Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
VoiceOfOne 01:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC) "Voice Feminization" is a term or a 'description' of what that term means. In this case I belive I am correct in thinking that it should be used in the sense of 'terminology' and not a method. A method is a means of obtaining something and the article should address the methods used...
C'mon, no reason to fight about it. I think it's a fine article so far, and will continue to grow. Alex, if you had a problem with the 'stub' label, why not remove it yourself?
Czolgolz
12:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Term ... In terminology (the study of language terms), a "term" is a word, word pair, or word group, that is used in specific contexts for a specific meaning. ...
Method ...In science in general, method is a codified series of steps taken to complete a certain task or to reach a certain objective , see also algorithm, methodology.
Is 'Voice Feminization' a term or a method or both?
If I said " ... the method of Voice Feminization is as follows..." it would work
If I said " ... the term Voice Feminization is used by ..." it would also work.
There indeed are several methods used to aquire a female voice, but each of the methods has there own term applied to that method. For instance to aid in the prosody used by a natal-female you could use 'baby talk' as your method. Then I could say " ... the method of 'baby talk' is one of the methods of Voice Feminization ..." and it would be true.
So is it a term or a method? or both?
VoiceOfOne 16:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, I changed the first 'transwomen' to 'transsexual' just so there'll be a link to that article. All other 'transwomen' stayed the same. Czolgolz 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so what's with the 'cis'? I've been active in the transgender community for fifteen years, and while I'm no expert, I've never heard that term once. What's wrong with simply saying man or woman? This article didn't exist two days ago, and you seem to insist that it go your way only. I call for a vote. Who says that we should use the words 'man' and 'woman' when referring to someone who is genetically male or female? Czolgolz 17:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
CISGENDER May be correct, but CISman and CISwoman are not used at all in Wikipedia, except for this article - Correcting to something more common.
FemVoice
22:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
AlexR, I checked for ciswoman, cisman and cisgender are not in
[ Merriam-Webster Online] or[ Dictionary.com]. I have found several uses of the word, but can not find a definition. Ciswoman is especially problematic as it is impolite to refer to people by what they are not, and especially insulting to those of us who hold the belief that once we have completely transitioned that the term woman, not transwoman or woman in transition, will apply to us. I personally do not find either man or woman insulting to use, but I would be insulted if someone referred to me as a ciswoman as it is too close to 'sissy-woman' in sound which I hope even you could understand is an insult to a M2F-Transsexual.
As you pointed out both cisman and ciswoman are redirected to cisgender. Redirection usually means that they have the same meaning, or if not then they will be defined in the redirection such than anyone of moderate intelligence can understand the definition. Since they are not defined in cisgender it can be presumed that they are the same (understandably incorrect). Therefore, the sentence in question could be re-written to say A cisgender, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of cisgender. Hence your edit is factually incorrect and nonsensical.
If you truly believe that you have an authoritative sources that can convince me otherwise about ciswoman, a word that has only one occurrence that is publicly available via a search engine, please provide your authoritative sources'.
I may be mistaken, but this page appears to be a topic that is of interest to the TransGendered and more specifically TransWomen. Although we do not mind a helping hand in editing and composition, I believe that as a compendium of all human knowledge, Wikipedia contains subject matter which is the province of various subcultures. I believe that all reasonable administrators of this namespace would agree to that statement. I also believe that since most of these administrators would agree that Editing specialized subject matter requires familiarity with those areas and the specialized language and information resources which concern them. The assertion that something "makes no sense" or is limited to a subculture … is not grounds for a subject's exclusion from Wikipedia. And since I am a M2F-Transsexual with a degree of expertise in trained other M2F-Transsexual in Voice Feminization at TG gatherings, I believe that I would be a better judge of what material should and should not be in an article on a subject that I have experienced. This is why I placed the sentence about Melanie Anne Phillips at the beginning, because she offered the first training in Voice Feminization. The ranking of whom has the best program, training or therapy is a matter of opinion and not a subject that I feel should be covered in an article. Who had the first offered program to M2F-Transsexuals is not a matter of dispute. And when you moved the sentence to the end of the paragraph you made it sound awkward going from voice surgery to a self-help program.
