to the lead sentence's definition of a trans woman; any issues with expression can be discussed later. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 18:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, the issue of gender expression could affect whatever the "change" option for the lead sentence turns out to be; it won't affect the "status quo" option. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I won't be discussing gender expression as part of a one-sentence definition of what trans women are. I see it as counter-productive to engage in that at this stage, even if I see a point in discussing it as part of improvements to the lead paragraph as a whole at a later stage. I'm just saying let's not try to grab the bush with the rose and get our hands pricked. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 23:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any plausible outcome regardless of what we do to the body ends up with gender expression being put in the first sentence, because most definitions don't mention it. So there may be a place for addressing gender expression, but this isn't it. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Should we have another RfC on this? Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 17:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Iamreallygoodatcheckers I imagine that this discussion will result in an RfC, but that this is basically the pre-RfC to workshop some tenable ideas first. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Definitely, but yeah, we're basically working through what a good alternative proposal will be. That said, we do want to be careful not to get too caught up in that and end up never doing the RfC. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I would like to say when we do choose to move to a RfC, It would be nice to have it narrowed to 2 options because anymore usually leads to a no consensus result. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

For sure. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Not if it's just Option 1 vs. Option 2 again. Don't we all have better things to do? I skimmed the 2018 RfC again—I wasn't around at the time—and was struck by (1) the similarity of options and arguments compared to the RfC being proposed now, and (2) just how exhausted by this issue everyone sounded at the beginning of that discussion, let alone the end. Besides the growing moral panic against transgender people, editor turnover, and the discovery that it is possible to stack our current list of sources such that naive vote-counting mildly supports one side or the other, I don't think much has changed since that discussion.

Do we really need to produce another 100 KB of butting of heads, only to find ourselves right back at the conclusion that:

1. There exist strong, good-faith policy arguments for either "person" or "woman".
2. Every contributor with any opinion on this issue finds their position intractably superior.
3. ...And will continue, regardless of result, to propose re-re-re-discussions until they get their way?

I apologize for my pessimistic tone, and I am aware of the biases belying it because I presently favor the status quo (or something like it). There is a snowball's chance that a streamlined two-choice RfC on just "Person" vs. "Woman" could generate useful consensus. But I'm not holding my breath that a rehash of the rehash of the rehash will actually put the issue to bed, or give anyone their darling outcome. Definition of insanity, and all that. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 07:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Have faith in the process. I think it's progress that Draft:Female (gender) was created. Although many editors may consider it navel gazing, I think that there are those of us in the academic community are very pro navel gazing. If it's possible to integrate reliable sources regarding the former, maybe we can do so for the latter. Theheezy (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Your edit summary seems to accept that an RfC will happen, but anyway, it wouldn't be the exact same alternative option. The original RfC is 5 years old and was a mere no consensus result, and contained 4 different options (plus 4 more vague options). That's a mess and should definitely be avoided - just a simple two-way choice is the way to go. There also wasn't a list of definitions last time. If the current definition is really the best, then it would succeed. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

In hindsight, I was pointlessly negative, and I'm sorry for that. What I meant to say was "Yes but we should use one of the newly proposed formulations as the second option". I think I was just feeling frustrated by my anticipation of FORUM-ing and BATTLEGROUND-ing on an issue I am personally sensitive to.

You're right that having a defn list on-hand is a big step forward, and I agree that an RfC with the minimal number of concrete options is probably for the best, although I think some of the alternatives are still worth exploring. The above discussion seems to generally support the second option being:

A trans woman is a person who was assigned male at birth and has a female gender identity.

Based on definitions #19, 23, and 36, we could also consider saying "transgender person" instead, which I think would be somewhat useful in clarifying that we're not talking about a mistaken/ambiguous sex assignment (at least, not in the literal sense). The phrase "transgender or transsexual person" also springs to mind. Defns #16, 18, and 40 (the OED) include transsexual.

And if we're deadset on linking to Woman rather than Female, I think the correct phrasing of that is found in defn #23:

A trans woman is a transgender person who was assigned male at birth and whose gender identity is that of a woman.

–RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Notes

2c: While I think the current wording is best, I do also kinda like Crossroads' idea of sidestepping any noun ("A trans woman [...verb phrase...]"), I just wonder: are there other articles which start off that way, "An article subject [verb phrase]" instead of "An article subject is a [noun] which [verb phrase]"? If so, I think that could be a good option to consider here; I'd just be wary if it'd make this article the odd duck out.
I think "A trans woman is a [woman/person...]" is better than "A trans woman is a transgender [woman/person] who [definition of what being transgender is]" because the latter seems pleonastic; also, we have an entire lead paragraph saying "transgender woman is not always interchangeable with transsexual woman", so defining trans woman explicitly as transgender suggests a transsexual woman is not a trans woman, but I don't think that's the intent or accurate.
Do we want any RfC about this to also cover the Trans man article, mutatis mutandis? -sche (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Most (all?) of the entries in the definition subpage apply to both. Levivich 20:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Some editors undoubtedly think the status quo lead sentence is better than any of the various suggested alternatives. For those who think one of the alternatives is better, is there one alternative that everyone supports, or is there a split of opinion here between two (or more) alternatives? Because if there is one alternative that has strong support, perhaps it's best to just propose that single alternative in an RfC, and those who prefer the status quo can !vote "oppose", and we won't have the complexities of a multi-option RfC. If there is a split of opinion, then perhaps a multi-option RfC is the best way to go, although in that case, I'd be in favor of no more than three options: status quo and two alternatives. Levivich 02:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think A trans woman is a person who was assigned male at birth and has a female gender identity. should be pitted against the status quo. I think the alternative is pretty much the one everyone is hinting at in this discussion. Notice it doesn't use "but" which some have objected too. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would support that over the status quo. Anyone else? Is proposing this change worth an RFC? Levivich 15:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's time. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"All right, let's do this one last time." As one final piece of housekeeping before initiating centralized discussion with these two options, it would be good to make clear in the RfC's introduction that any new outcome would also be applied to Trans man in parallel fashion. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I've posted a note at Talk:Trans man about this discussion. Levivich 04:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Definitions subpage reorganized - I've boldly reorganized Talk:Trans woman/Definitions to categorize the sources. Several new sources have been added since this discussion started (thank you to those who added them), and while this changes the numbering, I think for the RFC, it's better to have these organized rather than in one long unorganized list. The categories have letters attached to them, so we could refer in the future to sources as "A-1, S-2, O-4", etc., which I think is better. The permalink for the version before my change is Special:Permalink/1104746005 (also, it's permalinked above, so anyone wanting to reference the old numbering while reading the prior discussion can still do so). The permalink for the reorganized link is Special:Permalink/1104748675. Anyone should feel free to revert/change the organization if it's not an improvement. Levivich 17:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This was a good move, thank you. This helps when evaluating WP:WEIGHT. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

article description.

hello. I think the article description is less than optimal because it describes a Trans Woman as a Transgender woman. not everybody knows what this is so we should probably make it more obvious on the description. Matteow101 (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it’s a little circular, but my rationale here is that Short descriptions are intended to disambiguate the subject area being discussed, not to define it. In the event that trans is an unfamiliar/ambiguous term to the searcher, I think there’s value in expanding it to make clear this article is about transgender, not transhumanist, transportation, transracial, or another such (theoretical) categorization of woman. We should avoid jargon, but if someone reading the SDESC is unaware of non-specialist vocabulary like AMAB or transgender (I wouldn’t call either niche), the article should help with that, not the short description. If nothing else, our theoretical lay reader can look at it and go “Oh, so it’s a gender thing.” –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 13:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Why add this line??

“Trans women may identify as heterosexual (or straight), bisexual, homosexual (or lesbian), asexual, or none of the above.“ So can everyone else? And outlining three sexualities just to say ‘or none of the above’ seems counterproductive. 68.175.6.43 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree it’s fairly useless, just make sure trans man and maybe Non-binary gender is consistent if you remove it. Dronebogus (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It may not be worded the best, but it shouldn't be removed entirely per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Equivamp - talk 09:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

“none of the above” probably refers to other, less common sexual orientations like pansexual or demisexual; maybe change to “or other orientations”? Dronebogus (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless we're hankering for links to the other LGBT articles, I think any sexual orientation would be the best way of saying this in the lede. I made this edit, which replaces that sentence with text corresponding to Trans man, reading Like cisgender women, trans women may have any sexual orientation. Acceptable? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 14:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Levivich 16:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Good Dronebogus (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2022

A trans woman is a person who identifies as a woman but was assigned male at birth. 2A00:79E1:ABC:1208:E64E:33F2:D3C0:9C3F (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure the article says that? Dronebogus (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2022

Change reference to 'woman' wrt definition of trans woman to 'person' Paul.A.Enger (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus supporting the status quo, so why does there have to be one to change it? And how would this consensus be established? There will always be some who think Wikipedia, or at least this article, should be an annex to Twitter/Reddit, and to hell with NPOV. 24.20.73.137 (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean unanimity. Please see WP:CONSENSUS. This is just how Wikipedia works. It can certainly be frustrating. For my money, it's the worst system we could possibly have--except for all of the alternatives. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that the current phrasing is the result of an RfC (specifically Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4 § RfC on introduction) which had a WP:NOCONSENSUS result, and as such, would require a followup RfC to alter. Given the affirmative rumblings in the above section, it is very likely that another RfC on this matter will be conducted very soon.

