This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
This article relies very heavily on the Etymology section, which essentially reprints the entire source. That source is questionable. It also relies heavily on quotes that are only cited with ISBN numbers. So, it certainly needs more "meat" and more references.
Also, it appears to have been largely influenced by a now-banned and apparently highly biased contributor, User:Lara bran. The result seems to be an very poorly written attempt at compromise between herself and several others.
There isn't much article to this article and what there is does not meet the standards expected of Wikipedia. 24.185.6.40 ( talk) 19:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Strongly agreed.
— James Cantor (
talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
To embark on how best to improve this article, I suggest you propose what text you would prefer over what I added. You may think of Blanchard and Money however you like (of course), but the existance of the formal terms (and RS's) they used to describe "she-males" is about as relevant as a fact can be to an article. (Incidentally, although I am of course a fan and colleague of Blanchard, I have little respect for Money. Yet, I was quite able to treat them equally in my edit.)
— James Cantor (
talk) 14:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
You procede from a false belief: I do not in fact edit the controversy sections of trans-related pages. Several months ago, I entered into an agreement with
user:Dicklyon (an old friend and former employee of Lynn Conway) that neither he nor I would edit there, and I have restricted my edits to the talkpages ever since, exactly as
WP:COI suggests. You can find that agreement
here. If you can convince
user:Jokestress to restrict herself also from editing those pages, then I believe you will have done WP a great service. Meanwhile, you are admonishing the one of us who agrees with you.
— James Cantor (
talk) 23:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
— James Cantor (
talk) 23:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The current image is quite disturbing, IMHO. Scratching a transwoman's eyes out seems quite unneeded. Is this image suitable here? If so I think it should be cleaned up to restore her face and a caption to add more about who and where she is and what she's doing. -- Banjeboi 02:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is quite a mess. I have reorganized the usage information chronologically, and added better sources for the current usage. I have left some pretty bad sourcing in place for the moment. Online dictionaries should not be sources. I'll see if I can find better citations. Jokestress ( talk) 02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The James Cantor version has this:
I propose this:
Reasons: there's no reason to make this definition convoluted. This should be clear and easy to understand for a lay audience. Comments welcome. Jokestress ( talk) 15:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I propose that we split out early usage from the current usage. Cassell's gives reliably-sourced citations for early uses, including being used to describe lesbians. The term is currently exclusively used to describe transwomen who have not had vaginoplasty.
There are also tons of reliable sources from those weighing in about the term's use in the sex industry, and the pejorative connotations of the term. I am not aware of many people besides Janice Raymond, Ray Blanchard, and J. Michael Bailey who use the term uncritically. I propose we split it into two paragraphs: critics and proponents. I added three sources to help weigh the article more accurately regarding current usage:
I further propose we lose all that junk about gynandromorph that's covered in the linked article, as well as the irrelevant butterfly image. The James Cantor version is heavily weighted toward the few academics who use the term uncritically (which includes academics who consider it a "scientific" category, and academics who use it in its more common form, as a term of abuse, like Raymond). Comments welcome. Jokestress ( talk)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
I note that User:James Cantor has reinstated an edit where a direct, fully sourced historical definition has been systematically rewritten to be completely nothing like the quote from the source. I will manually repair this for the 3rd time in the space of a few days, but I am giving notice that James Cantor has reverted this page to a clearly vandalised version and will request administrator intervention if such actions continue. -- AliceJMarkham ( talk) 07:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, POV tag needs to be accompanied by actionable items so we can address and, if needed fix items. No one's is suggesting the article is perfect but are there specific POV concerns that you feel should be addressed? If not this tag should probably go. -- Banjeboi 20:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The statement "most notable for its slang usage in a pejorative context" is sourced by [1] (Wimmin, Wimps, and Wallflowers) but the source does not support the claim of pejorative use (the actual text says "restricted to heterosexual use, the terms are not flattering", but that's all). It does support the claim that "shemale" is most commonly used in the sex industry, however.
I strongly feel the initial line should be changed to something like, "Shemale is an English noun most commonly used in a popular subcategory of pornography to refer to persons who appear to be physically female in most regards, but possess male genitals. Many transsexual women consider the term offensive because it suggests pre-operative and non-operative male-to-female transsexuals are something other than female."