By all means be bold when helping with this article. But please remember that this is an article that is fairly complex and as it stands right now can be considered a stub.
Finally, for a review;
FemVoice 18:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Is editing an article really considered vandalism, Alex R? I'm calling in opinions from other sources. At any rate, I thought the point of these articles was to explain things. It seems that not too many people, even those within the community, are familiar with cis terms. If we must use them, why not explain what they mean? Someone unfamiliar with transgenerism might not know the terms cisman or transwoman and might not be interested enough to research.
Czolgolz
19:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Voice Feminization has been used in the Transgender community to refer to an outcome and not a method or even a set of methods. Since the outcome can be from surgery, therapy or self-help it can not be thought of as a method. Granted, there are several methods used to achive the outcome, for instance surgery is a method used to achieve the goal of voice feminization, but it is not a method. FemVoice 00:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
After looking at the small beginning here, I think that dividing up the article into different sections according to the discipline that actually performs the voice feminization. And some other sections to describe the process in general and does anybody have any other ideas on sections? Myths'? husky female voices? etc... Please let me know.
Making changes to move around information in overview and divide it up into two overall topics of surgical and vocal training. FemVoice 03:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board#Articles with disputes
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society,_law,_and_sex
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All
FemVoice
01:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, no neologisms. And to avoid insulting anyone, using 'genetic female' should work just nicely, no? Bridesmill 22:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Now neologism is a word that I can appreciate
It would appear that AlexR refuses anything but ciswoman in the article.
20:00, 21 May 2006 + A genetic female has a smaller mouth (VoiceOfOne)
20:04, 21 May 2006 0 A genetic female has a smaller mouth (VoiceOfOne)
20:09, 21 May 2006 0 A genetic female has a smaller mouth (Czolgolz)
00:03, 22 May 2006 - A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (AlexR)
01:45, 22 May 2006 - A ciswoman (Genetic Female), on the average, has a smaller mouth (VoiceOfOne)
03:59, 22 May 2006 0 A ciswoman (Genetic Female), on the average, has a smaller mouth
05:53, 22 May 2006 - A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (AlexR)
12:35, 22 May 2006 - A
woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (Czolgolz)
16:32, 22 May 2006 - A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (AlexR)
16:46, 22 May 2006 - A
woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (Czolgolz)
17:11, 22 May 2006 - A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (AlexR)
17:55, 22 May 2006 (AlexR)
22:32, 26 May 2006 - A woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (FemVoice)
08:46, 27 May 2006 - A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth
13:43, 27 May 2006 - A woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (Czolgolz)
Current revision - A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth
When it is pointed out in discussion that a search on google produces ONLY 1 hit (voice feminization) for ciswomen in the en.wikipedia.org namespace, it seems to be ignored. The fact that it is not used in the whole of wikipedia or even defined in cisgender is an indication that it is not a word. As to AlexR's claims that the definition is just one click away it is erroneous, since ciswoman is redirected to cisgender where it is not used or defined. In addition, if you look at the first entry in the list, AlexR did not link the page to this one, VoiceOfOne did.
When questioned about why this word should be used, AlexR always points to cisgender that does not use the word anywhere in the page. Any use of this word should turn up in a search of google in the namespace en.wikipedia.org. Since it does not and every attempt to reason with AlexR seems to illicit the response " Complete and utter nonsense", it seems that someone has asked for RFC.
The real question should be whether the reading of the sentence is understandable, or if it is questionable and confusing. Just the fact that the RFC exists is an indication that it is confusing. FemVoice 00:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
What's an RFC? And you seem to be the only one insulted by the use of 'man' and 'woman.'
Czolgolz
17:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe you really are the only one. I'd thank you not to call me a liar. Czolgolz 18:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Umm, and maybe I am not as gender identified as you think, Alex?