Once that discussion in motion, Paul and the IP editor are more than welcome to offer policy-based arguments in support of changing the existing text. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC on first sentence

There has been a previous RfC in 2018 that dealt with the first sentence of this article; the result was no consensus between the two leading options, and the status quo sentence remained—the same sentence present today. A recent discussion has led to an alternative proposal to be pitted against the status quo. A new outcome in this discussion could have parallel impact at Trans man. The options are:

Proposal 1

A trans woman is a person who was assigned male at birth and has a female gender identity.

Proposal 2 (status quo)

A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth.

Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 05:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Survey

Support 2. Proposal 1, however well-intended, implies that trans women are something other than women. And if Proposal 1 is adopted, I expect that people who do not agree or accept that trans women are women will still not be satisfied with that language. Funcrunch (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Support 2. Gender identity == gender, therefore proposal 1 is simply an overlong version of #2. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  15:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Conditional support 1. If "person" is changed to "woman". If not, I support option 2. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Support 2. Brought here by the RfC. If they now identify as female, then it is a woman. StarHOG (Talk) 16:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Support 1. Few reasons. Option 2 is not the wording used by the majority of WP:RS as highlighted in Talk:Trans woman/Definitions. To say a Trans woman is a woman seems unnecessarily belaboring the point. Adjective Noun is an Noun is definitely redundant and confusing. Lastly, Option 2 doesn't do a good job of explaining what a Trans woman is. Theheezy (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It is useful to clarify that trans women are indeed women. Might be redundant, but I think it better educates our readers to explicitly mention it. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

If they are to function as complete, standalone definitions (notably, not the purpose of a first sentence), I think both versions are missing the semi-critical fact that trans is short for transgender, except some touchy edge-cases where it is instead short for transsexual. That information is present either explicitly or implicitly in almost all of the definitions, but notably absent here.

Since this seems like the appropriate time to decide on that (or forever hold our peace), should we include text to that effect?

Proposal 1.5 Remix: A trans woman is a transgender or transsexual person who was assigned male at birth and has a female gender identity.

Proposal 2.22: A trans woman (short for transgender or transsexual woman) is a woman was assigned male at birth..

–RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 23:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I think proposal 1.5 is acceptable, but including various options drastically increases the chance of this ending in no consensus, which is something we wanted to avoid in the prior discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 23:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Pardon my presentation; think of these more as examples of what I'm talking about, rather than actual new proposed outcomes to the RfC. My intention was to demonstrate that this issue is independent of the is a woman vs is a person female gender thing issue, and that either version is compatible with either outcome. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 23:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Support 2. Far more concise and less confusing to a reader who has little knowledge of the subject. --John B123 (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Support 1 per the RS. Unfortunately the statement that "trans women are women" is controversial, so until more high level sources can be provided which state this we shouldn't write this in wikivoice in the lead. Consensus cannot override NPOV. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Support 1 per review of RS at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions. Of the 37 references, only around 6 support the terminology "is a woman" in their definition. Around 27 endorse using terminology similar to Proposal 1 or the similar "person who was assigned male at birth and identifies as a woman." In my mind, these mean the same thing. The ones that explicitly support "female gender identity" include John Hopkins Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Cornell University, Centers for Disease Control, Fenway Health, and Planned Parenthood. One's that support the similar "identify as woman/girl" include Princeton University, American Psychological Association, National Health Service, Human Rights Campaign, American Academy of Pediatrics, and Stonewall. I skipped many of the other 27 sources, these are just the highly prestigious ones supporting Proposal 1. Only 1 prestigious source, Harvard, supports Proposal 2. These sources range from medical sources, to academic, to even advocacy. Additionally, when defining trans woman all the prior sources opt to use person/someone/individual (or something similar) rather than woman. We shouldn't be presenting this minority phrasing as the defintion. I think it's pretty clear that RS sees Proposal 1 as superior to Proposal 2. Cheers, Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 20:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It is worth noting (solely as pedantry) that source S-3 (which you attributed to "Princeton University") is in fact a document created by the advocacy group Gender Spectrum. Prior versions of the definitions subpage erroneously attributed it to the Princeton Gen/Sex Resource Center because it was uploaded there.

Likewise, the "trans terms" document (S-5) on the Cornell University HR website (since deleted) is actually a work by Genny Beemyn (a researcher at UMass Amherst). Beemyn does seem to be an expert; they went on to co-author the The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies, which notes "[a] universally accepted definition of trans woman is not possible" (851), but does feel comfortable enough to begin a sentence with Given that trans women are women... (135).

