Talk:Shemale/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

"Offense"-POV

This was recently added, which I feel is largely speculation and not NPOV. I reverted it but am leaving the content here in the interests of fairness. Anyone care to discuss?

Some transwomen are are offended when called "shemale," while others have no problem with the term and may even use it themselves. While some claim that most transwomen dislike terms like "shemale" or "chick with dick," this has never been verified by any scientific survey. Many transwomen like their natural genitalia, and never undergo SRS even if they can afford it. Some genetic women have stated that they would, if possible, enjoy having "male" equipment while retaining their female identity. If some genetic women have this desire, it has been asked, why not some transwomen? Social conservatives condemn "shemale" and related terms for their use in pornography, escorting, and sex party scenes. However, many transwomen -- like many genetic women -- are more sexually liberal and appreciate erotic expression.

-- Pete C ^(talk) 22:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where is the speculation? Where is the NPOV? Instead of just deleting it, why don't you tell us exactly what you disagree with? -Angela

"While some claim that most transwomen dislike terms like "shemale" or "chick with dick," this has never been verified by any scientific survey. Many transwomen like their natural genitalia" is purely speculative. A suggestion for a NPOV variant would be:

'Some transwomen elect to keep their penises, rather than undergo SRS'. Everything else, like 'natural' regarding gentialia, 'many' regarding how many, 'like' regarding subjective emotion rather than action and fact. Pretty repulsive stuff re: 'chick with dick'... that's not an acceptable thing to call a transperson outside of an eroticized view of trans issues - and contrary to what the writer might think, all trans people are not hyper-eroticized to themselves. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pursuing SRS

Your bold statement that "Many transwomen like their natural genitalia, and never undergo SRS even if they can afford it." is purely speculative. If you think that transwomen dislike those terms is not verified, where is your verification for your above statement? Where is your verification for "Some genetic women have stated that they would..."? Dysprosia 04:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your bold statement that 'Many transwomen like their natural genitalia, and never undergo SRS even if they can afford it.' is purely speculative.

False. It is not speculative; it is based upon what many transwomen actually say and do. As one posted on alt.support.srs, "I am also a proud shemale... Expect some major flames from some very narrow minded people. I am perfectly happy with implants alone and no hormones." Another posted on soc.support.transgendered that "I am a non-op transgendered person... I like my penis and frequently masturbate." Are you seriously trying to argue that there aren't transwomen who are content with their natural genitalia? Or that there aren't transwomen who can afford to undergo SRS but never do?

You say "many", and you only have a couple of statements on Usenet to support your argument. Of course, some transwomen may not want to change their natural genitalia, but to say "many" is clearly false, when there are large numbers of transwomen actively pursuing SRS. Dysprosia 04:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can come up with far more than a couple statements, that was just to start. Even if large numbers of transwomen are actively pursuing SRS, there is also a large number which is not pursuing it. So your objection does not follow. For now, I can change "many" to "some".

You would have to come up with concrete numbers to show that "there is also a large number...not pursuing it", but for now, that may be sufficient. Dysprosia

I will do so as time allows. For now, I've changed "many" to "some". "Some" is indisputable.

Ciswomen wanting dicks?

Where is your verification for "Some genetic women have stated that they would..."?

Oh please. Some genetic women have said so. One 18 year old female at Tranceaddict posted, "i love being a girl and i would never want to be a boy. i just want to have a penis. and i would want my boyfriend to give me head." It is clear that if they could snap their finger and grow a penis, some genetic women WOULD do so. And yet they would usually maintain a female identity. It would be a change of equipment, not of their fundamental sense of self. If some transwomen hate their penis and want to get rid of it, fine, but there's no need to pretend that all transwomen are like that. It's too bad that some transwomen are unable to see that their way is not the ONLY way.

