Talk:Shemale/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 →

Contents 1 Needs citation 2 Needs review 3 Where's the NPOV? 4 Altered Layout 5 Third opinion 5.1 Questions 5.2 My opinion 6 Source material 7 Derogatory 8 Objectification 9 Recreation per deletion review 10 image required 11 derogatory slang 12 Intersexuals 13 Content Edits 14 Removed 'Chick with a Dick' 15 please explain this edit 16 some explainations by ip 17 Usage 18 reference.com is a valid source 19 Accusations of vandalism 20 Reliability of sources 21 specific references 22 Court reference 23 Pre-op vs. Non-op

Needs citation

Removed this 'doubly uncited' sentence pending discussion/citation:

"Shemale" is also a term used in online computer games to refer to male players playing as female characters, ^{[citation needed]} or to a female transvestite who looks like a man but is known to be a woman. ^{[citation needed]}

Please discuss. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Needs review

The definition put forth in this page needs reviewing.
True "Shemales" are not transsexuals; they are transgenderists, who desie to have aspects of both sexes. typically this is through surgical rather than hormonal modification of one's secondary sexual characteristics. These people do not wish to fully change their anatomical sex.
There does, however, need to be a section in this which refers to the confusion between transgenderists and transsexuals. Lwollert 00:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, very very few transwoman identify themselves as "shemales"; probably only a minority working within the sex industry itself. Second, it is at best debateable to claim that transwoman wishing to retain their original genitalia are not really transsexuals as most self-identify as "non-operative transsexuals". Certain segments of the pre-op and post-op transpeople would vehemently deny that "non-op transpeople" are transpeople at all (mostly amongst transwomen as opting out of surgery is fairly normal for transguys anyway due to the current limitation on surgery) but it's at best a contentious issue. Or maybe it's just a petty squabble of no concrete importance. In any case, violate neutral point of view standards to represent either side as the "authentic" one.74.104.127.146 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would challenge you to find a transwoman who genuinely identifies as "shemale." In the sex trade it's expected that transwomen advertise themselves as "shemales" so we may be seeing the results of that here. As for non-operative transsexuals not being true transsexuals, my personal experience indicates that it's a squabble amongst the "experts" rather than among the transgendered people themselves. People who are themselves transsexual generally understand that one's gender has little to do with one's genitalia and that the choice to operate or not is more about aesthetics and functionality than identity. Samantha D 19:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's important to emphasise the pejorative nature of this term. The article gives the impression that it's a valid description for a group of people, when the reality in my experience is that it's simply an insulting term used by the porn industry. I'm for removing the page altogether. If that's not possible, lets use the layout of the nigger and faggot pages as the basis for this one, and make it clear that this is an abusive, not inclusive, and certainly not descriptive term. Suzyj 20:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Suzyj has hit upon a good idea and a good point. As suzyj points out, Shemale is not generally a descriptive term, it is a pejorative one. Would anyone object to an insert to the begining of the article that reads similarly to the oppening of nigger and faggot? Lwollert 02:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the entire article needs to be almost completelly redone as to emphisize the pejorative nature of the word. However, I wouldn't object and in fact I'll go add it now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samantha D (talk • contribs) 00:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Where's the NPOV?

I'm not involved in pornography, and I have lived full-time as a woman (successfully) for five years now. However, I would consider myself a shemale. I feel the tone of this article is derogatory toward people who identify with the term, and it doesn't include alternate points of view.

I think that the main reason "shemale" is sexualized rather than a simple category is because society at large does not recognize the validity of other-gendered people. For me, saying shemale is a lot easier and more accurate than saying "non-operative transsexual". It's also less offensive: my life should not be defined around an genital mutilation I have no intent of undergoing, since I disagree that spending thousands of dollars on a hidden medical procedure would make me any more a "real woman".

In short, there's a lack of language available to express the traits of someone who is a woman socially by choice, but retains male genitalia, even though this is an increasingly common phenomenon. I think the term is fine.

