Humanities desk
< January 3	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 4[edit]

republicans and democrats[edit]

When and how exactly did republicans become southern conservative and democrats become northern liberal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the end of the civil war through the 1960s, there was a Democratic "solid south", due to the origins of the Republican party as an anti-slavery party (and in the minds of many southerners, an anti-southern party). Around 1929-1932, many blacks started switching from the Republican party to the Democrats, resulting in the Democratic party containing somewhat incompatible elements (Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. and Theodore Bilbo). Partly as a reaction to desegregation, partly as a reaction to the turbulence of the 1960s, and helped along by Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy", the south then went Republican in the 1970s and 1980s, forging the alliance between big-business "country-club Republicans" and more ideological conservatives (religious right, etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article, Southern Democrats, gives some background on the switch. I'm sure there are others. Mingmingla (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Democrat is probably a good one. Surprisingly we don't seem to have an good counterpart, Rockefeller Republican (which is where Liberal Republican redirects) is much more limited in the history section. There are however plenty of external sources which are easy to find discussing the switch e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] all found with a search for 'republican democrat switch'.Nil Einne (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One highly cited incident was the Civil Rights act of 1964: Civil Rights Act of 1964#Political repercussions. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History_of_the_United_States_Democratic_Party#The_South_becomes_Republican also discusses the 1964 civil rights act. LBJ's statement about losing the South for a generation is famous enough that it should probably be in his biography article. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rangabe[edit]

Was Georgo a female name during Byzantine time? This states that Michael I Rangabe's daughters were Georg(i)o and Theophano. Also what would have been the female form of Rangabe assuming that it is a surname?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek wikipedia names him as Μιχαήλ Α' ο Ραγκαβές (Michael I the Ragkaves) but doesn't name his children. The B in rangabe is a transliteration error and should be V.
Sleigh (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether you're going for a classicizing transcription or for a transcription reflecting the medieval pronunciation of the time... AnonMoos (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a surname, the first for a Byzantine emperor [5]. The search seems to indicate there were other relatives that continued the family name, so what would the female form have been. Rangabene? Rangabaina? None of my guesses are getting anywhere.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only Greek surnames that are adjectives with a distinct feminine form would be expected to have a feminine variant. Many Greek names are not such adjectives. The ending -ene was mainly used to form names of political subdivisions in Asia, while the ending -aina occurs mainly with stems ending in -an (μελας, μελαινα etc.), so I don't know why either of those would occur... AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is Makrembolites/Makrembolitissa, Komnenos/Komnena, Angelos/Angelina, Doukas/Doukaina, and probably others I'm forgetting...those aren't all adjectives, are they? That said, I have never seen a feminine form of Rhangabe. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Classical Greek, names ending in omega (ω) in the nominative case were generally feminine... AnonMoos (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was Georgo a popular female name or even used today?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have no idea, but several similarly-inflected names do occur in history or mythology, such as Λητω... AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual preferences of transgendered people[edit]

I'm acquainted with a number of transgender people (mainly trans women). I get the impression that following transition many trans women are attracted to other women, and I know of at least one who started as a gay man and ended up as a lesbian. Has any proper study been done of this? I'm aware of course that for many trans people the stress of transitioning may not leave much energy for seeking partners of either gender. --rossb (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by a "proper study". Where would you even start? Transgender people (by definition) reject traditional roles, and that umbrella term includes a rainbow of overlapping identities and preferences.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly clear and reasonable question, and one I would also like an answer to. What are the sexual preferences of transgender people? That is to say, among male-to-female transexuals for example, what percentage of them self-identify as gay/straight/bisexual, and so on. --Viennese Waltz 15:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are straight and gay transgendered people, and some in-between. [6] appears apt here. [7] and other sources all seem to concur. As the numbers of transsexuals is small, there is no statistical study thereon. Collect (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed at length https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2013_December_2#A_Sex_Change_.28Dramatically.29_Changing_One.27s_Sexuality.3F less than a month ago. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about the topic ban. Disregard.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is "preference" really the right word here, or is it "orientation"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is a trans woman someone who was born with a penis or was born with a vagina? the term seems ambiguous. Edison (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-women were born with dicks and later got vaginas. Trans-men were born with vaginas and later got dicks. Futurist110 (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, trans women are identified as male at birth (usually due to their male genitals, but not always because of inter-sex conditions) and raised as male. The same applies to trans men, except the other way around. It is definitely a confusing term to people who aren't familiar with it. Futurist - some of us eventually get reassignment surgery but a lot of us don't or can't, but no matter what we're certainly trans women whether we "later got vaginas" or not. The key is the identification with a different gender than was assigned at birth, not the state of someone's physical transition. Katie R (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Katie: If you are focusing only on the mind/brain, then I agree with you. Of course, I prefer to separate the brain/mind and the rest of the body--for instance, a trans-woman who did not get reassignment surgery (yet, at least) would certainly be a trans-woman mentally/brain-wise, but not physically (meaning in regards to the rest of her body). Likewise, I would consider someone who has a male brain/mind and who was assigned a male gender at birth but who hypothetically, for whatever reason, got a sex change later on to be a trans-woman in the physical sense but not in the mental sense (not brain-wise). Does this make sense? Anyway, I am simply trying to honestly examine this topic; I am not trying to offend anyone here. English is not my first language, and thus, I could have theoretically wrote something which someone else might interpret in a different way than my intended meaning for it. Futurist110 (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're genuinely curious, and I'm happy to help explain things. It's a complicated subject and tough for people who aren't immersed in it to realize all of the things that can be problematic. My posts sometimes may come off as overly defensive (I know this one did, so I'm adding this disclaimer), but don't take it as anything against you.