Bridesmill
21:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Umm, I've commented here before and I have a user page. Your discussion above certainly implies that a. nobody else understands, and b. only the transgendered, nay, only transwomen understand; which is both patently false and making assumptions about the people you say 'don't understand'. Bridesmill 15:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I checked for ciswoman, cisman and cisgender in [ Merriam-Webster Online] or [ Dictionary.com] and found no entry for them in either of the online dictionaries.
A search of google using ciswoman site:en.wikipedia.org turns up two occurrences of ciswoman. One in User_talk:Messedrocker and a second Voice_Feminization. Neither define the term, as such I have altered the sentence from
A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of cismen.
And changed it to
A woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of man.
FemVoice 19:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where I ever said a transwoman was not a real woman, I just object to using a term no one seems familiar with. That's a slippery slope argument Alex, that if I don't support you, I must not know anything about transwomen. Ironically, I logged on here to say I was fine with your recent edits, and would not longer be changing the article. Czolgolz 13:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I, Czolgolz, recognize that while we will probably never reach an agreement, I find Alex's current revision an acceptable compromise, and promise to cease all editing, excepting future grammar and additions.
I further declare, that while I disagree with the use of the term 'cisgender,' I understand that it is a sensitive subject. Like all subjects, no one, including myself, is an expert on all topics.
I formally declare that I consider transwomen to be women in every sense, and all my objections were due to semantics.
I call for us all to shake hands and move on to other, less controvertial debates, such as what is the one true religion.
Czolgolz 17:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
811 words 5,012 characters (no spaces) 5,794 characters (with spaces) ~111 lines.
FemVoice 04:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Before this article existed, I started an article on the same topic with the title " Voice therapy (trans)". I think the two articles should be merged as they focus on the same topic. However, I know this article has been edited by many people and subjected to great controversy, whereas only one other person has made a couple of minor changes to my article, and so I don't know that I should try to merge the pages myself. Well, feel free to discuss. Andrea Parton 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
These are two fine articles about essentially the same thing. I could go along with a merge, though it would have to be by a greater person than I. Czolgolz 19:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
VoiceOfOne 01:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC) "Voice Feminization" is a term or a 'description' of what that term means. In this case I belive I am correct in thinking that it should be used in the sense of 'terminology' and not a method. A method is a means of obtaining something and the article should address the methods used...
C'mon, no reason to fight about it. I think it's a fine article so far, and will continue to grow. Alex, if you had a problem with the 'stub' label, why not remove it yourself?
Czolgolz
12:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Term ... In terminology (the study of language terms), a "term" is a word, word pair, or word group, that is used in specific contexts for a specific meaning. ...
Method ...In science in general, method is a codified series of steps taken to complete a certain task or to reach a certain objective , see also algorithm, methodology.
Is 'Voice Feminization' a term or a method or both?
If I said " ... the method of Voice Feminization is as follows..." it would work
If I said " ... the term Voice Feminization is used by ..." it would also work.
There indeed are several methods used to aquire a female voice, but each of the methods has there own term applied to that method. For instance to aid in the prosody used by a natal-female you could use 'baby talk' as your method. Then I could say " ... the method of 'baby talk' is one of the methods of Voice Feminization ..." and it would be true.
So is it a term or a method? or both?
VoiceOfOne 16:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, I changed the first 'transwomen' to 'transsexual' just so there'll be a link to that article. All other 'transwomen' stayed the same. Czolgolz 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so what's with the 'cis'? I've been active in the transgender community for fifteen years, and while I'm no expert, I've never heard that term once. What's wrong with simply saying man or woman? This article didn't exist two days ago, and you seem to insist that it go your way only. I call for a vote. Who says that we should use the words 'man' and 'woman' when referring to someone who is genetically male or female? Czolgolz 17:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
CISGENDER May be correct, but CISman and CISwoman are not used at all in Wikipedia, except for this article - Correcting to something more common.