--65.185.34.168 18:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay - perhaps this article has gone too far the other way; however, the common term for Transwomen who do not have GRS is a "Non-Op" Transsexual or "Non-Op" Transwoman. As the article states,

<quote>"Many transwomen are offended by this term beacause..."</quote>

The idea is to report common useage, and not personal experience, wherever possible. I applaud the above user for owning the term shemale, and accepting it, but many (and probably the majority) of transwomen feel it is a slur, a perjorative term, and used to reinforce the sentiment that transwomen are "Men acting like Women" as opposed to "Women who have had to act like Men". Lwollert 10:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with many of your points. However, the first paragraph states succinctly: "Shemale is a slur used against transgender women." There is no citation to back this up. As far as I can determine, shemale is not commonly used as a slur. It is most commonly used in pornography (just do a websearch for it), and many transwomen are simply offended by being associated with pornography. This doesn't mean that people commonly insult transwomen by calling us "shemales". In fact, most transwomen would be equally offended to be called "man", but the article on "man" certainly doesn't begin with, "Man is a slur used against transgender women". Shemale should begin with something like, "Shemale is a term used predominantly in the sex industry to refer to actors who appear female but have male genitalia. Some transgender women consider the term offensive." Then go on to explain this is considered offensive partly because of its use in the sex industry, and partly because pre-operative transsexuals don't want to be identified with their original sex. I could attempt an edit myself, but I'd rather discuss it here first than start an editing war.

In summary, I really don't think that people use "shemale" like they use "nigger" or "faggot". It isn't a slur used against transsexual women; it's a term used in pornography that offends SOME transsexual women who find the association distasteful.--65.185.34.168 17:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the most common usage is in reference to people portrayed in pornography. As I understand the argument, 65.185.34.168 is saying that 'shemale' is not a slur because it is used mostly in the porn industry. I would argue that 'whore' is still a slur, even though it is commonly used to refer to a prostitute from within the sex industry. An industry's use of a term is far from qualification for that term to be accepted. In medical terms, old people are often reffered to as GOMERs, and that is widely known through the industry; it is still a perjorative term.

Certainly most people would run into the term 'shemale' in a pornography setting. That does not, however, mean that it is not still perjorative in that setting. In fact, perjorative is my preffered term for it, rather than slur; whether or not it is used specifically as a slur, it contains negative connotations. I would disagree on the point that 'shemale' is not used like nigger or faggot, however as you point out (and I point out above) that is personal experience, not validated research.

On the point of citation, please feel free to try and find a valid citation that "most" transwomen do not find shemale offensive, as you imply that by saying that only some find it offensive.

I also encourage you to look at my proposed Shemale article layout and content, and edit or discuss it there.

Cheers, Lwollert 04:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the article is pure opinion and unsourced as it stands. The burden of proof is on those who edit or add to the article. I've added the unsourced tag in the hopes that some reliable third-party sources can back up your claims that shemale is generally a perjorative term. --65.185.34.168 03:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a dictionary cite (not that one should even be required for such an obvious situation). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Altered Layout

As discussed earlier, I suggest a new layout for this article, along the lines of Nigger and Faggot. I suggest the format at: User:lwollert/Shemale
Lwollert 10:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Taken together, I do not believe your layout is an improvement - quite the opposite - and so I've reverted your replacement of the article. We can discuss it at length if you wish, but the structure, grammar and informativeness of the original is clearly and significantly superior to your version and so I request that you don't revert it back, but instead that we try incorporating elements you find useful in your 'alternate' version. Just to be helpful, here are a few of the serious issues with your 'layout' that led me to revert:

1. Most importantly, your 'new layout' creates the impression that the term has widespread, non-derogatory use - it does not. There may be some individuals (like the anon) who claim it is an unoffensive term - but in widespread use it is indeed a pejorative as the cite makes clear. Structuring the article in the way that you did obscures that fact unacceptably.
2. The text of the section you title 'non-derogatory' contains considerably more text than the 'derogatry' (sic) section, and the text it contains does not relate specifically to the heading in any way. It is yet another runthru of issues more appropriate to an article on 'transgender' and not specifically related to the term 'shemale'.
3. WP is not a dictionary, so the Davy Crockett usage (lifted from the dictionary site) is, while historically interesting, tangential at best. Conversely, there is no mention in your version of the relevant usage of the term by Janice Raymond (which, while historical, could be argued to be far more relevant).
4. Anime and Manga (forms of animation) are similarly tangential to the issue of this term.

