Talk:Trans woman#FAQ

Could this article do with more, or a wider variety of, photographs? Thanuhrei (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:I agree some more well chosen pictures wouldn't hurt. Only four seems inadequate. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I added three images in the Terminology section that seemed tasteful & appropriate. It might be a bit much in one spot, though. I'm still thinking on where would be good places to add a few more. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• In a similar note, I'm curious what people think of the header image and its recency. [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/MissTransGlobal&ilshowall=1 Miss Trans Global] shares images on commons every year, and I'm curious if there's a justification to switch to the 2024 winner, the 2023 winner (a better photo) or other more recent representation. It appears they give consistent broad public domain dedications [https://misstransglobal.com/permission-to-use-our-content/ on their website] and using a pageant winner seems reasonable generally, just wondering if the recency matters at all/if there are preferences. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 19:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Hmm, I think it's an interesting idea to consider updating the image every year to show the most recent Miss Trans Global winner. I'm not entirely sold on that, but there's definitely some merit to the idea. FWIW, I like the 2023 winner photo the best out of all three (the current one and the two you provided). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I really like the 2023 photo. The 2024 photo seems too busy to me (she's sitting on a ladder in front of some bleachers). The current 2020 photo is IMO fine (I prefer it to 2024) but I honestly wouldn't mind if it were cropped in a little to match the 2023 photo. Loki (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Right off the bat, let me say this. Trans women are women, and there is scientific evidence of this. That being said, should we cite sources to attempt to help people who are more ignorant, or should we leave it as is? drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 21:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:We don't normally put citations in the introduction. It's not forbidden but it generally isn't needed as nothing should be in the introduction that isn't already covered in more detail in the body of the article and it should be sourced there. So that's not a definite no, but probably not. DanielRigal (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::I'm surprised this page isn't subject to more argumentation about whether every goddamn thing it says needs to be cited in triplicate, the way many other subjects which are in the current political milieu are. Not that I'm complaining, mind. I just spend a lot more time on Reddit and TikTok, these days, where every transphobic loser on the internet seems to congregate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:No, because it is verifiable fact. Coresly (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::That's precisely why we should include sources (though, as above, not necessarily in the lead). — Czello ^(music) 12:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:I believe that the sources lower in the article largely cover the fact, and typically the lead doesn't need to be the location for said citations. If we started seeing a lot of edit warring or vandalism around the first sentence I'd advocate for inclusion though ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 05:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::Which sources cover it exactly? Coresly (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Some references used in the terminology section, including [https://glaad.org/reference/trans-terms this GLAAD guide] & at least some of the books, though I understand they're not all available to read in full online: [https://archive.org/details/whippinggirltran0000sera Whipping girl], [https://books.google.com/books?id=44F2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA173 The A-Z of Gender and Sexuality]. Not a lot of the sourcing on this article is explicitly full-stop definitions, but in the way that language is used there's a pretty consistent trend of referring to women across the board. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 23:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:Outside of Wikipedia in English, that’s not a universal accepted truth. Many noted biologists like Richard Dawkins don’t agree that trans women are women. Even some trans women claim that they are trans women and not women. Other people say that trans women are women but not biological women, others on the contrary say that trans women are biological women. Wikipedia in some other languages define women as adult humans of the female sex, thus excluding trans women, who are named in their article as “people”, avoiding the word “woman”. Jorgebox4 (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::Interesting. Do you have any evidence of a fellow trans woman claiming we're not women? drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 14:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Wendy Guevara says it in this video. Sorry, it’s in Spanish.