More generally, I think we may be ascribing an undue prestige to sources in the Schools section (excluding perhaps the APA), as these are not peer-reviewed publications. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 22:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

If I'm giving undue prestige to such sources, then let's look at the academic sourcing thats available. There are nine, and one would be more favorable toward Proposal 2, while at least six would be favorable toward Proposal 1. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

In light of recent additions (see below), the definitions list now lists a score of peer-reviewed academic sources which would support Option 2. Politanvm raises the excellent point which I variously alluded to in the preceding discussion, which is that unweighted counting of arbitrarily picked sources is probably not the most solid basis to build our text from. Solely through the lens of WP:RS and WP:V, it is demonstrable that either option is acceptable. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Support 1. I think that the statement a trans woman is a woman is controversial, and I also think that, no matter which side of the argument you fall on, you can agree that that statement is controversial. In fact, it is the definition of a controversial statement. As such, the idea that "trans women are women" is not an axiom that can be used as the backbone to an argument, and is in no way automatically true simply because you believe it to be true (as with any argument). It is, in fact, an opinion. An opinion which can be argued very well, but an opinion nonetheless. The reasoning that version two is better than version one because 'trans women are women and version one doesn't include that' goes against WP:NPOV. I don't think any statement that uses an opinion as its backbone has any place on Wikipedia.

For example, Ixtal, why should 'person' be changed to 'woman'? You gave no reason for the change. Or, StarHOG, your statement "If they now identify as female, then it is a woman" is an opinion (no matter how valid).

I don't know. Version 1 still isn't great, but it is objectively true (I think?) and explains the topic, albeit less concisely. 2ple (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm genuinely confused how "trans woman is a woman" is controversial. To my knowledge the sources described above do not see it as a controversial statement or make note of existing controversy. I also fail to see how arguing that they are is a non-neutral point-of-view (and the opposite is not). This RfC is not debating whether trans women are women or not, but how to concisely and intelligibly define them for our readers.

On another note, 2ple, I strongly urge you to strike the comment "I don't think any statement that uses an opinion as its backbone has any place on Wikipedia." There is no reason to be uncivil when the discussion so far has been greatly civil and with due respect between editors. We are all discussing here in good faith with the purpose of improving the article and I think your comment is inappropriate in the context of your previous statements. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing uncivil in the statement I don't think any statement that uses an opinion as its backbone has any place on Wikipedia" but hey, perhaps my standard of civility is different from yours.  Tewdar  21:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that by itself it is not uncivil, Tewdar, but what the editor is essentially saying when read as part of the whole paragraph is "I don't think the statements of editors that support option 2 have any place on Wikipedia". — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Option 2 support has not exactly been based on a great deal of policy-based rationale...  Tewdar  22:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Ixtal, if that statement comes across as uncivil. I'll strike it.

I'm genuinely confused how "trans woman is a woman" is controversial. Let me explain how it is controversial.

When you say "a trans woman is a woman", how do you define define woman? Honestly, I want to know.

The statement "a trans woman is a person" is infinitely simpler, I believe. 2ple (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

To reiterate, this RfC is not debating the validity of trans womanhood. Describing transgender people using the correct terms ("man/woman", "waiter/waitress") is an established community guideline. Inasmuch as doing so may be "controversial" to some readers (so is the the moon landing, homeopathy, and Barack Obama's citizenship), our existing sources on the matter do not characterize it as such.

We cannot, in good faith, interpret a source's use of non-gendered terms like person (human, individual, someone, etc.) as if it explicitly means a human of indeterminate/debatable gender. However, the desire of various commenters to do so (and my concern that Wikipedia readers will do the same) is largely why I prefer the status quo. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't be approaching this question by asking which definition makes the reader understand that a trans woman is a woman. We should ask which definition is mostly supported by RS. In this case it's very obvious, not even close, which is mostly supported, and I haven't heard an argument against that. We shouldn't sacrifice the core tenants of neutrality and weight because its possible Proposal 1 makes some people who may think trans women are not real women more pleased. It should also be noted that Proposal 1 is not negating the claim that trans women are women. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

We agree that the proposition that a trans woman is an AMAB human with a female gender identity (A) does not contradict a trans woman is an AMAB woman (B). All sources which say B (most notably, the Merriam-Webster dictionary) are necessarily implying that A is also true. Likewise, none of the sources which say A are directly in opposition with B. Thus the sheer fact that A occurs more frequently does not mean it is WP:UNDUE or WP:POV for the lead to state both A and B, which we currently do in our first two sentences. This is also not improper synthesis, as we are not combining them to imply any novel conclusion C.

