Talk:Trans man/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Andromimesis" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Andromimesis. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 20:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit to definition

I edited definition of transman to "is a person who was born with female organs and identified as a woman but self-identifies as a man" as that seems to me to be both less contentious and more accurate than the previous "is a man who was assigned female at birth." Some seem to think that the latter is correct and have undone my edit with the comment "discuss major changes like this on the talk page first". Personally I don't see this as a major change as it is indubitably correct, non-judgemental, not offensive and can be accepted by all while the latter "is a man who was assigned female at birth." is contentious and would have many people disagreeing with it. I hope this is the right place to raise this query. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robnock (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Please see the archives of this talk page for many previous discussions on this issue. Your proposed changes are far from non-judgmental or "indubitably correct". Funcrunch (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

And indeed it has been discussed, not surprisingly, before as clearly the definition that some Wikipedia editors is pushing makes no sense and is biased and written knowing it does not match the view of most in the world and is contentious by design. userwoman was clearly correct, reasonable and polite but it seems as if a self appointed bunch of people have managed to get control of these pages and are blocking a reasonable and accurate definition. In the short term they may win this 'war' but it will be a pyrrhic victory as it won't change the opionion of those who disagree, rather only breed distrust of Wikipedia, due to parts of it clearly being controlled by people with a 'mission' to breed their world view. You, Funcrunch clearly do not like my definition but there is nothing in there that you can sensibly disagree with: a transman does self identify as a man and was identified, at birth, as female due to having female organs.Robnock (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Just read the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia and clearly the current definition fails this 'test' particularly the "document and explain major points of view," and "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia."Robnock (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The wording in the current lead is established by reliable sources and has the consensus of editors. "Female organs" does not. Please do not cast aspersions on other editors. Funcrunch (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Consensus?? A generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people? Established by reliable sources?? There are even more reliable sources, including Wikipedia, that do not support that definition. Did not look like consensus from the discussion in the archives and certainly that opinion would not get consensus of people in the World or the West (as this is the Anglo version of Wikipedia) and as the 5 Pillars say ""Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia." and so the definitions should reflect the mainstream opinion with, possibly, some acknowledgement of differing opinions when held by a significant minority of people. Your opinion that a trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth might get minority status.188.164.226.91 (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned in the archives, the most neutral way to define a trans man is a person who identifies as male and was assigned a sex other than male at birth. "Trans man" is a relatively vague term, and "born with female organs" is more specific, possibly excluding intersex trans men. While "assigned a sex other than male at birth" is somewhat vague, it is suitably vague. For the sake of neutrality, I do not believe trans men should be declared as men in the introductory definition of the article. However, they should generally be referred to as men and with he/him pronouns, as Wikipedia's Manual of Style states, "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." Mediator64 (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

We follow the reliable sources on the article's topic; that is the key element of what NPOV means. The current article does not "declare that trans men are men", it reflects the best available sources on the topic. If either of you has sources on this topic that disagree, please present them, but pleading for a personal POV (even, or especially, on the grounds that it reflects "mainstream opinion") is just not on. Newimpartial (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

---

The problem with the statement "a trans man is a man" is the fact that it leads to a contradiction: a man is defined (on Wikipedia) as a "male human". A male is defined (on Wikipedia) as the "physiological sex that produces the gamete known as sperm". Therefore, for the statement to be true, a trans man must be a human who produces sperm (aka a male human). Since trans men don't possess that property, they are, by definition, not men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Georgousis (talk • contribs) 21:31, August 11, 2020 (UTC)

Please sign your post, and please note that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source for definitions. "Man" is also, per reliable sources, the term for male [Gender identity], which does not depend on gamete production. Newimpartial (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Wishing one were a man and being a man are not the same thing. Also, genders, like height, like skin color and eye color and hair color and many other traits, are genetically determined, not "assigned." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4180:BE70:5104:E1CF:EA93:12E2 (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid that no reliable sources for the genetic termination of gender have been provided. Until that happens, we'll stick to the sourced information the article already contains. Newimpartial (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

As per the discussion above that the page should be based on reliable sources, I have edited the first line to follow the most widely accepted definition of trans man both within and beyond the trans community and added several citations to support it Diotima423 (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC).