FemVoice
22:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
AlexR, I checked for ciswoman, cisman and cisgender are not in
[ Merriam-Webster Online] or[ Dictionary.com]. I have found several uses of the word, but can not find a definition. Ciswoman is especially problematic as it is impolite to refer to people by what they are not, and especially insulting to those of us who hold the belief that once we have completely transitioned that the term woman, not transwoman or woman in transition, will apply to us. I personally do not find either man or woman insulting to use, but I would be insulted if someone referred to me as a ciswoman as it is too close to 'sissy-woman' in sound which I hope even you could understand is an insult to a M2F-Transsexual.
As you pointed out both cisman and ciswoman are redirected to cisgender. Redirection usually means that they have the same meaning, or if not then they will be defined in the redirection such than anyone of moderate intelligence can understand the definition. Since they are not defined in cisgender it can be presumed that they are the same (understandably incorrect). Therefore, the sentence in question could be re-written to say A cisgender, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of cisgender. Hence your edit is factually incorrect and nonsensical.
If you truly believe that you have an authoritative sources that can convince me otherwise about ciswoman, a word that has only one occurrence that is publicly available via a search engine, please provide your authoritative sources'.
I may be mistaken, but this page appears to be a topic that is of interest to the TransGendered and more specifically TransWomen. Although we do not mind a helping hand in editing and composition, I believe that as a compendium of all human knowledge, Wikipedia contains subject matter which is the province of various subcultures. I believe that all reasonable administrators of this namespace would agree to that statement. I also believe that since most of these administrators would agree that Editing specialized subject matter requires familiarity with those areas and the specialized language and information resources which concern them. The assertion that something "makes no sense" or is limited to a subculture … is not grounds for a subject's exclusion from Wikipedia. And since I am a M2F-Transsexual with a degree of expertise in trained other M2F-Transsexual in Voice Feminization at TG gatherings, I believe that I would be a better judge of what material should and should not be in an article on a subject that I have experienced. This is why I placed the sentence about Melanie Anne Phillips at the beginning, because she offered the first training in Voice Feminization. The ranking of whom has the best program, training or therapy is a matter of opinion and not a subject that I feel should be covered in an article. Who had the first offered program to M2F-Transsexuals is not a matter of dispute. And when you moved the sentence to the end of the paragraph you made it sound awkward going from voice surgery to a self-help program.
By all means be bold when helping with this article. But please remember that this is an article that is fairly complex and as it stands right now can be considered a stub.
Finally, for a review;
FemVoice 18:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Is editing an article really considered vandalism, Alex R? I'm calling in opinions from other sources. At any rate, I thought the point of these articles was to explain things. It seems that not too many people, even those within the community, are familiar with cis terms. If we must use them, why not explain what they mean? Someone unfamiliar with transgenerism might not know the terms cisman or transwoman and might not be interested enough to research.
Czolgolz
19:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Voice Feminization has been used in the Transgender community to refer to an outcome and not a method or even a set of methods. Since the outcome can be from surgery, therapy or self-help it can not be thought of as a method. Granted, there are several methods used to achive the outcome, for instance surgery is a method used to achieve the goal of voice feminization, but it is not a method. FemVoice 00:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
After looking at the small beginning here, I think that dividing up the article into different sections according to the discipline that actually performs the voice feminization. And some other sections to describe the process in general and does anybody have any other ideas on sections? Myths'? husky female voices? etc... Please let me know.
Making changes to move around information in overview and divide it up into two overall topics of surgical and vocal training. FemVoice 03:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board#Articles with disputes
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society,_law,_and_sex
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All
FemVoice
01:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, no neologisms. And to avoid insulting anyone, using 'genetic female' should work just nicely, no? Bridesmill 22:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Now neologism is a word that I can appreciate
It would appear that AlexR refuses anything but ciswoman in the article.