According to that, my friend who cannot get the surgery due to medical reasons or those who can't afford it will never be completely a woman. Only about 5% of trans men have reassignment surgery because the results aren't always that great and an unneccessary surgery just means more chances for risks and complications that they could have avoided. I've never seen any writing on trans issues that divides transexualism into a physical and a mental half the way you have.

Drawing the sorts of lines you are is referred to as "gatekeeping" and can be offensive or harmful, as it is a source of attitudes like "you have a penis, so you're not really a woman so I call you he and use your old name." "You must not really be trans if you didn't know from a young age/always suffer dysphoria/some other arbitrary guideline." It's where the idea that we're just gay men out to trick straight people into sleeping with us comes from, and that sort of attitude has led to trans people being murdered. These ideas end up in laws or in the minds of some therapists, and it leads to all sorts of problems for trans people. For example, unless the law in her state changes, my friend who can't have reassignment surgery will never be able to have her drivers license or birth certificate updated to match her gender. That can cause problems in any situation where she needs to show her ID. I know someone who had to find another doctor because hers told her she couldn't really be trans because she had no desire to get surgery, and a teenage trans man whose parents wouldn't help because he still enjoyed wearing feminine clothes sometimes.

Basically, my ultimate point is that although you can have male or female genitals or somewhere in between, that has nothing to do with whether or not you're trans. I don't think we actually have a word to describe someone's "physical" sex based on the configuration of their genitals. That's why I responded to your initial comment - you answered a question about what "trans woman" means with a response focused on genitals, even though 80% of trans women and 95% of trans men have not had reassignemnt surgery, and that sort of misunderstanding in the minds of other does cause real, tangible harm to transgender people. Katie R (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for explaining everything here to me. Yes, I am genuinely curious in regards to this issue. In addition, as I previously mentioned on some other forums, I myself appear to be gender-fluid, at least to some degree. (No, I myself am not trans-gender.) In fact, the idea of me getting a sex change in the far(ther) future often seems like an appealing idea to me, considering that I prefer certain aspects of the female body other those of the male body.

Your point in regards to some transgender people being unable to afford sex reassignment surgeries (or whatever they are called) is very valid. Honestly, I did not know that the percentage of transgender people who do not get such surgeries is that high. Do you have a source for these percentages?

As for the separation into a physical and a mental/brain half, I was not going based on writings when I made this distinction. Rather, I was simply stating the information which I know in regards to this. Honestly, no offense, but I don't see, for instance, how it can be argued a trans-man (who is not intersex) who did not have have any surgeries yet and who did not get any hormone replacement therapy and/or et cetera does not currently have a female body (except for his brain). This is what I meant by the physical aspect of one's gender/sex. Also, let's purely hypothetically say that I (a current biological male) would have sex with such a trans-man. While I would have this sex, would I be having gay sex? After all, he currently has a male mind/brain but a completely female body otherwise. Thus, I do think that there is a point in separating the mind/brain and the rest of the body in regards to this. Of course, it is worth noting that most people probably place (much) more importance on the gender of their brain/mind than on the gender of their body other than their brain.

Honestly, I have never heard of the term gate-keeping before. In regards to "drawing ... lines", the only thing that I was doing in regards to this was describing reality, at least as I see it (and I do try very hard to impartially see these types of things). In regards to attitudes such as the ones that you are describing, those attitudes are repulsive and disgusting. Honestly, I think that individuals should always be referred to by the name and gender which they themselves prefer to use, regardless of whether or not they had any sex reassignment surgery, hormone replacement therapy, and/or et cetera. Likewise, I think that individuals should always be treated according to/based on their preferred gender. As for people who actually hurt and/or kill transgender people, those people are extremely vile, intolerant scum who should be punished by being put in jail. As a side note, though, I do think that it is a good idea for transgender people to tell people whom they are dating about their "status" (for a lack of a better word) before their relationship gets too deep/serious. I apologize if this last sentence sounds offensive, but doing this could actually be a useful security measure and could prevent some individuals from sharing Angie Zapata's extremely sad and tragic fate later on.