Again, you are using one person's sentiment off the web to support this, and thus you have less evidence to enable you to generalise this to say that "some" women feel like this. Dysprosia 04:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Err, no I'm not; I'm giving you one example out of many that I've heard/seen/witnessed. I personally know several genetic women who have said so. Surely this shouldn't be too suprising to you? Lots of genetic women enjoy using strap-ons, and there's not a huge step from that to wanting a real penis of one's own. Why do you have such a problem with the fact that SOME women have "penis envy" (just as SOME men have "vagina envy")? And if some genetic women want penises (and they do), why is it so wrong for transwomen to like the penises they already have? By the way, when I get some time, I can gather many more examples of women acknowledging that they want penises.

I have no personal problem with it. The problem is that your first-hand personal experiences can't constitute material evidence for your argument -- Wikipedia is not original research. Dysprosia 04:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When I get some time, I can provide more than accounts of first-hand personal experiences to back this up.

Your first-hand personal experiences can't constitute material evidence for your argument -- Wikipedia is not original research. Please read the link. Dysprosia 05:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did. Let me repeat what you just replied to, with emphasis added: "When I get some time, I can provide MORE THAN accounts of first-hand personal experiences to back this up." That's "more than," not "more of." Maybe I could have worded that better, if so, I apologize.

Sorry, I realised my mistake, and did remove my statement. Dysprosia 05:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Porn

A few notes..

AlexR: I didn't claim that any transwoman who dislikes "shemale" is automatically a social conservative. However, having a problem with the term "shemale" merely because it's used in porn - now that does often reflect social conservatism. After all, social conservatives (along with their fellow travelers, such as the religious right) are well known to be the principal foes of pornography, unlike the many millions of normal everyday women and men who enjoy porn. User:69.23.222.126

Excuse me, but your edit implied exactly that, and I think you do not quite understand the problem here: first of all, cisgendered women tend to be offended when called some term that usually is used in the sex industry, or strongly sex-reladed, too; that has nothing to do with being a social conservative.

Excuse you, it didn't; and contrary to your view implied elsewhere that women are non-sexual by nature, many have no problem with being seen as sexy. Why do you think Cosmo sells so well among women?

I have never implied anything like that, this is nothing but slander from you. Also, there is a tiny difference between being seen as sexy and being seen as working in the sex industry. -- AlexR 12:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You would probably not argue, for example, that one might as well use "hooker" instead of "woman" and that those who resist that are necessarily "social conservatives", either, would you?)

That's a false analogy. If a woman wants to be called a hooker, fine; if a transwoman wants to be called a shemale, fine. I'm not arguing anything beyond that.

That is a perfectly appropriate analogy, and your edits were not meant to imply that if a transwoman wants to be called a shemale that is OK (it is) but that it is OK to call any transwoman a shemale, because if she doesn't want it, she's gotta be a "socially conservative" anyway. -- AlexR 12:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, nobody claimed that the majority of transwomen dislike the term primary because of its association with pornography; nor would that make them "social conservatives" if they did.

Really? Funny how states that outlaw pornography are always the least friendly to women's rights, eh? Saudi Arabia - no porn allowed there - wow, that's really a sweet place for women. The most feminist places in the world; i.e., Denmark, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, are also the most friendly toward porn. Of course, you are likely a social conservative yourself.. given your implied belief that women are less sexual than men, and that battling the evil porn industry is a-okay. I bet you really hate the ACLU.

You are wrong on each and every assumption you are making about me, which is even for Wikipedia quite a notable achievement. Not to mention that equating people who don't like porn with people who'd want women to have as little rights as they have in Saudi Arabia is a triffle far-fetched. -- AlexR 12:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nor does a dislike of pornography makes one necessarily a "fellow traveler of the religious right"; that would, among others, make lots of feminists "fellow travelers of the religious right", which seems somewhat unlikely.

Actually, there is no evidence that most feminists dislike pornography. In fact, many millions of women consume pornography - and those that do tend to be more feminist and modernist than those that don't. The people behind actual attacks on pornography (i.e. legal attacks) are overwhelmingly social conservatives. Why do you think pornographers dreaded the election of Dubya (and social conservative Ashcroft), but fared very well under Clinton (and the feminist Reno)? The small but vocal minority of "feminists" who are anti-porn do indeed make strategic alliances with conservatives. They are also roundly criticized by mainstream feminists. Many of the most pro-porn voices out there are feminists. Nadine Strossen (author of "Defending Pornography"), Carol Queen, Susie Bright, Annalee Newitz, etc. Since consistent feminism espouses a woman's equal right to express herself sexually, to be anti-porn is to be anti-feminist.