Similarly, the claim "In LGBT communities, especially amongst transgender individuals, the term is considered offensive" seems overly broad without qualification of "often" or "most". This claim is sourced by [1][4][5] even though [1] indicates that some transgender women choose shemale as an identity category, [4] only says (sometimes offensive), and [5] is a highly questionable resource presumably written by a single anonymous author. An acceptable source for this would be a large national or international organization of transgender people which states in some official capacity that "the transgender community at large finds this offensive", not one person's opinion.
I know bringing this up will inflame passions. I don't want to create controversy. But this article has a historical tendency to be overrun by transwomen's POV that "shemale is pejorative" because most transwomen don't want to be called anything other than "woman". When people try to source the claim that "shemale" is a pejorative, it is sourced with websites where the material is created by a single author, usually a transwoman, who feels the same way. Not only does this not reflect what the word "shemale" means to most non-transgender people, it sends the impression that nearly all transgender people consider the term to be a slur. There are a number of transgender communities (such as various online communities with personal avatars, furry fandom both online and in real life, even entire countries like Thailand) where the term "shemale" is not generally considered offensive, even among transgender women.
In any case, the primary use of shemale is a description of a certain kind of gender/sex combination that many men are sexually and interpersonally attracted to. Yes, most transwomen find the term offensive, and that bears mention here. But most transwomen find being called "man" offensive, and that doesn't mean the article on "man" should begin: "Man is most notable for its slang use in a pejorative context against transgender women".
-- 75.180.20.49 ( talk) 20:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC) www.viptravesti.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.120.118 ( talk) 10:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC) http://www.viptravesti.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.165.133.166 ( talk) 10:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not think this below listed section of text is relevant as it is more related to articles describing medical conditions. This part is also rather insensitive to sufferers of the condition in many ways or at least those who do not identify with genetic males that have augmented female breasts.
"In many instances intersex persons born with ambiguous genitalia have, at the request of their parents, or on the advice of surgeons, been surgically altered to appear more male before puberty (which may be the reason that many shemales appear to have female skeletal structure and fat distribution, feminine body hair patterns, and/or small genitals resembling those of a prepubescent boy); this often occurs in children with Reifenstein syndrome, a form of PAIS."
The term Shemale is specifically used for males with breast augmentation and not for partial mosaics, hermaphrodites and intersex individuals or surgical 'normalisation' procedures. I also agree with www.viptravesti.net that labelling the term pejorative is rather misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.173.207 ( talk) 18:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with 75.180.20.49, and note that more than two-thirds of this "article" is little more than a rant against the use of the term. The ones who do NOT find the term offensive are true shemales, who are simply MTF transgendered people who have chosen to keep their male genetalia. The article says absolutely nothing about the shemales who do prefer the use of the term so as to distinguish themselves from those who've had gender reassignment surgery. Finally, the reason many shemales appear not to have developed masculine traits is simply because they're from more progressive countries who don't have any qualms about prescribing testosterone-suppressing medication before they reach puberty. Medical conditions which cause adrogen insensitivity are exceedingly rare, and could not possibly be the cause for more than a very tiny fraction of boys who do not develop as males at puberty. Furthermore, failure to develop masculine traits at puberty does not result in the development of feminine traits, as the article currently suggests. All in all, this is a very poorly written article and should be completely rewritten from an objective perspective so as to remove the strong anti-shemale and anti-porn NPOV with which it is currently dripping. 20:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.30.120 ( talk)
'Reliable sources' are usually made by academics not in touch with the situation on the ground which represents the real view. Try Urban Dictionary for example. It is very likely 'reliable sources' have never personally known any 'Shemales' or even been in the 'Shemale' club or porn scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.33.159 ( talk) 21:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Trans women should not be used as it confuses Transsexuals with Shemales. I remind - term is generally acceptable for shemales, especially those in the adult industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.170.20 ( talk • contribs)
Let's leave the lede till last, then. I propose three (possibly four) sections:
We can discuss the order, though I recommend chronologically. It actually makes sense when you see how the term came to have each meaning over time. I'd also like to see some sourcing for this alleged distinction in how this term is used when describing trans women. It's a slur no matter to whom it is applied. The GLAAD statement was released when "she-male" was used to describe Miriam, who is not "fully transitioned" (to use your term). The journalist who thought that slur was an acceptable term finally got the clue and apologized. Jokestress ( talk) 16:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the connotation belongs in the lede...Indeed, I have put it there myself. I disagree with using persuasive instead of descriptive language in so doing, however. Moreover, regarding any connotation, it is not possible (short of a formal analysis) ever to say what the connotation is. All anyone ever can do is describe what various folks opin about it, and people differ on this one. Assertions about what "is" or about "reality" are merely
WP:IDONTLIKEIT and will not resolve anything.