A previous RFC set the current definition, without consensus or a new RFC there isn't a reason to change. Sources do respect the current definition as well. Rab V (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly a controversial topic on which there are many views and there are some sources that support the current definition. However many more do not support it and for wikipedia to take one side in that debate is inappropriate - regardless of any of our personal views. A definition such as the one used by Stonewall or Harvard would be uncontroversial and supported by almost everyone - including trans-supporting organisations. I'm keen to work within the rules of wikipedia - but this needs to be changed as wikipedia's trustworthiness is at stake. Can anyone explain what is wrong with Stonewall's definition? Diotima423 (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

You are trying to have the same conversation across multiple talk pages. Please pick either the trans woman or trans man page so it can be a legible conversation. Rab V (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

New proposal for the first sentence of the lede

This proposal has come up at Talk: Trans woman, and I wanted to post it here before any possible RfC, because the two articles should continue to open in parallel.

The proposed text here would be A trans man is a person of the male gender who was assigned female at birth. Of course this means precisely the same thing as the current lede (since in this context, man=person of the male gender), but it has the advantage of avoiding the repetition of "man" in the first sentence (stylistically), and more importantly of directing the reader to the article gender which is probably the most relevant for new readers (besides sex assignment and transgender, which are already linked in the lede). The articles Man and Male, by contrast, do not handle gender in a helpful way.

So as I say, this will probably go to RfC if it goes anywhere at all, but I would hope people get a chance to think about it first. A range of RS definitions was collected (linked from Talk: Trans woman), and while this doesn't replicate any of them it certainly falls quite close to the center of the range of meanings and linguistic choices expressed in those definitions. It still says that Trans men are men, but perhaps in language that will be easier for less experienced readers to understand. Newimpartial (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Strongly Agree. Currently the first sentence is vague and rather confusing. If a trans man is a man, why were they assigned female at birth? At first I concluded that meant they were a hermaphrodite or intersex, which is actually not the case at all! It is a very confusing introduction to an already contentious and confusing topic. I agree this should be amended to the above suggestion so it is more clear what a Trans man is. Feudonym (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, these lead sentences are confusing to people not already familiar with trans-related discourse. Noting here the list of definitions at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions. Pretty much every one of those includes a counterpart for trans men. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I think this would make the lead worse and I would oppose it. The current wordings are well sourced and reflective of the bodies of the articles. While it's perfectly possible to use "male" and "female" in reference to gender, it seems to be more common for them to refer to sex, and while it's increasingly common in some (academic) settings to distinguish sex and gender as different things, it's still common to see them used synonymously; separately and together, these things make "person of the male gender" as likely or more likely to confuse people (including as to whether the topic is intersex, the same axis one user suggested the current wording might have issues along above). It makes sense to use "man" and "woman" in describing subsets of men and women; I would not want to redefine Washerwoman as "a person of the female gender who takes in laundry" or Strongwoman as "a person of the female gender who performs feats of strength in a show or circus, or a person of the female gender who competes in strength athletics" (this "repetition" is not a significant issue). I suppose there may be recurring RFCs on this no matter what, as we do seem to get a person here or there at least once a year proposing a change from the current wording, and the proposed wording would doubtless also be subject to recurring RFCs from those who would find wording more like the existing wording clearer and better. I think there is no net benefit (and arguably no specific benefit) to the proposed wording. Most of the reasons the last proposal to change away from "man" and "woman" failed also still apply. -sche (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Strongly Agree. The first sentence says man, which when you go to the Man wikipedia page it states the fact "A man is an adult male human. When going to the male wikipedia page it says "Male (♂) is the sex of an organism that produces the gamete known as sperm. A male gamete can fuse with a larger female gamete, or ovum, in the process of fertilization. A male cannot reproduce sexually without access to at least one ovum from a female, but some organisms can reproduce both sexually and asexually. Most male mammals, including male humans, have a Y chromosome, which codes for the production of larger amounts of testosterone to develop male reproductive organs. Not all species share a common sex-determination system. In most animals, including humans, sex is determined genetically;" all of which proves that transmen cannot factually be called a man, thus going against Wikipedia standards. No offense. ChaseF (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