And now speak after me: "The USA is not the rest of the world. In the rest of the world, some things are different!" Repeat about 1000 times.

Indeed; the rest of the world supports my argument even more powerfully. Denmark and the Netherlands - among the most feminist countries in the world - are also the most sexually liberal countries in the world. In those countries, even bestiality porn is perfectly legal. You also don't see the feminists there going after porn; but the conservatives do. It is a recurring pattern the world over: the more feminist a country, the more sexually liberal and friendly to porn it will be. There is not a single exception, anywhere. If that's not a strong pattern, nothing is.

--Angela --User:69.23.222.126

Funny, though, that I do know feminists who still fight porn. What are they, the 5th column of Saudi Arabia or what? Your sweeping over-generalsiation is really less than impressing, to put it mildly. -- AlexR 13:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And then stop assuming that people who don't like porn are necessarily social conservatives, too - "not liking" is not the same thing as fighting it. I don't like champignons, but I don't fight them. -- AlexR 12:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily, no; but there is an extremely strong correlation based upon empirical data.

--Angela --User:69.23.222.126

You are seriously assuming that a persons habit of consuming or not consuming porn (I was speaking of "liking" it, not "fighting" it, if you care to remember) are an indication of that person's political view, or their view on women's rights? That is the most stupid assumption I have ever heard. Either that, or you are seriously unable to differentiate between people who just don't like porn (but couldn't care less whether it exists or not) and people who actively fight porn. Given your rabid (and wildly inaccurate) slanders about myself, though, I wouldn't be surprised if it were the later, either. -- AlexR 13:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Face it, some people are just not very fond of porn, and many more people are stiktly opposed to be called something that so often is associated with porn, or rather the sex industry in general, without that saying anything about their conservativeness or progressiveness.

So it's just a coincidence that social conservatives are uniformly opposed to pornography, while liberal organizations like the ACLU are its strongest defenders? The Taliban, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and any other anti-feminist regime in history has banned pornography. More liberal and progressive regimes always legalize it. Coincidence? Please. I see all sorts of people who call themselves "hoochie-mama," "pimp," "hoe," and so on. Funnily enough, they're never social conservatives, and I can't imagine a Republican calling himself a "pimp daddy."

I sincerely hope you do not with to imply that transwomen who oppose to be called shemales have any particular symphaties for the Taliban, Nazis, Facists or any other anti-feminist whatevers. Because that would be such a sweeping bullshit that it would free me from ever having to answer your rabit rants again. Coming to think of it - I know better way to spend my time, so feel free.

As for people calling themselfes whatever - they are free to do so. Only that people who do not want to be called something are equaly free not to do so, as well. In my experience, that usually says rather little about their general views. -- AlexR 12:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And there is another matter: Kindly do two things: a) get yourself a username, because IPs are not exactly trustworthy users, especially if they make controversial edits. And b) kindly stick to the custom of ba) signing your edits, even as an IP, with -- ~~~~ (add your name if you want to, but why not get a username instead?), and bb) putting new debate below the previous ones. Talk pages are often read or refered to years after the debate, and that makes them much more readable. I've done that for you now, but kindy think of that yourself in the future. -- AlexR 10:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to adjust to that in the future, I'm used to a different format where I structure my replies point by point. --Angela --User:69.23.222.126

Karada: While "shemale" is commonly used in porn and the sex industry and among highly sexed "clubbers," I've also seen it elsewhere. How common it is outside those realms is debatable, but I've encountered it quite often. So it's certainly not exclusive to those (according to some) "disreputable" venues. --Angela User:69.23.222.126

Changed that already. -- AlexR 10:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see this as a very boring convo, fascinated people can manage to put Nazis in everything. In Saudi arabia, women are free to participate on porn industry, they then go through stoning treatement. Men on the other hand, loose their penis after shock penis removal treaty. Netherlands is known for her prostetution and drug industry. Cat ^chi? 12:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessary paragraph

The following paragraph is completely unnecessary, in its' entirety. It does not contribute to the article and I intend to delete it, but I'd like to avert an edit war by discussing it here.