— James Cantor (
talk) 00:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The lede below is designed to describe 150+ years of uses, from the most general sense to the most specific sense.
I recommend organizing the article to discuss the earliest uses (mainly agressive women), then use in zoology, then finally its use as a slur/porn term for trans women. Comments welcome. Jokestress ( talk) 22:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe that that proposed lede is workable:
Thus, the proposed lead violates
WP:RS,
WP:UNDUE,
WP:MOS, and
WP:NPOV. I propose instead returning to the version of 13:43, 3 November 2009 , which I place below for reference.
— James Cantor (
talk) 23:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Shemale (sometimes she-male but almost never used in the form she-man) is a slang term for person with female breasts but male genitalia. In zoology, the term refers to non-human animals that display other combinations of male and female anatomy. The technical term is gynandromorph, which is used mostly in scientific contexts. Shemale is sometimes considered derogatory when applied to male-to-female transsexuals (transwomen).
Other slang terms for she-male include ladyboy and chicks with dicks. The sexual preference for persons with these physical characteristics is gynandromorphophilia or gynemimetophilia. Slang terms for individuals with such preferences include "tranny chasers" and "admirers." There are specialty genres of pornography and prostitution/escort services that cater to such individuals.
— James Cantor (
talk) 23:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I reverted much of the changes by User:60.54.97.17 because they were original research. Please discuss proposed changes here, adding reliable sources. Thanks Jokestress ( talk) 06:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I have re-added the NPOV tag following
WP:COI edits by
User:James Cantor, made to align the the article with the POV of his boss coworker
Ray Blanchard. I also added a reference for the word derogatory. I also believe that we should have a section called "academic use" vs. "scientific/medical use." Separating the ideologies of
Ray Blanchard and
Janice Raymond is a POV move. Both hold the same points of view about the terms she-male and about trans people.
Jokestress (
talk) 16:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Because the scientific RS's fail to support the activists' POV, no resolution is likely without substantial input from otherwise uninvolved editors. I recommend reading the arguments and sources, and asserting your own conclusion. — James Cantor ( talk) 15:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The main issue, in my opinion, is the use of WP by some trans activists to encourage the use of the terms they themselves prefer over the terms used by other members of the trans communities or by medical/scientific experts. There are activists who prefer terms that indicate their womanhood (such as transwoman) over terms that do not, and the term "she-male" contains includes the word "male" rather than "female." The term is used non-pejoratively, however, by sex trade workers and in sex research studies.
Rather than merely indicate the alternative uses, however, the article space is becoming another WP battleground on which community activists selectively cite the uses that they prefer and attempt to discredit those who do otherwise. (That is, instead of the article saying Some people use the term this way while other people use it that way the article is being pushed to say This term means only this one thing and all dissenters are transphobic.) This pattern has played through a great many of the trans-related articles. Rather than precipitate a repeat conflict, however, I instead encourage you to read the article and sources and come to your own opinion.
— James Cantor (
talk) 14:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I can suggest only that one look up the references given in the article, which do not say what the main page says they say. For example, the main page says that the term shemale "is often seen by transsexual people as a term of abuse" citing as a source Herbst (2001). Herbst (2001) does not say any such thing, however. In fact, the only comment that Herbst makes regarding the connotation of the term is "The term may also refer positively to androgyny." The second source given on the main page is an online dictionary, which has questionable status as an RS, and which says, in parentheses, "sometimes offensive," which I agree with, but which is not very neutrally conveyed by 'often a term of abuse.'
In general, the term 'shemale' is considered derogatory when applied to people other than MtF folks who have socially transitioned but not undergone gential surgery (e.g., masculine lesbians or MtF folk who have completed transition). The cites in opposition to the term are comments made by community activists who are generally postsurgical MtF folk (and, thus, for whom the term would be innaccurate and negative), who have expertise only in areas outside linguistics (such as biology), and who are expressing their personal (and non-expert) opinions about the use of the term for them rather than the use of the term in general.