As for arguments in specifically in favor of using woman here, (noting that I'm not deeply attached to Option 2), MOS:IDENTITY advises we prefer specific labels like Ethiopian as opposed to general labels like African, and there's a case that we should treat woman and person the same way. Likewise, MOS:GENDERID insists on describing all transgender people using the correct gendered terms ("man/woman"), although I agree that invoking it here is probably a bit silly. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Support 1. Option 2 is also acceptable, and follows Wikipedia and guidelines around reliable sourcing and due weighting, but I believe Option 1 is the slightly better option for the lead sentence. Of course, trans women are women, and I've watched this page (and other LGBTQ pages) long enough to know that some of the vocal opposition to the status quo/Option 2 is done to push a transphobic POV. Still, for a good-faith non-specialist reader who doesn't have any familiarity with transgender people or other LGBTQ topics, Option 1 seems to be to be the clearest way for the reader to understand who trans women are, without being too verbose. If "gender identity" is linked (which I assume it's meant to be, but isn't in the survey), it also gives the non-expert reader an easy way to start learning about the distinction between sex and gender. Anecdotally, I've heard well-meaning people be confused about whether trans woman means MtF or FtM, and Option 1 makes it clearer that trans women are generally MtF. Politanvm ^talk 01:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Support 2. Clear, concise and correct. A trans woman is more than just a person, she is considered to be a woman. The is zero need to repeat that such an affirmative confirmed woman has also a female identity. Start simple, expand in the article. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Support 2 (with an asterisk) – I mean, I support #2, full stop. The asterisk means, that I understand that the assigned male at birth part of it may cause honest incomprehension on the part of some readers. So, in order to address the "incomprehension" part, besides just linking AMAB, what about providing an explanatory note inline, borrowing a few words from the assigned sex article? I realize this is unorthodox for a WP:LEADSENTENCE, but if it helps resolve the uncertainty with the "assigned" phrase, then the "asterisk" may be a service to our readers, and mitigate the incomprehension that some readers may feel. Here's how that would look:

A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth.

I still support 2, but I'd prefer 2*, as I think it would go a long way to resolve the uneasiness some readers may feel with the current version, and it preserves previous consensus with a minimal change to the WP:LEADSENTENCE, while still resolving some uncertainty or confusion which surely must exist among some readers via the note. Mathglot (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I suggest a change to the wording of your explanatory note, thus:

A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth.

More concise and conveys the same information, methinks. Also removed scare quotes. Funcrunch (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed; your version looks better than mine. Mathglot (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think an {{efn}} is really helpful here. If we're just trying to explain what assigned male at birth means, the linked article already does that, and in either case, the reader has to interact with something. Ideally, users with the Navigation popups gadget hovering over the link would see a preview of Sex assignment § AMAB, but annoyingly, that currently only works if we use a WP:NOTBROKEN link, [[Sex assignment#AMAB|assigned male at birth]]. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 23:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I always try to think about who the readership is, and in particular, the least clueful among them who are honestly coming here for the most basic explanation possible. In this case, I think that might be middle schoolers, trying to learn the very basics about the topic. The chances that they have gadgets enabled is close to zero. There's a chance that they *might* click the link, but we don't know (and if they do, will they come back, or are they in "surfing mode"?) An explanatory footnote at least provides another avenue, and on-page to boot, to inform them. (The "it's a boy!" was an attempt to avoid WP:JARGON as much as possible, and to be crystal clear about the issue.) Finally, probably even a lot of adults who are not familiar with the details of the topic, will never have heard the AMAB term before, and may also appreciate the on-page explanation. That's the theory behind the explanatory note, but I welcome any solution which best and most clearly conveys the basics about trans women to our readers, especially the ones least likely to know much of anything about the topic. Mathglot (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The kind of user who doesn't follow links seems even less likely to follow a , so while I empathize with improving understanding among such hypothetical readers, I'm doubtful this would actually do so. If we anticipate that a considerable number of readers will be baffled by "assigned male at birth" and fail to access the page which explains the term, then we would either need to choose an alternative (who was designated the male sex at birth), or elaborate it in-text. For the record, I don't think we should do either—I still think AMAB is an ostensibly self-explanatory phrase, and a considerable number of sources treat it that way.