As it stands, I oppose your proposed version for these and other reasons I haven't yet mentioned. I applaud your goal to bring this article to a 'start-class' rating, and I welcome your opinions and further efforts - but please do not structure the article to lend credence to the mistaken view that 'shemale' has a common usage that is non-derogatory. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I fully appreciate the feedback; However, allow me to rebut;

1. I did not intend to make it seem that there was a widespread non-derogatory use. specifically, I started the article with the statement that it is a pejorative term, and an explanation of the derogatory connotations comes before the non-derogatory ones. Please not that it is incredibly hard to find a useful citation for either usage - at least without inadvertently referencing pornography sites.
2. The text of "non-derogatory" is essentially the same as the current article's second paragraph. Certainly the second and third paragraphs of that section could be removed without substantial loss to the article. If you think, perhaps it could be under a different heading?
3. Absolutely; however, as in nigger and faggot, historical useage of a term is part of understanding it; additionally, it helps us understand trends in culture, and is interesting to note that many derogatory terms had meaning once; again, idiot and cretin would be further examples of these (Cretin in particular has a very specific medical meaning - however modern usage has rendered it completely inappropriate). And in regards to the Davy Crockett quote, you'll notice I actually traced it to another source than the dictionary - "Lifted" is hardly fair.
4. Yes; tangential, but as the reference to Shemale is in their article, it is useful to refer it back. Also, to purely put forward the "derogatory" theme without reporting other usage runs us into NPOV issues - there are other uses of the word, and this is an example of oen of them.

I fully understand your reversion; my only request is that you perhaps help me to continue to try and increase the validity and use of this current uncited, and somewhat off-topic article. I continue to have my suggestion Here and invite you to edit that to make it better. I also have the current layout saved Here. As it stands, the current article does not conform to wikipedia standards of layout or content, and runs into NPOV issues.

BTW, I agree that by far the most common usage is in a derogatory way; you need only have a look at some of the discussions above to see that - however, much of that usage is in the context of the pornography industry, and should be labeled as such. It is not a term widely used outside that industry as far as i can see. When it is used, it is hateful, derogatory, and that IS personal experience - so not able to be cited.

Looking forward to your contribution, Cheers Lwollert 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time so I'll answer briefly for now.

1. I have provided a plain, clear, non-pornographic citation establishing definitively that the word is derogatory (the dictionary link). This is not in reasonable doubt, despite the personal viewpoint expressed by the anon above. In addition I've got some requests in to a few professionals experienced in transgender employment issues that can help provide some independent sources to establish the 'acceptability' of the term in an employment/legal context - a widespread and non-pornographic context. If the term is indeed acceptable for use in that context, there's an argument that it is not derogatory - but indeed, I believe it is obvious that the term is clearly unacceptable to refer to a transgendered individual and the cites gained will doubtless confirm the cite I already provided.
2. Per WP:NPOV, we oughtn't create a section called 'non-derogatory' if the non-derogatory use of the term is as marginal as you agree it is in this instance ("by far the most common usage is in a derogatory way"), lest we run afoul of the 'undue weight' requirement. Moreover, the text there doesn't belong under that heading, as it doesn't address the usage of the term. Currently it describes the physical nature of a non- or pre-operative transsexual/transgendered individual for whom the slur is ostensibly employed. As the text you placed in that section doesn't explain or exhibit a 'non-derogatory' use of the term, and the heading creates an incorrect perception that the term can be used in a non-derogatory manner, it's uninformative.
3. I don't dispute the use of etymology in WP articles, but in this case the Crockett example adds little if anything - but the Raymond cite would be key to understanding the usage of the term to refer to transgendered individuals. If we address etymology at all, the Raymond cite is far more relevant than the Crockett cite.

Again, I'd lose your alternate version, and focus your efforts on improving this article - I don't generally support branching (editing/evaluating alternate versions) since there's little reason why we cannot continue the process of discussion here around this text in this article.