To repeat my earlier comment, I agree entirely with the page reflecting the mixed status of the term, but not with using the article space to actively promote the idea that the term is or is not offensive. As a tangent, I am not actually the person who added the POV-tag to the page. Whether the current content of the page accurately conveys what is said in the cites, or adds a spin of its own, is up to you to decide for yourself after reading the RS's.
— James Cantor (
talk) 18:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I have asked for input regarding the online dictionaries at RS/N. — James Cantor ( talk) 18:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
When WP becomes What-Jokestress-Says-Pedia, then what Jokestress says about "almost all trans women" might be relevant (as if she spoke for almost all transwomen). Meanwhile, all we have is some of the sources (of debatable reliability) saying that some people object to the term when used in some circumstances (such as when refering to lesbians). None of the sources says anything approaching "almost all trans women" nor uses any term as laden as "abhorrent." The RS's do, however, contain what I have already said: There are people who find the term negative and there are people who find it neutral; the article should therefore reflect that. Because no one here is presenting the term as value-neutral (I have written multiple times that the term is used different ways by different people), Jokestress is debating a mirage of her own creation. (Missing from Jokestress list of who uses the term how are the sources (added to the page by people other than me) that also provide only neutral definitions, like Blanchard, devoid of negative connotation.)
Moreover, Blanchard and Bailey do not use the term to refer to postoperative folks, and Jokestress should either provide an RS showing they do or strike out her misstatement. Finally, although we collaborate on many projects, Blanchard is not my boss. Jokestress should provide evidence he is, or strike that out as well.
— James Cantor (
talk) 20:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
— James Cantor ( talk) 22:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Connotations section is good but must not degenerate into propaganda against adult industry or shemales working in adult industry which appears to be the opinion of the academics Laura Castañeda and Shannon Campbell or Melissa Ditmore. Their writing form fuses concepts together, preempts and confuses and does not help separate and clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.45.68 ( talk) 02:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
This article relies very heavily on the Etymology section, which essentially reprints the entire source. That source is questionable. It also relies heavily on quotes that are only cited with ISBN numbers. So, it certainly needs more "meat" and more references.
Also, it appears to have been largely influenced by a now-banned and apparently highly biased contributor, User:Lara bran. The result seems to be an very poorly written attempt at compromise between herself and several others.
There isn't much article to this article and what there is does not meet the standards expected of Wikipedia. 24.185.6.40 ( talk) 19:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Strongly agreed.
— James Cantor (
talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
To embark on how best to improve this article, I suggest you propose what text you would prefer over what I added. You may think of Blanchard and Money however you like (of course), but the existance of the formal terms (and RS's) they used to describe "she-males" is about as relevant as a fact can be to an article. (Incidentally, although I am of course a fan and colleague of Blanchard, I have little respect for Money. Yet, I was quite able to treat them equally in my edit.)
— James Cantor (
talk) 14:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
You procede from a false belief: I do not in fact edit the controversy sections of trans-related pages. Several months ago, I entered into an agreement with
user:Dicklyon (an old friend and former employee of Lynn Conway) that neither he nor I would edit there, and I have restricted my edits to the talkpages ever since, exactly as
WP:COI suggests. You can find that agreement
here. If you can convince
user:Jokestress to restrict herself also from editing those pages, then I believe you will have done WP a great service. Meanwhile, you are admonishing the one of us who agrees with you.
— James Cantor (
talk) 23:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
— James Cantor (
talk) 23:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The current image is quite disturbing, IMHO. Scratching a transwoman's eyes out seems quite unneeded. Is this image suitable here? If so I think it should be cleaned up to restore her face and a caption to add more about who and where she is and what she's doing. -- Banjeboi 02:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is quite a mess. I have reorganized the usage information chronologically, and added better sources for the current usage. I have left some pretty bad sourcing in place for the moment. Online dictionaries should not be sources. I'll see if I can find better citations. Jokestress ( talk) 02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The James Cantor version has this:
I propose this:
Reasons: there's no reason to make this definition convoluted. This should be clear and easy to understand for a lay audience. Comments welcome. Jokestress ( talk) 15:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I propose that we split out early usage from the current usage. Cassell's gives reliably-sourced citations for early uses, including being used to describe lesbians. The term is currently exclusively used to describe transwomen who have not had vaginoplasty.