However, other transwomen never undergo SRS even if they can afford it, or come to accept their genitalia, because they consider the surgery to be "just not worth it". Some transwomen like the genitalia with which they were born, and have said so themselves.

The preceding section reads 'Many transwomen are offended by this term, they dislike this term for one or all of the following reasons' and this paragragh does not modify the previous point, not support the issue (why the term is offensive). It is instead a remnant of the early editorialized diatribe about transwomen's feelings about their anatomy, which belongs in Transwomen, not 'tucked away' in here. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Highly Questionable Edits

User 'Angela', 69.23.222.126, whose only other contribution before this (and since) is to the articles on Hormone_replacement_therapy_(trans) and bukkake, has been making edits to this page that, in essence, claim there is a subsection of the transcommunity that has 'no problem' with the term 'Shemale' or usage of the term, but there is no substantive evidence for this. It seems quite prurient and personal for her, and it serves to distort the factual, objective nature of the article. Please refrain. -- RyanFreisling @ 08:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a lie. I have also contributed to Transwoman, Polyandry, Transgender, Mad Scientist, and numerous other articles. --Angela

That is not a "lie" - that is what one gets if one checks the contributions for your provisional username, that is, your IP. I told you to get a username, otherwise, nobody who has not accidentally read the articles and remembers your edits in talk pages (the articles are not signed, remember), can know that you did edit anything else. And nobody will attribute to an IP from a dial-up service those edits from last November. Oh, and you are still not indenting your edits properly, either. -- AlexR 09:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another lie. There are indeed transwomen who have no problem with the term shemale, and have said as much. Many transwomen even describe themselves as 'shemales' and/or 'chicks with dicks'. There is overwhelming evidence for this, in the form of their own words.

Nobody has made any definite statement that there are such transwomen, Ryan just asked - the point however is that this is rather rare, and you have given us exactly nothing to prove that it is not rare. It would really facilitate reasonable debate if you would not continue making claims about what other people and/or articles said which are rather ones-sided interpretation, not to mention many are complete garbage. (Stopping those insults would help, too.) If you just want to rant, go and look for another forum. If you want to help writing good articles, then you need to improve your style very much. (And get a few more facts, too.) -- AlexR 17:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks like you're the one dropping insults, considering your comment about my style. I aced university-level writing courses even in high school, so my style is not the problem. You're the one who lacks any understanding of the facts, given your belief that women are generally less sexual than men. (Sure, you say it depends on the person. Yet clearly you believe strongly sexual women are exceptions to the rule.)

--Angela

No, I do not believe that, and never said anything that can reasonably interpreted as such. Also, it is not the words or sentences you use that are a problem, but the - pardon - bullshit you say with them. As I already said on HRT: Unless you stop your rants and insults and baseless assumptions, as far as I am concerned that is the end of the debat. Rant all you like (although of course WP is not the place to do it, if one cares about the rules here) but don't expect me to explain anything to somebody who not only does not listen, but hears instead lots of stuff that was never said. -- AlexR 08:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You keep using the word 'many' but the problem is, it's very hard to quantify. Can you clarify just how many you consider 'many' and can you provide evidence for this assertion? I note that a quick google search tends to show that a large section of the MtF community has a big problem with the word and quite a number see it as being perjorative. - Pete C ^(talk) 18:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Garbage. Is it my so-called 'prurience' that is the problem, or your self-righteous prudery? The article is MORE factual after my edit. The previous version made the one-sided implication that ALL transsexuals have a problem with the word shemale. This is not true, as many have no issues with it. My edit also stated the reasons many transgendered and transsexual women have no problem with such words. As for "As with many words, it can be used in a pejorative fashion" .. this is simply the truth. Many do not consider "shemale" or "chick with dick" to be an insult. To ignore that is to be -less- factual. --Angela