To sum up - as the term's derogatory nature is well cited at this point, I disagree with your claim it's 'not able to be cited'. It's been cited. Re: NPOV issues - what do you believe is violating NPOV? As far as format issues, I have no real preferences - but at this point I don't see a valid justification for the claim that the article is POV (help me understand your viewpoint on this issue) and I of course do not agree it's uncited. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User:RyanFreisling said "To sum up - as the term's derogatory nature is well cited at this point, I disagree with your claim it's 'not able to be cited'. It's been cited." A single line in a single dictionary definition is not a valid citation, especially not when there's a vast amount of material illustrating other usages. The article as it is currently written argues five times in four short paragraphs that the term is deragotory and/or abusive, without any real support or discussion to that effect. That's not making a point, it's beating a drum.

User:65.185.34.168 was absolutely correct when they said "It is most commonly used in pornography (just do a websearch for it), and many transwomen are simply offended by being associated with pornography." Anyone who thinks otherwise has an axe to grind. -- 75.46.118.255 21:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, when the dictionary says 'derogatory slang', it's a derogatory term unless you can provide sources meeting WP policies to establish otherwise. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should anyone bother to contribute anything when you've reverted every substantial edit made in the last year? Like I said, an axe to grind. -- 75.46.118.255 00:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Argue for your limitations and they become true. Obviously no-one can expect to make a convincing case on WP without providing verifiable evidence to support their viewpoint. And if you really feel I'm violating WP:OWN as you say (and not just trying to make a not-so-oblique attack), just hop on over to the admin's noticeboard and ask for some advice/opinions from the admins there, or open a user conduct RfC if you think that may be more productive. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

TBH, I've never really agreed with some of the "evidence" you've used - as i said before, a single dictionary cite is not really enough. And as WP is not Wiktionary, I believe that some edits have included significantly more information to than the current edition. Significantly, I have attempted to explain some of the old usages of the word (admittedly from you cite, but verified from other sources), some non-derogatory usage of the word (because like it or not, some people take ownership of such words, RE: Nigger) and extended why it's considered offensive, including citations.

Mostly I feel that almost any addition has been reverted for several months, and although the current version is better than some of the vandalism we've all had to revert, it is still the most basic of stub articles, when I believe there is enough content available to make at least a start-class article.

I know User:RyanFreisling is concerned RE undue weight if we mention non-derogatory issues. I have tried to address that in the edits I posted above. I don't think that was ever assessed after I made those changes. Despite criticism of the crockett example, and the suggestion of using Janice Raymond's quotes, that has not been included in the "current" version. It's a encyclopedia, not a dictionary - just because something is, now, doesn't make it not what it was before. A mean definition is barely enough - and as it is, the "Reasons why transwomen don't like it" is unreferenced (despite my hunting and providing one). Only that the term is derogatory is referenced - not why.

I think the worst part is that User:RyanFreisling has continuously said that any changes need to be referenced, but when changes are referenced, they are still reverted. Not edited, reverted. Not talked about, then edited or reverted, just reverted. The only reference you seem to accept is a single dictionary cite, from an online dictionary. Yes, I do think there's and issue of WP:OWN, yes, continuously editing the article to show a SINGLE opinion, without allowing any discourse or variation, is WP:NPOC, but by now I really don't care. The whole page has given me apathy, so I'm focusing elsewhere at the moment.

Once more I ask that people consider the alternative version i've posted before, with it's more recent revisions. If someone else wants to post it here, feel free. If not, don't worry - I'm unwatching this page.

Sorry for the rant ☺

07:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make edits to this page, they should be 1) an improvement and 2) cited. Unless you cite your claim that the word has non-derogatory uses with verifiable sources, that claim is not sufficient to be encyclopedic. That's WP policy. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 10:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, citations are sorely needed on this article. I however argue that the article should begin and focus on the words common usage as a pornographic term and its context. I am a pornographer and this term has become so mainstream in the industry that it certainly does not have any negative connotation. To suggest it is a slur is enough of a stretch, but to equate that as it's primary usage is unreasonable. The adult industry avoids using common slurs such as Nigger, Fag, etc., to classify genres of pornography. Transgender MtoF's are no exception. I'm quite certain the term is much more often used in a pornographic sense than as a slur or insult. A simple Google search using the term "shemale" can validate this. I believe the article can be changed to reflect it's common usage and interpretation and also include other uses and interpretations. Minus the POV, of course. Would that be acceptable? --Patrick80639 21:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you use the term in a non-pornographic context, it's a slur. WP is a non-pornographic context, and most M-to-F's are not living in a pornographic context. I don't support your premise, nor do I agree that the primary use of the word does not have a negative connotation. The pornographic use of the word does not reduce the pejorative nature of the word. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