:::https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Sv7awUlOLog Jorgebox4 (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::One relatively obscure person, speaking in another language where nuanced distinctions might not be correctly translated, is not a good source for this. I am only aware of one other trans woman who pushes this line but she is a notorious troll not even worth mentioning by name here. This isn't going anywhere without actual Reliable Sources. In the meantime please be aware that Dawkins is not an expert on this subject. His expertise on other, unrelated, topics doesn't elevate his opinions beyond the domain of personal opinions. Finally, please pack it in with the "biological woman" terminology. Until AI advances to the point where non-biological women become more than a sci-fi trope that's just troll talk. If you want to say cisgender woman then please just say that. DanielRigal (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I was just answering a question, not providing sources, because I don’t pretend to include that in the article. Another trans woman who follows the same line is Debbie Hayton, I don’t know if you mean her as a troll. Both Guevara and Hayton have their own Wikipedia articles.

:::::Besides Dawkins I can mention Emma Hilton, Colin Wright, biologist, and Robert Winston, medical doctor. Who can you mention?

:::::Regarding the term “biological woman”, why are you assuming it means cisgender woman? I said in my answer that many trans women consider themselves biological women! Also, even if you don’t like the term, if the sources mention it, we must follow the them.

:::::I remember you saying that female is an adjective and not a noun, which is totally inaccurate, because it is listed as both, so please keep your personal preferences out of Wikipedia and stick to the sources. Jorgebox4 (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::"Stick to the sources!" says the person who has to dig to the bottom of the barrel to find anybody saying something. "Some" when referring to two trolls is not enough. drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 21:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You asked for one, I gave you one. I never claimed that her views are not marginal, of course they are. She’s not a troll, by the way. Jorgebox4 (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::This is trolling. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 23:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Can you please be more specific and explain what have I said that it’s not true? Jorgebox4 (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::"Many scientists", then proceeds to name exclusively fringe scientists and disgraced practitioners. drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 23:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and zoologist. He is cited in the article “sex assignment”.

:::::::::::Emma Hilton is a developmental biologist.

:::::::::::Colin Wright is evolutionary biologist.

:::::::::::Robert Winston is a medical doctor and professor.

:::::::::::Can you sustain with sources that they are fringe scientists or disgraced practitioners? Jorgebox4 (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:Can you explain how there is "scientific evidence" that "trans women are women"? Isn't the entire concept that sex (scientific) is separate from gender (social)? DocZach (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::Your argument here rests upon the assumption that science is not capable of studying social things. But that's simply not true.

::Particularly in this case, some of the evidence consists of several studies (fMRI and MRI studies) showing that the brains of trans women tend to lean towards feminine structures even before the onset of gender-affirming healthcare [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8955456/][https://academic.oup.com/brain/article-abstract/131/12/3132/295849?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false][https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53500-y].

::Womanhood is a social construct. But it is tied inextricably to femaleness, which is a biological classification whose criteria are clear enough to be measured. Therefore, evidence that trans women are more biologically feminine is evidence that trans women are women. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Well no, femininity does not mean you are a woman. Men can be feminine. Women can be masculine. That doesn't mean you are the opposite sex. Sex is almost always a biological binary, either male or female. The word "woman" is defined as an adult female human, meaning an adult member of the female sex. I'm not sure why this article is taking on the position that trans women are women right at the beginning sentence, especially considering how it may confuse readers who aren't familiar with this topic. The majority of sources don't even appear to describe trans women that way. An appropriate way to enter into this topic would be to say:

:::"A transgender woman is an individual who was assigned male at birth but has a female gender identity." DocZach (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I humored your WP:FORUMy question with one response already. I will not, however, continue to engage in an off-topic discussion, especially when your approach is to ignore the actual evidence I provided (which you explicitly asked for!) and to focus on a semantic issue you take with my comment (in an approach which literally misrepresents my actual wording, no less!) as if there was even the slightest shred of logical validity to such an approach.