If you make the argument that the sentence should be changed because transman cannot be factually be called a man, that will doom any proposed change to failure (since that argument has never met with consensus, or even considerable support, the zillion times it has been made). So maybe don't do that unless your goal is deep false-flagging. Newimpartial (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not really an argument it just would make it coherent with what Wikipedia says. If transman cannot be factually be called a man wasn't true then the first sentence wouldn't need changed. That would be suggesting that the definition of a "Man" A man is an adult male human needs changed to support that narrative because a transman cannot be of male sex by virtue of them being born female sex at birth as described in this wiki. ChaseF (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, first, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, so consistency among WP articles isn't a relevant criterion - please see the previous discussions about that issue on Talk:Trans woman.

Second, "male" refers to a sex category, or a gender category, or a gender identity, or more than one of the above. The article "male" acknowledges this, albeit only in passing, but see my preceding paragraph re: consistency.

Anyway, you've probably just killed my proposal to adjust the lede, so thanks for that. :/ Newimpartial (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Include a sentence on menstruation?

I came to this article to find information on what percentage of trans men still have menstruation. Could we add a sentence on that if the data is known? I see the term "menstruator" used more in the literature these days. See also the conversation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Menstruation#Mention_the_term_%22menstruator%22? (I had suggested there to introduce the term "menstruator" once in the article, using the reference: ). EMsmile (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: A mentioning of trans men is now included in the Wikipedia article on menstruation in two places: Once in the section of Terminology and once in the section on "who menstruates". Please check if you think it's done well. Furthermore, I think this article on trans men ought to also mention menstruation at least once. Perhaps with the same sentence and reference that I used at menstruation? That would be:

"Trans men may or may not menstruate, depending on their individual circumstances."

Or does someone have a better, more accurate reference for this statement? EMsmile (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No reaction to my proposal. Therefore, I have now added the sentence to the section on "health". Is that the right place for it? EMsmile (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

References

This definition is incorrect for intersex man.

Per Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4#RfC on introduction, definition of trans man in this article was changed to "A trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth.". However this definition is not adequate for intersex woman. Categorizing Erik Schinegger as trans man and Lady Colin Campbell as trans woman would be problematic.

Lady Colin Campbell is not trans woman unless she identify as trans woman. Erik Schinegger is not trans man unless he identify as trans man.

Furthermore, this definition may not be neutral for trans woman without transitioning. --Sharouser (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what problem you are seeing here, based on their birth names, it seems that Lady Colin Campbell was AFAB And Erik Schinegger was AMAB, so the definitions seem to apply in a straightforward way. Newimpartial (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with User:Newimpartial, though Campbell is a trans woman observed/assigned male at birth (despite her name) and Schinegger is a trans man observed/assigned female at birth. Of course, ideas that sex is biological and gender is social don’t explain how someone with an intersex condition will come to be observed/assigned female at birth. It is unhelpful that many pages on intersex have suffered an undue narrowing of their content in recent months. Trankuility (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Resurrecting Mens Issues Wikiproject by rating this article

Hopefully this is the right place to do this, but I'm currently the only known trans man in the men's issues Wikiproject and I want to revive it somewhat as it has been inactive since 2016. Trans men's issues definitely come within this scope and hopefully it should diversify the wikiproject. If this is out of place, let me know. I'm also going to rate it on genderstudies.