20:00, 21 May 2006 + A genetic female has a smaller mouth (VoiceOfOne)
20:04, 21 May 2006 0 A genetic female has a smaller mouth (VoiceOfOne)
20:09, 21 May 2006 0 A genetic female has a smaller mouth (Czolgolz)
00:03, 22 May 2006 - A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (AlexR)
01:45, 22 May 2006 - A ciswoman (Genetic Female), on the average, has a smaller mouth (VoiceOfOne)
03:59, 22 May 2006 0 A ciswoman (Genetic Female), on the average, has a smaller mouth
05:53, 22 May 2006 - A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (AlexR)
12:35, 22 May 2006 - A
woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (Czolgolz)
16:32, 22 May 2006 - A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (AlexR)
16:46, 22 May 2006 - A
woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (Czolgolz)
17:11, 22 May 2006 - A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (AlexR)
17:55, 22 May 2006 (AlexR)
22:32, 26 May 2006 - A woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (FemVoice)
08:46, 27 May 2006 - A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth
13:43, 27 May 2006 - A woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth (Czolgolz)
Current revision - A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth
When it is pointed out in discussion that a search on google produces ONLY 1 hit (voice feminization) for ciswomen in the en.wikipedia.org namespace, it seems to be ignored. The fact that it is not used in the whole of wikipedia or even defined in cisgender is an indication that it is not a word. As to AlexR's claims that the definition is just one click away it is erroneous, since ciswoman is redirected to cisgender where it is not used or defined. In addition, if you look at the first entry in the list, AlexR did not link the page to this one, VoiceOfOne did.
When questioned about why this word should be used, AlexR always points to cisgender that does not use the word anywhere in the page. Any use of this word should turn up in a search of google in the namespace en.wikipedia.org. Since it does not and every attempt to reason with AlexR seems to illicit the response " Complete and utter nonsense", it seems that someone has asked for RFC.
The real question should be whether the reading of the sentence is understandable, or if it is questionable and confusing. Just the fact that the RFC exists is an indication that it is confusing. FemVoice 00:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
What's an RFC? And you seem to be the only one insulted by the use of 'man' and 'woman.'
Czolgolz
17:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe you really are the only one. I'd thank you not to call me a liar. Czolgolz 18:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Umm, and maybe I am not as gender identified as you think, Alex?
Bridesmill
21:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Umm, I've commented here before and I have a user page. Your discussion above certainly implies that a. nobody else understands, and b. only the transgendered, nay, only transwomen understand; which is both patently false and making assumptions about the people you say 'don't understand'. Bridesmill 15:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I checked for ciswoman, cisman and cisgender in [ Merriam-Webster Online] or [ Dictionary.com] and found no entry for them in either of the online dictionaries.
A search of google using ciswoman site:en.wikipedia.org turns up two occurrences of ciswoman. One in User_talk:Messedrocker and a second Voice_Feminization. Neither define the term, as such I have altered the sentence from
A ciswoman, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of cismen.
And changed it to
A woman, on the average, has a smaller mouth and throat and therefore does not have that deep rumble that you hear in the voices of man.
FemVoice 19:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where I ever said a transwoman was not a real woman, I just object to using a term no one seems familiar with. That's a slippery slope argument Alex, that if I don't support you, I must not know anything about transwomen. Ironically, I logged on here to say I was fine with your recent edits, and would not longer be changing the article. Czolgolz 13:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I, Czolgolz, recognize that while we will probably never reach an agreement, I find Alex's current revision an acceptable compromise, and promise to cease all editing, excepting future grammar and additions.
I further declare, that while I disagree with the use of the term 'cisgender,' I understand that it is a sensitive subject. Like all subjects, no one, including myself, is an expert on all topics.
I formally declare that I consider transwomen to be women in every sense, and all my objections were due to semantics.
I call for us all to shake hands and move on to other, less controvertial debates, such as what is the one true religion.
Czolgolz 17:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
811 words 5,012 characters (no spaces) 5,794 characters (with spaces) ~111 lines.
FemVoice 04:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Before this article existed, I started an article on the same topic with the title " Voice therapy (trans)". I think the two articles should be merged as they focus on the same topic. However, I know this article has been edited by many people and subjected to great controversy, whereas only one other person has made a couple of minor changes to my article, and so I don't know that I should try to merge the pages myself. Well, feel free to discuss. Andrea Parton 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
These are two fine articles about essentially the same thing. I could go along with a merge, though it would have to be by a greater person than I. Czolgolz 19:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)