::::P.S. Your "majority of sources" comment is entirely inaccurate, and your suggested wording conflates gender and sex. No, I will not elaborate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::A woman is an adult female human per the overwhelming majority of definitions and sources. And per Talk:Trans woman/Definitions, most reliable sources that have been listed define a trans woman as an individual or person who was assigned male at birth but who identifies as a woman; they don't immediately describe them as women. This article takes on a controversial and WP:POV stance in the very first sentence, despite the fact that the majority of countries and societies around the world do not even recognize trans women as women, including the United Kingdom as of yesterday. In fact, 60% of Americans believe that gender is an immutable characteristic that remains the same from birth onward.{{Cite web |date=2022-06-28 |title=New poll sheds light on how Americans feel about transgender rights |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/rising-share-americans-say-gender-determined-birth-assigned-sex-poll-f-rcna35560 |access-date=2025-04-18 |website=NBC News |language=en}} To call this "fringe" is quite ridiculous. DocZach (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I suppose {{tq| I will not, however, continue to engage in an off-topic discussion...}} was too difficult for you to comprehend. Shame, that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The reason this article refers to trans women as women isn't because it's The Truth, it's because it reflects what the relevant sources say on the matter. They generally define woman using a definition based on gender rather than one based on (biological) sex. Anywikiuser (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• I expressed my surprise above that this issue is only now coming to light, given the political divisions centering on the existence of trans women ongoing in America right now. But I wanted to comment to express that I don't think we need to provide sources. There's simply not enough people here on WP arguing against this simple claim of fact to necessitate it. And, for better or worse, it has always been (at least in my experience) a response to ongoing and widespread objections by editors (including IP editors and SPAs) when we add citations to claims in the lead. So absent a spate of edit-warring and POV pushing that would justify it, I think it's fine to leave the claim uncited in the lead for now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::As with anything stated on Wikipedia, we need sources for the statement that trans women are women. In fact, as we are saying this in wikivoice, we need a lot of good sources. We also need to say what this statement means. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::We're talking about the lead, where we explicitly don't need sources. Try again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I think it would be a good idea to have a citation for this controversial statement in the lead, per MOS:LEADCITE. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I would note that this 'controversial statement' is only controversial due to a politically manufactured fight, and that one side of this 'controversy' is a widely-acknowledged fringe view that is almost entirely devoid of supporting evidence and the other is the broadly accepted mainstream consensus which is supported by a healthy mass of evidence.

:::::That being said, if things get worse in terms of editors wrongly attempting to purge the well-sourced claim from this article, then of course, I will get behind adding citations in the lead, as I have advocated for numerous times in the past. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE says this should be taken on a "case-by-case basis by editorial consensus". It suggests that citations are more likely to be necessary when the subject is "complex, current, or controversial". I think it'd be fine to include a citation, though I wouldn't fight for it. We could re-use the journal article attached to the definition in the Terminology section, possibly supplementing/replacing with one or more of the strong sources collected at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|We could re-use the journal article attached to the definition in the Terminology section}}; I don't actually see that we say in wikivoice in the body that trans women are women? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::And I should have checked the journal article first. Forget what I said. If we want to add a citation, I'd recommend one from the subpage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Okay, but we also have to add text to the body which mirrors what the lead says here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I'd be fine with that. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::Second sentence of the terminology section: the word "those" refers to the prior mention of the word "women" and is entirely interchangeable with it. Not to mention the entire article using the term "trans women" and providing the rationale for preferring that over 'transwomen' right there in the same section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you; I've changed "those" to "women" for clarification.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trans_woman&diff=prev&oldid=1286075818] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::And added Merriam-Webster as a citation in both places.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trans_woman&diff=prev&oldid=1286077265] Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I saw that, and it looks good, except for a syntax error in the terminology section, but I already fixed that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trans_woman&diff=prev&oldid=1286082365]. I'm still not entirely convinced that it's necessary to add the cite in the lead, but it doesn't hurt anything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

What if the trans woman was not assigned male at birth but still is male to female? Are they actually a trans woman? 192.24.149.15 (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's not clear what you mean by "not AMAB but still MtF". –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 13:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Maybe guevedoces? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)