{{WikiProject Men's Issues}} {{WikiProject Gender Studies}} Vulture (a.k.a. Transandrosupport) (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi LucCymru85! The article is actually already tagged with those projects at the top of this page; they're just collapsed in the banner holder. If you're looking to revive the projects, the place to do that would be at the project talk pages, i.e. WT:WikiProject Men's Issues and WT:WikiProject Gender studies. But I'm not sure there's a need to revive those particular projects—most discussions in that area happen at WT:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and WT:WikiProject LGBT studies, which are more active. The trend in the past decade or so has been that many projects for more specific topic areas have become inactive, with activity remaining only at projects for broader topic areas. I hope that helps. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

In popular culture/Film section is odd

The section used to be called film, but I changed it to in popular culture. But, anyway the section is a little weird to be honest, the article on Trans woman doesn’t have a section on this nor does Non-binary gender. So it’s kinda out of place.

Not to mention, it does come off as a little irreverent.(to an extent) Because some of these don’t mention that the films are about trans men.

Do forgive me if I am wasting anyone’s time, at times I tend to over analyze stuff a lot.CycoMa (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: it's a terrible trivia list that fails MOS:POPCULT and should be removed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: I guess that might be a good idea but I’m gonna wait for others to comment.CycoMa (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree too, and went ahead and removed the section. Nice catch. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rentorawr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Multiple images in header

Hi folks, I think we all are doing a great job on improving this article and keeping it factual yet concise. I wanted to propose replacing the first picture with a 4-square Multiple Image, similarly to the trans woman article. I suggest we display 4 different trans men, hopefully across decades/centuries. Thanks and looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Evedawn99 (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Pre-RFC discussion at Talk:Trans woman

FYI, there is a discussion at Talk:Trans woman#Lead sentence about a potential RFC about the lead sentence that would affect both that article and Trans man. Editors' input invited. Levivich 04:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I voiced support for Proposal 1 on the "trans women" talk page, which would replace "woman who was assigned male at birth" with "person who was assigned male at birth and has a female gender identity."

I support doing the same on the "trans men" page for two reasons: firstly, authoritatively stating that a transgender man is a man in the very first sentence creates an opportunity for needless controversy, whereas "person" is indisputable. Secondly, "a trans man is a person who was assigned female at birth and has a male gender identity" conveys much more information to the reader, it concisely explains that the "man" aspect comes from gender identity. Juandissimo Magnifico (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

There are solid counterarguments, but we do not need the same discussions in two places. I believe Levivich was notifying editors of the discussion at Talk:Trans woman#Lead sentence and was not inviting the start of a separate duplicate debate on practically the same issue on this talk page at this time. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022

I’m the article it says Breastfeed when talking about trans men may become pregnant the term chest feed is used more frequently in the trans community 2603:6011:12F0:120:7C6B:BFF7:13AC:F20C (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Not sure about this. In this specific context, the sentence is discussing trans men who become pregnant, i.e. transmasculine people who are choosing to use the female sexual organs they were born with. IMO, using breastfeeding here can add onto this meaning, whereas the more general chestfeeding would include men who are not using female sex organs to nurse.

I will note that the authors of the main source we cite in our article used chestfeeding in the context of trans men. On the other hand, there wasn't a clear preference for chestfeeding from the trans men in their study (n=22). "Study participants used a range of terminology to discuss feeding their babies from their chests. Six used the term breastfeeding, four spoke of nursing, three preferred to say chestfeeding, two used both breastfeeding and nursing, two said it did not matter, one used feeding and nursing, and one used feeding and mammal feeding." Cannolis (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Mislabelling of Person

I don't believe Elliot Page belongs in this article, he is not a trans man; he describes himself as transmasculine and non-binary, and on Wikipedia he is labelled as non-binary (i.e. under 'non-binary actors' or 'non-binary Canadians'). Can his photo be moved to the non-binary article by someone who's able to? BreakfastSonata (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Identifying as a trans man and as non-binary transmasculine are not mutually exclusive. Page has been widely reported as a trans man since his transition, so unless he's specifically disclaimed this identity I don't feel it's wrong to include him on this page. (I'm non-binary transmasculine myself, for the record.) Funcrunch (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)