If we do include a note like this, the phrasing deserves a third pass. Trans man and Trans woman are perhaps the two articles where the sex-gender distinction is at its most relevant and touchy. I understand the entire point of "assigned-male" is that it is neutral to present-day gender and sex traits, so it seems sloppy to conflate "assigned male at birth" with "declared a boy" where sources do not. Likewise "It's a boy!" seems tropey and unnecessary. If we synthesized these two sentences, we would get something extremely undesirable like A trans woman is a woman who was declared to be a boy ("It's a boy!") by a doctor who inspected her genitalia at birth. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 03:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Support 2. Accurate, concise, does the job. I don't necessarily oppose proposal 1, but proposal 2 is better in my eyes. Also on the grounds that given a lot of the time, people who are cisgender are said to have a "gender" and people who aren't are said to have a "gender identity", if that makes sense. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Support 2. It's not saying just that a trans woman is a woman, it's saying she's a "woman who was assigned male at birth". And we already link to assigned male at birth, we don't need to toss a footnote. Concise and accurate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Support 2. I feel like the arguments for 1 based on RSes are missing the forest for the trees here. This is the article for trans woman. It's definitional that trans women are a kind of women, and as far as I can tell none of our reliable sources question that. It's true that RSes usually phrase definitions of "trans woman" as "A trans woman is a person who..." rather than as "A trans woman is a woman who...", but we're not bound to their phrasing, just their information. (Sidenote: I wouldn't oppose Mathglot's 2-star or Funcrunch's 2-star-star but I don't think the extra footnote is necessary.) Loki (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Support 1. All the arguments on the other side come down to this: Trans women are women, therefore trans women are women. This kind of reasoning makes perfect sense if you are a Twitter or Reddit user. Anyone who disagrees with you is "transphobic" and should therefore be deplatformed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.73.137 (talk) 18:51, August 22, 2022 (UTC)

Support 1 per the clear and overwhelming WP:Due weight of sources collected for a long time at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions. As Politanvm said, Option 1 seems to be to be the clearest way for the reader to understand who trans women are, without being too verbose. We should be following the lead of the vast majority of sources when it comes to figuring out how to explain this, rather than what we personally like. Those sources know better than we do, and this principle is what Wikipedia and the RS and WEIGHT policies are based on.

Here is my total. (Note that sources that elide the "is a" clause or are otherwise unclear either way for our purposes have not been counted as neither RfC option offers that, but they are a small minority.)

• Number of sources in the subpage which say "person", "someone", "individual", "those" or the like first and hence have a pattern akin to Option 1 (listed by heading):
  • A: 6, S: 5, G: 4, O: 7, D: 3, N: 2. Total: 27
• Number of sources in the subpage which say "woman" first and hence have a pattern akin to Option 2 (listed by heading):
  • A: 1, S: 1, G: 1, O: 2, D: 1, N: 1. Total: 7

A clear and large supermajority come down on the side of Option 1. I see no policy-based reason not to follow the evident due weight here.

Option 1 is superior because it names the distinguishing factor that defines the topic - gender identity. This is likely why most sources use it. This is completely ignored in favor of a less clear term with pre-existing baggage ("woman") in most readers' minds in Option 2. Option 1 better educates readers and follows due weight. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Worth noting that the totals given above (particularly in section A) have now changed dramatically as 21 new "is a woman" sources (mostly academic ones) have been added to the Definitions page. Assuming your prior analysis was sound, that would seemingly leave the totals now at exactly 28 (in favor of Option 2) to 27. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 02:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Support 1 or 1.5, per source usage, and to be clearer to our own readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Support 2 – Keep the status quo definition. It's simple and concise. Also, the definition aligns with the Miriam Webster dictionary: "transwoman – a woman who was identified as male at birth"[2]. If people want option 1 then it should be rewritten like the Oxford English dictionary definition: "transwoman – a person who was registered as male at birth but who lives and identifies as a woman"[3]. These are the two main dictionaries in the English language. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Support 2. The purpose of the lead of an article, and most especially the first sentence, is to concisely summarize the subject in plain language; and virtually all high-quality sources today refer to trans women as women when discussing them in plain language. Option 1 is clunky and, because it deviates from the way the term is used in normal speech, reads as non-neutral in tone. EDIT: See the sources added here. --Aquillion (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed! Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, since you asked. That's an additional twenty-plus citations to broadly high-quality academic sources using wording very close to our current version. It's clearly the overwhelming majority in academic sources, at least by my searching. I also take issue with the assessment of that list above (even before my additions.) The proposal is to change the wording to person, which has clear implications; it is completely misleading to lump together every source that uses any other wording. Only about 16-17 sources total in that list use "person" as the operative term. But either way the twenty-plus academic sources I found in a quick search outweigh all other sources currently on the list - particularly notable since the list has existed for two years, yet a few hours of searching turned up a massive number of sources that had been overlooked. Most importantly, though, virtually all of these sources point to the same, singular, straightforward definition. The other items on the list don't point in any one particular direction (hence my objection of how so many of the ones being used to argue for a change to "person" don't actually use that word) - they're enough to establish that some other terms exist, sure, but none of them have the clear consensus support among academic sources that "a trans woman is a woman" does. --Aquillion (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Aquillion for this. One of my main concerns over the definitions subpage was that it lacked a great many academic sources which I know overwhelmingly state "a trans woman is a woman", as well as some other sources that would be relevant (eg AP Stylebook, The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, NHS, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, etc). It was something I had hoped to address prior to the RfC being launched, and I regret not noting this absence prior, however I've not had the time to do so.