I am extremely sorry for all of the problems with which some of your transgender friends and/or acquaintances are going through right now. I honestly think that the law, as well as therapists, should be much friendlier to transgender people than it currently is. In regards to your ultimate point here, I agree with it. Also, in regards to someone's "physical" sex/gender, I was not merely talking about one's genitals here, but also about one's other gender-specific organs/body parts, such as a uterus, an Adam's apple (is that an organ?), et cetera, as well as about one's chromosomes (XX, XY, et cetera). If we don't actually have a word for this, then we should create such a word. In regards to my initial response to Edison, Yes, I foolishly answered it based on genitals because Edison himself talked about genitals. What I should have done (which would have been more accurate) would have simply been to respond to this question in the same way that you did. Frankly, I already knew all of the information in your response beforehand, but I unthinkingly responded to Edison with a very quick, stereotypical response instead of providing a detailed and complex response to this question like I should have (and like you actually did). For this, I apologize; Sometimes we do things which we could have done better, and for me, my initial response here is one example of such a thing.

Also, I would like to point out that I am not trying to offend anyone here. I am simply trying to accurately and impartially describe information and reality. Pointing out that the gender of one's mind/brain and the gender of the rest of one's body are sometimes different is not an attempt to be hurtful or offensive to anyone--it is simply an attempt to accurately describe reality. Also, statements such as this are not a rationale or a justification for purposely being offensive and/or hurtful to transgender people, considering that my statement here actually does acknowledge the reality that transgender people (generally) have minds/brains which match with their preferred gender. Likewise, as I previously said, I think that everyone should always refer to and treat others based on their preferred gender, regardless of anything and everything else.

I seriously hope that I explained myself and everything which I wrote here sufficiently and clearly right now. Futurist110 (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you had any sort of negative attitudes towards any of this, but like you said it's that initial response that set me off. I do understand why you worded it the way you did, considering how the question was asked. I didn't want anyone going away from this thread thinking that being trans was defined by surgery, because that is one of the misconceptions that leads towards the attitudes that we (and hopefully most people) realize are horrible.

The question about classifying pre-transition sex is complicated - it really depends on the situation and how the people involved feel about it. I know someone who was dating a lesbian and they both agreed they were having lesbian sex even though at the time she still considered herself a very femme gay man. The mention of disclosure is complicated too, but I can tell you're aware of that. I'm happily married, and have been since before realizing that I was trans, so it's not an issue I've personally had to put much thought into.

I don't have a source for you on the numbers - I do most of my wikipedia editing from work, and I can't research it here. I've seen those numbers quoted by bloggers on the subject that I trust to use accurate sources, assuming that I remembered them right. It certainly seems to match for the trans people I know that have talked about it.

Gender-fluid, but not transgender is how I started out! :-P Then I realized that girl me was always happy and relaxed and I was always dissapointed when ended up back in boy mode. But anyways, I think we're getting far enough off topic and close to archiving that we can probably end the talk here. If you ever want to talk more about this sort of stuff feel free to contact me on my talk page. I haven't gotten around to enabling email on my account yet, but I'll do it tonight if I remember. Katie R (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas cards[edit]

Christmas card says that these things are sent in "Western society" but is no more specific than that. I know the tradition is prevalent in the USA and UK, but I am not sure about other countries and I suspect not all of them do it. Which European countries send Christmas cards, and which do not? --Viennese Waltz 17:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used to get Christmas cards from a friend in Finland. I would imagine that they are ubiquitous across western Europe - a Google search for "carte de Noël" brings up pages of results. Polish Christmas Traditions says; "Instead of sending Christmas cards to friends and family not present, Poles send oplatki, first tearing off a small corner to show that the donor has broken it with them as a token of affection", although our article says that they are sent with a greetings card. Alansplodge (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a German Wikipedia article for Weihnachtskarte - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weihnachtskarte RNealK (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Economic Term for Brand Inflation[edit]

Is there a technical term specifically to describe when an item whose material value is very small but when some intellectual property (brand) is stamped upon it, its price suddenly inflates? For example, I'm thinking of a cheap windbreaker I saw in a store that cost $5, and later in a more upscale store I saw a windbreaker virtually identical in material, zipper, and stitching, but with a small 1" x 1" Nike Swoosh on the left breast going for $35. Peter Michner (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Premium branding" ? StuRat (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Price discrimination comes to mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Premium pricing. 86.183.79.28 (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]