First, can I ask what you mean by the acronym "WP"? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that. If you mean Wikipedia, then yes, it does have articles with pornographic context. For example, Wikipedia:Cum_Shot, details the meaning of the phrase, it's primary use as a pornographic term and it's societal interpretations. The article clearly states how offensive it is to certain groups. Such an article can be appropriate for the term "shemale". Again, it is a term used mainly in the context of pornography. This needs to be emphasized, along with how offensive it is to certain transgendered individuals. No one is saying the term is not offensive. But this article is misleading in the fact that it tries to suggest that the term "shemale" is mainly used as a slur. Again, a point that can be disproven rather easily with a quick Google search using the term. The primary use does not have a negative connotation, it is simply a common term used by the adult entertainment industry. If used out of the context of pornography, then yes, it is offensive. But again, far more often that not, it is used in pornography. That should be the focus of the article, not personal opinions with virtually no citation.--Patrick80639 00:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The term is used independently of pornography, and the term 'is' overwhelmingly used as a slur. WP is an encyclopedia, and the use of the term in a porn context doesn't change or reduce the derogatory nature of the term at all. Just as a facile example, calling someone a 'whore' and calling someone a 'shemale' are both done in and out of porn contexts and doing so in a 'porn' context does not reduce the derogatory nature of the term at all. If you can provide notable, verifiable sources that establish the contrary, you have as much right as anyone else to do so. I agree completely that uncited personal opinions are not acceptable encyclopedic standards, so please cite your edits accordingly. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source to cite that the term is overwhelmingly used as a slur? I find it odd that 90% of this article has no citation whatsoever, but for one to disagree only then are sources required. Maybe this entire article needs to be put up for deletion? Virtually none of it can be substantiated and seems to violate NPOV guidelines.--Patrick80639 00:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've provided numerous citations through the prior discussions on this topic including the dictionary - which is quite clear on this. Personally, I don't think the article requires deletion, nor does it violate NPOV. You're welcome to edit as you see fit, and if your edits improve the article accuracy, I have no problem with them. However, as it stands I strongly disagree with your premise (which seems to be that the term is not derogatory and that the article is somehow inadequately cited). The article consists of only four paragraphs of straightforward and uncontroversial information - so why not just edit and provide cites if you feel there's an issue? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, as I have stated before, no one is saying therm is not offensive. The article simply failed to objectively state the common usage of the word, not it's meaning or implications. Works need to be properly cited, this is a very basic rule of Wikipedia. I have made my edits. What do you think? I think the new article maintains the needed emphasis on the offensive aspects of the word while portraying it's actual use in today's society.--Patrick80639 01:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have edited your version to remove the exclusion that implied the use of the term in porn was somehow 'outside' the offensive use of the term. I think your edits are a general improvement over the prior, so good job! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the term is not offensive in the pornographic industry, it is a marketing term, nothing more, nothing less. The first line in the article is a blanket statement that is simply not true. If it were, the source I added would not have said "(sometimes offensive)". Please cite your source where the term "shemale" is offensive in the adult entertainment industry.--Patrick80639 01:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the onus is on you in that regard, not me. Given the clearly-established fact that the term is derogatory, your claim that the term is not offensive in that context needs to be cited - otherwise it's uncited personal opinion. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's quite simple. My source says the term is sometimes offensive. Not always, which is what your edit implies. If you can't source your statements, they should be removed per Wikipedia guidelines.--Patrick80639 01:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)--Patrick80639 01:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this edit? It accurately expresses the information conveyed in my source and does not dispute yours.--Patrick80639 01:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit - please do not continue to remove the derogatory nature from the intro. The term is derogatory and you have not provided any citation to validate this edit. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Update - you reverted my edit - I won't edit war with you but your edit is uncited. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have provided citation, it's in fact citation #1 right now on the article. It's very clear. Please tell me how this differs from either of out sources? Please refrain form editing without discussing first, that is wikipedia policy, is it not?