The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2016.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles
I noticed this page makes frequent use of the abbreviations FtM and MtF. Why is this? From what I understand these terms are more casual, slang terms that shouldn't be used in an article about science, or even really on an encyclopedia. They also seem to be falling out of use generally. Would anyone be against me editing to remove them and use better language?
Simply refer to the kind of people traditionally known as MtF's as "trans women". Also, please note that trans women contrast with cis women, not real women, biological females, or women-born-women. Georgia guy (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no grounds for a blanket change, although it's possible there are some where it isn't needed. However, we need to stick to the terminology of the sources. "Transsexual" (which "MtF" often appears next to) is a smaller set than "transgender", referring specifically in these sources to those who sought medical transition and surgery. And "MtF" does appear in many of the sources. How common it is in everyday discourse does not matter as this is a science article which uses more technical terms when the sources do. Crossroads-talk- 04:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't heard of them falling out of usage, but I think these terms are more informative than trans woman and trans man. People who are unfamiliar with the terms may think trans woman means ftm because afab who is trans or trans man means mtf because amab who is trans, even well intentioned people. There was a twitter meme a while ago based on this https://www.reddit.com/r/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns/comments/a1fv1o/transmenarenotwomen/ mtf makes it clear they are born male and transitoning to female and vice versa for ftms MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The intro currently states The most studied factors are biological, especially brain structure differences with relation to biology and sexual orientation. Environmental factors have also been proposed. Is this actually true? I would say the most studied factors would be the psychoanalytic explanations for gender incongruence through the 1970s-1990s which largely came up short. Biological research into gender dysphoria has barely scratched the surface. It gives the false impression that all the focus is on biology and social environment has been ignored. Also note Environmental factors have also been proposed is probably not clear, given environmental factors also include the non-social environment (such as prenatal environment). This probably needs work or trimming? Zenomonoz (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems likely. This probably needs to be elaborated upon better to show this shift and to be more historically accurate. Crossroads-talk- 18:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm yes I think I'll have to do a bit of reading to find some better sources. It's probably best to change the intro since the body does not state 'The most studied factors are biological'. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Writing an encyclopedia article instead of a literature review[edit]
Just a friendly reminder that this article should be following the normal rule that we Cite sources, don't describe them. Factual information should be written as simple statements of fact, like "Taking hormones causes measurable changes to the brain", and not as "A 2011 review article by Prof. I.M. Portant in the Journal of Important Things found that taking hormones causes measurable changes to the brain". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, this article over-relies on primary sources; I have tagged many of the sources so that it will be easier to find the individual sources that should be reconsidered and (mostly) replaced. We sometimes see this happening when academics are contributing, because they're accustomed to the academic rule of priority (~always cite the oldest paper, because you want to give credit to the 'discoverer' instead of the ones who prove it correct [or wrong]). At the English Wikipedia, we are much more interested in making sure that the contents are up to date, so it's best to cite only sources published in the last five to ten years whenever that's feasible. For example, it should be possible to cite last section (about Blanchard's taxonomy) to a single university-level textbook or reference work that tells the whole story, instead of individual primary sources published during the last four decades. As a bonus, if you can cite the whole thing to a single good secondary source, then nobody will be able to whinge about editors cherry-picking sources to push the 'wrong' POV or editors engaging in original research by SYNTHing together sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree. I have added several secondary sources under "some sources to use" (don't think they discuss Blanchards model tho) Zenomonoz (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]