There are also tons of reliable sources from those weighing in about the term's use in the sex industry, and the pejorative connotations of the term. I am not aware of many people besides Janice Raymond, Ray Blanchard, and J. Michael Bailey who use the term uncritically. I propose we split it into two paragraphs: critics and proponents. I added three sources to help weigh the article more accurately regarding current usage:
I further propose we lose all that junk about gynandromorph that's covered in the linked article, as well as the irrelevant butterfly image. The James Cantor version is heavily weighted toward the few academics who use the term uncritically (which includes academics who consider it a "scientific" category, and academics who use it in its more common form, as a term of abuse, like Raymond). Comments welcome. Jokestress ( talk)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
I note that User:James Cantor has reinstated an edit where a direct, fully sourced historical definition has been systematically rewritten to be completely nothing like the quote from the source. I will manually repair this for the 3rd time in the space of a few days, but I am giving notice that James Cantor has reverted this page to a clearly vandalised version and will request administrator intervention if such actions continue. -- AliceJMarkham ( talk) 07:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, POV tag needs to be accompanied by actionable items so we can address and, if needed fix items. No one's is suggesting the article is perfect but are there specific POV concerns that you feel should be addressed? If not this tag should probably go. -- Banjeboi 20:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The statement "most notable for its slang usage in a pejorative context" is sourced by [1] (Wimmin, Wimps, and Wallflowers) but the source does not support the claim of pejorative use (the actual text says "restricted to heterosexual use, the terms are not flattering", but that's all). It does support the claim that "shemale" is most commonly used in the sex industry, however.
I strongly feel the initial line should be changed to something like, "Shemale is an English noun most commonly used in a popular subcategory of pornography to refer to persons who appear to be physically female in most regards, but possess male genitals. Many transsexual women consider the term offensive because it suggests pre-operative and non-operative male-to-female transsexuals are something other than female."
Similarly, the claim "In LGBT communities, especially amongst transgender individuals, the term is considered offensive" seems overly broad without qualification of "often" or "most". This claim is sourced by [1][4][5] even though [1] indicates that some transgender women choose shemale as an identity category, [4] only says (sometimes offensive), and [5] is a highly questionable resource presumably written by a single anonymous author. An acceptable source for this would be a large national or international organization of transgender people which states in some official capacity that "the transgender community at large finds this offensive", not one person's opinion.
I know bringing this up will inflame passions. I don't want to create controversy. But this article has a historical tendency to be overrun by transwomen's POV that "shemale is pejorative" because most transwomen don't want to be called anything other than "woman". When people try to source the claim that "shemale" is a pejorative, it is sourced with websites where the material is created by a single author, usually a transwoman, who feels the same way. Not only does this not reflect what the word "shemale" means to most non-transgender people, it sends the impression that nearly all transgender people consider the term to be a slur. There are a number of transgender communities (such as various online communities with personal avatars, furry fandom both online and in real life, even entire countries like Thailand) where the term "shemale" is not generally considered offensive, even among transgender women.
In any case, the primary use of shemale is a description of a certain kind of gender/sex combination that many men are sexually and interpersonally attracted to. Yes, most transwomen find the term offensive, and that bears mention here. But most transwomen find being called "man" offensive, and that doesn't mean the article on "man" should begin: "Man is most notable for its slang use in a pejorative context against transgender women".
-- 75.180.20.49 ( talk) 20:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC) www.viptravesti.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.120.118 ( talk) 10:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC) http://www.viptravesti.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.165.133.166 ( talk) 10:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not think this below listed section of text is relevant as it is more related to articles describing medical conditions. This part is also rather insensitive to sufferers of the condition in many ways or at least those who do not identify with genetic males that have augmented female breasts.
"In many instances intersex persons born with ambiguous genitalia have, at the request of their parents, or on the advice of surgeons, been surgically altered to appear more male before puberty (which may be the reason that many shemales appear to have female skeletal structure and fat distribution, feminine body hair patterns, and/or small genitals resembling those of a prepubescent boy); this often occurs in children with Reifenstein syndrome, a form of PAIS."