There are still some sources missing, like those I've named above, however the list is more comprehensive now and representative of the academic consensus on this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

NHS is already present: We use "trans woman" for someone who was registered male at birth and now identifies as a woman.[4] Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'd searched for the acronym, as that is the more familiar way for a UK native to refer to the service, and not the full name. My bad, struck that now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Aquillion, the definitions list still needs more work. You've only added scholarly articles which use "is a woman", but we need to compare that to how many articles use alternative language. And I think that it is fair to lump together every source that uses any other wording than woman, because woman is a contentious term [5] while "person", etc., are not. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree that using "person" in this context is uncontentious; in fact my !vote more or less stated as much explicitly when I said that I felt that option 2 is not neutral. The fact that some people disagree with the wording used overwhelmingly by academic sources does not make it "contentious" by Wikipedia standards; after all, if that were the case, evolution or who won the 2020 US election would also be "contentious." More generally it is hard to credit the argument that a definition used so precisely and repeatedly by high-quality sources, generally with no disclaimers or indications that it is considered controversial at all, could be as contentious among top-quality sources as the culture-war furor implies. What this means is that if you want to argue that any specific wording has a stronger consensus among sources behind it and is therefore less contentious, you must demonstrate stronger use for that specific wording (or for mild variations which keep the same key word) than there is for "a trans woman is a woman..." If you think there are sources that are overlooked, you can add them to the list, but at least as far as my position goes, if you want to argue that any wording is less contentious than "a trans woman is a woman...", you must demonstrate that a specific wording has stronger usage behind it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Stating that a trans woman is a person does not imply that a trans woman is not a woman; it's just avoiding a contentious statement. No RS say that a trans woman is not a person. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Stating that a trans woman is a person does not imply that a trans woman is not a woman - that is your interpretation, which I obviously do not share. When there is an overwhelming number of sources referring to trans women as women in their core definition, referring to them as a "person" instead in our definition clearly carries a POV, and is plainly a contentious statement that requires high-quality sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

"Just avoiding a contentious statement" by using a double negative like

no RS says that a trans woman is not a person

doesn't really work; no RS says that a trans woman is not a featherless biped, either, so that wording is uncontentious with respect to truth, but contentious wrt how Wikipedia generally works. We editors aren't tasked with coming up with wording of our own merely in order to avoid supposedly contentious statements made by actual sources. If the world views the sources as contentious, they'll probably view Wikipedia's summary of them as contentious as well; and that's as it should be. Mathglot (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

"A trans woman is a person" is WP:OBV. Cherrypicking sources which state "is a woman" and then stating "there is an overwhelming number of sources referring to trans women as women in their core definition" is unnecessarily muddying the waters and casts doubt on the statement which might actually be true. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

In general, I don't think it will be very helpful to decide the lead sentence based on a simple count of definitions. I'm sure there are hundreds or thousands of potentially reliable sources, and there's no way we'll be able to census all of them. So it would likely come down to people hunting for the definitions they want. It's clear that both Option 1 and Option 2 are supported by numerous reliable sources, and either would be due. Also, the two options don't contradict each other, but rather are different wordings for the same thing. I think focusing on the components of WP:FIRST (none of which are "use the definition that has the most citations") will get this RfC to a better outcome. Politanvm ^talk 04:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

If anyone has access to some of the journalistic style-guides which Sideswipe9th mentioned, their research would be greatly appreciated. I can't personally reach the latest AP Stylebook, but their Transgender Coverage Topical Guide (while it doesn't offer a definition of trans woman) does offer the following guidance which seems somewhat relevant:

• Use the term sex (or gender) assigned at birth instead of biological sex, birth gender, was identified at birth as, born a girl and the like.

• The word identify is frequently used to describe how someone views themself and can be useful when writing about issues of identity. But often phrasing like is a woman is more to the point than identifies as a woman.

• Avoid terms like biological male, which opponents of transgender rights sometimes use to oversimplify sex and gender, is often misleading shorthand for assigned male at birth, and is redundant because sex is inherently biological.

–RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 03:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no universally established consensus (or, at least in the context of the English Wikipedia, established consensus between English-speaking countries) that a trans woman is a woman. Plain and simple. Or, maybe not plain and simple.

Keep in mind that this is not the United States Wikipedia, nor the English-speaking Western world Wikipedia, but the English Wikipedia. Transgender/transsexual men and women across the globe are not always considered to be men/women. Too many of these votes for option 2 simply say that "a trans woman is a woman, obviously," when in reality it isn't all that obvious. As with any reasoning, I think that statement deserves, at the very least, an explanation. I don't think it can stand by itself as truth. For example, the reasoning that a trans woman is a woman because reliable sources A, B, C, and D define the term 'woman' not only biologically, but socially rests with me as a better argument than a trans woman is a woman, obviously.

I read an article that talked about how we are trying to force this false dichotomy on something that isn't binary. Sex itself is a spectrum, even disregarding self-identity (people are born intersex). I believe the entire idea of being trans does not fit the traditional binary notion of male and female or man and woman.

I am not arguing that trans women are or aren't women. I am arguing that trans women are not universally agreed upon to be women, and as such, it is impossible to state that as a standalone truth from which reasoning can be derived.

Also: we are not allowed to promote any sort of ideology, or disallow any ideology here on Wikipedia. The fact that a certain statement may make a certain side's POV more valid is never a reason to disallow it. To say that the statement a trans woman is a woman is unfair because it promotes the ideologies of transfeminists, transactivists, and trans supporters is not a valid reason to strike down anything, just as it is unfair to say that the statement a trans woman is a person is unfair, simply because it promotes the ideologies of transphobes. I acknowledge that not labelling a trans woman as a woman has historically ripened the transphobic divide, and while I vehemently detest that, I do not consider it fair to use that as reasoning to ignore the rules, and especially to ignore the consensus of reliable sourcing (or maybe lack of consensus).

I move to avoid any reasoning that uses the statement a trans woman is a woman, obviously and to shift to statements that explain why a trans woman is a woman, and more importantly, why we can call a trans woman a woman in Wikipedia's voice. 2ple (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@2ple: To date, I don't see anyone except you using the word "obvious" or "obviously" to define trans women in this RFC. Speaking as a trans person who supported Option 2, I am very well aware that many people throughout the English-speaking world do not consider trans women to be women. But honestly, if you're saying that we can't say something in Wikivoice unless it's universally agreed upon, that means throwing out a good deal of this encyclopedia, including virtually everything said about LGBT folks, positive or negative. There really is no such thing as perfect neutrality when it comes to these sort of subjects. Funcrunch (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I think 2ple is saying that "trans women are women" is not WP:OBV. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I understood that was the intent, but having reviewed the !votes I disagree that anyone stated this as boldly as 2ple suggests. Especially as 2ple used quote formatting to imply that a trans woman is a woman, obviously was actually stated by one or more !voters. Funcrunch (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

If you're saying that we can't say something in Wikivoice unless it's universally agreed upon—no, that is not what I'm saying. I am arguing that trans women are not universally agreed upon to be women, and as such, it is impossible to state that as a standalone truth or an axiom from which reasoning can be derived.

For example, I'd like to use this reply by BOD—Support 2. Clear, concise and correct. A trans woman is more than just a person, she is considered to be a woman. There is zero need to repeat that such an affirmative confirmed woman has also a female identity.

• A trans woman is more than just a person, she is considered to be a woman—considered by who?? I don't think that the reasoning presented, alone, is enough to prove anything. That is the point I am trying to make.

Here is an argument for option 2 I like by Guest2625—The definition aligns with the Miriam Webster dictionary: "transwoman – a woman who was identified as male at birth". The reasoning uses a source to establish the idea that a trans woman is a woman, instead of simply stating it as truth. 2ple (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Considered by who? actually remember you have been advised at least twice above, this RfC has nothing to do with who has proof that trans women are women or not. This is simply the very first line of the lead section of an article, it does not need sourcing only, that it correctly reflects the body of the article that follows (and that it hopefully invites the reader to read further). ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the lead sentence does reflect the body. In the body we have:

• [Rachel McKinnon] concludes that "trans women are women" who challenge socially constructed norms of what it means to be a woman.
• Thus trans women fall under the umbrella of being transgender because their gender was assigned male at birth but they identify as a woman.

Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that that isn't the point of the RFC. However.

Trans women are not universally agreed upon to be women. At least in my limited experience. Just read the first paragraph of the Terminology section. There is no agreed upon definition.

Therefore, I don't think that 'trans women are women' can standalone as truth without evidence/sourcing.

I am not trying to argue about whether or not trans women are women. 2ple (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

References