Excuse me - it is you who assumes that the article stated that all transwomen dislike the term, which it never did. Furthermore, it is you who assumes that liking this term, or porn, or whatever, is a sure indicator of ones "conservatism" or not, which is complete and utter bullshit. And it is you who is completely unable to discuss anything in a civilised manner, instead attacking everybody who dares disagreeing with you. If you want to improve this (or any other) article, you might want to try reaching a consensus, otherwise, you won't see your edits last long. Believe me, others have tried what you are trying before, and they were not exactly successfull. -- AlexR 09:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request picture

I added a self portrait and AlexR reverted it. (the picture is now on my user page) I tried talking with him further but he has not responded. We need a picture for this page and I haven't found one besides mine (AlexR said people think I'm ugly) but still this page needs a picture. Shorthair 18:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is just fine as it is IMO & besides, it's rather apparent from your comment that you just want your own pic somewhere on WP - Pete C ^✍ 19:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Herbert Garrison?

Is this entry really appropriate as a see also? Especially as the only example of a transwoman or transwoman character on this page? I think it doesn't belong here, but I though we should discuss it. Rocky 21:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I agree; a fictional character & one that could hardly be called 'representative'. There are plenty of better examples of transwomen out there but I have the suspicion that not too many of them would appreciate appearing in a 'shemale' article, especially that the word is generally (not always - ok, we've been over that! :-) ) considered perjorative. Do we actually need any examples? - Pete C ^✍ 22:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am very dissapointed that people did not like my link. Well, as Pete said, Herbert Garrison is a fictional character, so she/he cannot object to being linked here. Still, if there are other wikipedia articles of transwomen (and I don't know of any so maybe someone here does) then I think someone should put those as "See Also" as well. Shorthair 02:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many transwomen, as the article cleary says, finds the moniker of "shemale" to be offensive. Adding links to other transwomen on this article would be akin to putting links to women on Wikipedia on the Cunt article. The fact that some women do not find "cunt" offensive, or that some transwomen do not find "shemale" offensive doesn't mean that its appropriate to freely associate others to these terms.

Go read and understand Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for homework. Dysprosia 02:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your post does not justify the removal of that link because Herbert Garrison was not a real person so he/she cannot get offended! DyslexicEditor 02:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, it's OK and NPOV to add links about fictional gay people to the Faggot article? Dysprosia 02:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that once again we should all try to remember that shemales only make up a very small part of transwomen; both those who fit the definition and even more so the ones that use that term to describe themselves.

Herbert Garrison is not a shemale, since he lost his crown jewels already. Therefore, there is no reason to link him/her here. (Not to mention that Southpark characters usually make incredible bad examples for about anything.) Also, other transwomen - and we do have articles on a few - would only belong onto this page if they did call themselfes "shemales", which I believe is pretty rare; because given the fact that this term is considered insulting by so many people, WP policy demands that only those people who use the term to describe themselves are listed under such articles as well - otherwise, somebody would start listing every black person under Nigger.

I would also like to ask User:Shorthair kindly to consider her edits somewhat better before making them; and if there is any doubt as to what a word really means, the articles usually help. I find her edits often decidedly besides the point; this addition just as much as some of the pictures she put in some articles where they just don't belong. -- AlexR 06:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'BiShemale' link removed

I just removed the latest dubious content, a link to a porn site called 'BiShemale'. Please provide the rationale for adding it - a review of the link showed no contributing information to this article (it is a dictionary page on a porn site, listing sexual terms some might see as pertaining to 'shemales'). Between the 'veryscary5' picture, 'Mrs. Garrison' and this article, there is a lot of questionable 'information' being added to this article lately, material that does not pass a reasonable threshold of usefulness and pertinence. If there is a valid rationale, let's discuss it here on talk. -- RyanFreisling @ 10:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)