The term Shemale is specifically used for males with breast augmentation and not for partial mosaics, hermaphrodites and intersex individuals or surgical 'normalisation' procedures. I also agree with www.viptravesti.net that labelling the term pejorative is rather misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.173.207 ( talk) 18:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with 75.180.20.49, and note that more than two-thirds of this "article" is little more than a rant against the use of the term. The ones who do NOT find the term offensive are true shemales, who are simply MTF transgendered people who have chosen to keep their male genetalia. The article says absolutely nothing about the shemales who do prefer the use of the term so as to distinguish themselves from those who've had gender reassignment surgery. Finally, the reason many shemales appear not to have developed masculine traits is simply because they're from more progressive countries who don't have any qualms about prescribing testosterone-suppressing medication before they reach puberty. Medical conditions which cause adrogen insensitivity are exceedingly rare, and could not possibly be the cause for more than a very tiny fraction of boys who do not develop as males at puberty. Furthermore, failure to develop masculine traits at puberty does not result in the development of feminine traits, as the article currently suggests. All in all, this is a very poorly written article and should be completely rewritten from an objective perspective so as to remove the strong anti-shemale and anti-porn NPOV with which it is currently dripping. 20:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.30.120 ( talk)
'Reliable sources' are usually made by academics not in touch with the situation on the ground which represents the real view. Try Urban Dictionary for example. It is very likely 'reliable sources' have never personally known any 'Shemales' or even been in the 'Shemale' club or porn scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.33.159 ( talk) 21:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Trans women should not be used as it confuses Transsexuals with Shemales. I remind - term is generally acceptable for shemales, especially those in the adult industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.170.20 ( talk • contribs)
Let's leave the lede till last, then. I propose three (possibly four) sections:
We can discuss the order, though I recommend chronologically. It actually makes sense when you see how the term came to have each meaning over time. I'd also like to see some sourcing for this alleged distinction in how this term is used when describing trans women. It's a slur no matter to whom it is applied. The GLAAD statement was released when "she-male" was used to describe Miriam, who is not "fully transitioned" (to use your term). The journalist who thought that slur was an acceptable term finally got the clue and apologized. Jokestress ( talk) 16:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the connotation belongs in the lede...Indeed, I have put it there myself. I disagree with using persuasive instead of descriptive language in so doing, however. Moreover, regarding any connotation, it is not possible (short of a formal analysis) ever to say what the connotation is. All anyone ever can do is describe what various folks opin about it, and people differ on this one. Assertions about what "is" or about "reality" are merely
WP:IDONTLIKEIT and will not resolve anything.
— James Cantor (
talk) 00:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The lede below is designed to describe 150+ years of uses, from the most general sense to the most specific sense.
I recommend organizing the article to discuss the earliest uses (mainly agressive women), then use in zoology, then finally its use as a slur/porn term for trans women. Comments welcome. Jokestress ( talk) 22:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe that that proposed lede is workable:
Thus, the proposed lead violates
WP:RS,
WP:UNDUE,
WP:MOS, and
WP:NPOV. I propose instead returning to the version of 13:43, 3 November 2009 , which I place below for reference.
— James Cantor (
talk) 23:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Shemale (sometimes she-male but almost never used in the form she-man) is a slang term for person with female breasts but male genitalia. In zoology, the term refers to non-human animals that display other combinations of male and female anatomy. The technical term is gynandromorph, which is used mostly in scientific contexts. Shemale is sometimes considered derogatory when applied to male-to-female transsexuals (transwomen).
Other slang terms for she-male include ladyboy and chicks with dicks. The sexual preference for persons with these physical characteristics is gynandromorphophilia or gynemimetophilia. Slang terms for individuals with such preferences include "tranny chasers" and "admirers." There are specialty genres of pornography and prostitution/escort services that cater to such individuals.
— James Cantor (
talk) 23:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I reverted much of the changes by User:60.54.97.17 because they were original research. Please discuss proposed changes here, adding reliable sources. Thanks Jokestress ( talk) 06:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I have re-added the NPOV tag following
WP:COI edits by
User:James Cantor, made to align the the article with the POV of his boss coworker
Ray Blanchard. I also added a reference for the word derogatory. I also believe that we should have a section called "academic use" vs. "scientific/medical use." Separating the ideologies of
Ray Blanchard and
Janice Raymond is a POV move. Both hold the same points of view about the terms she-male and about trans people.
Jokestress (
talk) 16:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Because the scientific RS's fail to support the activists' POV, no resolution is likely without substantial input from otherwise uninvolved editors. I recommend reading the arguments and sources, and asserting your own conclusion. — James Cantor ( talk) 15:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The main issue, in my opinion, is the use of WP by some trans activists to encourage the use of the terms they themselves prefer over the terms used by other members of the trans communities or by medical/scientific experts. There are activists who prefer terms that indicate their womanhood (such as transwoman) over terms that do not, and the term "she-male" contains includes the word "male" rather than "female." The term is used non-pejoratively, however, by sex trade workers and in sex research studies.
Rather than merely indicate the alternative uses, however, the article space is becoming another WP battleground on which community activists selectively cite the uses that they prefer and attempt to discredit those who do otherwise. (That is, instead of the article saying Some people use the term this way while other people use it that way the article is being pushed to say This term means only this one thing and all dissenters are transphobic.) This pattern has played through a great many of the trans-related articles. Rather than precipitate a repeat conflict, however, I instead encourage you to read the article and sources and come to your own opinion.
— James Cantor (
talk) 14:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I can suggest only that one look up the references given in the article, which do not say what the main page says they say. For example, the main page says that the term shemale "is often seen by transsexual people as a term of abuse" citing as a source Herbst (2001). Herbst (2001) does not say any such thing, however. In fact, the only comment that Herbst makes regarding the connotation of the term is "The term may also refer positively to androgyny." The second source given on the main page is an online dictionary, which has questionable status as an RS, and which says, in parentheses, "sometimes offensive," which I agree with, but which is not very neutrally conveyed by 'often a term of abuse.'
In general, the term 'shemale' is considered derogatory when applied to people other than MtF folks who have socially transitioned but not undergone gential surgery (e.g., masculine lesbians or MtF folk who have completed transition). The cites in opposition to the term are comments made by community activists who are generally postsurgical MtF folk (and, thus, for whom the term would be innaccurate and negative), who have expertise only in areas outside linguistics (such as biology), and who are expressing their personal (and non-expert) opinions about the use of the term for them rather than the use of the term in general.
To repeat my earlier comment, I agree entirely with the page reflecting the mixed status of the term, but not with using the article space to actively promote the idea that the term is or is not offensive. As a tangent, I am not actually the person who added the POV-tag to the page. Whether the current content of the page accurately conveys what is said in the cites, or adds a spin of its own, is up to you to decide for yourself after reading the RS's.
— James Cantor (
talk) 18:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I have asked for input regarding the online dictionaries at RS/N. — James Cantor ( talk) 18:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
When WP becomes What-Jokestress-Says-Pedia, then what Jokestress says about "almost all trans women" might be relevant (as if she spoke for almost all transwomen). Meanwhile, all we have is some of the sources (of debatable reliability) saying that some people object to the term when used in some circumstances (such as when refering to lesbians). None of the sources says anything approaching "almost all trans women" nor uses any term as laden as "abhorrent." The RS's do, however, contain what I have already said: There are people who find the term negative and there are people who find it neutral; the article should therefore reflect that. Because no one here is presenting the term as value-neutral (I have written multiple times that the term is used different ways by different people), Jokestress is debating a mirage of her own creation. (Missing from Jokestress list of who uses the term how are the sources (added to the page by people other than me) that also provide only neutral definitions, like Blanchard, devoid of negative connotation.)
Moreover, Blanchard and Bailey do not use the term to refer to postoperative folks, and Jokestress should either provide an RS showing they do or strike out her misstatement. Finally, although we collaborate on many projects, Blanchard is not my boss. Jokestress should provide evidence he is, or strike that out as well.
— James Cantor (
talk) 20:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
— James Cantor ( talk) 22:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Connotations section is good but must not degenerate into propaganda against adult industry or shemales working in adult industry which appears to be the opinion of the academics Laura Castañeda and Shannon Campbell or Melissa Ditmore. Their writing form fuses concepts together, preempts and confuses and does not help separate and clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.45.68 ( talk) 02:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)