--Patrick80639 01:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Changing the reference from the Wikidictionary and reference.com (each of which says it is derogatory) to another online dictionary (WordWeb), that says 'sometimes derogatory' doesn't substantiate removing the word, nor does it substantiate your view that it's not derogatory 'in porn' (whatever that means). It's misinformative and it should be reverted as an inferior edit. I'd appreciate it if you reverted to the version I asked you to maintain, but I'm sure it'll work out for the best one way or the other. Update: I edited the article in accordance with accuracy. Please don't revert, as I consider your reversion to WordWeb from reference.com to be an inferior edit. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It no longer says that it is not offensive in porn (though you still have yet to produce a single source that says it is). I believe my edit and ones made by previous users are superior to the one I stumbled upon today. My edit has far less uncited statements than previous versions. Can you please tell me how you came to the conclusion that wordweb, a Princeton University publication, is an inferior source?--Patrick80639 02:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It says 'sometimes' but doesn't say why. That's inferior to a source that is clear, like reference.com and Wikidictionary. If it shed light on why the term is 'sometimes' derogatory, that would be helpful... but as it is it's one source, compared to the other two that clearly state the nature of the term. You're picking one of three sources to validate a point when that source doesn't in fact validate anything... it's inferior and misinformative to rely on that source and ignore the others so as to inject unfounded opinion (like yours). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one throwing away sources, you are. My edits do no invalidate any source at all, nor are there any contradictions. BTW, the word "derogatory" is still in the article. Again, please tell me how WordWeb is not a valid source and hsould be ignored? Besides because you disagree with it. It's a dictionary, I don't think it's required to go into why it's "sometimes offensive".--Patrick80639 02:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The term belongs in the intro, since the term is derogatory. You have yet to demonstrate it isn't, instead ignoring two existing references and viewing your WordWeb reference's use of the word 'sometimes' as justification to remove the reference to the term's derogatory nature from the intro completely. That's uninformative and it's not supported by any cites to date - so while I don't edit war (unlike your 3 reverts), I will be keeping an eye on this significantly inferior version. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This word is commonly perceived as a pornographic term, as supported by my source which is just as valid as yours. This fact, and it's placement, does not downplay the offensiveness of the word at all. The points of it's use as a slur and it's derogatory nature are still intact. Also, please refrain from personal attacks, per Wikipedia guidelines. My personal opinions are not "unfounded", nor are they apparent in my current revision of this article.--Patrick80639 02:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It was you, not I, that used the phrase 'unfounded personal opinion', and I don't believe a personal attack was made. The term is described as 'derogatory', 'sometimes derogatory', and 'pejorative' by the sources, but you insist on an introduction that claims that it is a porn term, but 'also' an offensive slur. That's unsubstantiated by ANY of the sources (that there is a distinction between a porn term and a derogatory term). It's that specific uncited personal opinion of yours to which I object and that I ask you again to revert. However, if you feel I made a personal attack against you, I apologize. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My intro is very much in line with my source's definition: (sometimes offensive) a form of transsexual, esp. one in the sex industry. That last part is very clear, "esp. one in the sex industry." My source is in fact the only one to give a specific example of the use of the word and it's frequency (esp.). I refuse to alter my edit, you have yet to show evidence contrary to the word's prevalent use as a term of the adult entertainment industry. Maybe that's why it's so offensive?--Patrick80639 02:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

It's a little difficult for me to tell what the two sides of this disagreement are. Is it that one of you wants to describe the term as "pejorative" and the other wants to describe the term as "an offensive slur"? Please (both of you) let me know if this is the correct interpretation of the disagreement so that I can lend an opinion. Sancho 02:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I also suggest that neither of you edits the page until we've come to a consensus through discussion here. Please see WP:3RR. Sancho 02:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit with which I strongly disagree creates a false distinction and implies that pornographic usage is a non-offensive usage of the term:

Shemale is a term commonly used in the adult entertainment industry to refer to transgender women. It is frequently employed as a sub-genre of pornography. It is also as an offensive slur. [1], [2], [3], [4]

My view is that the term is a pejorative/offensive/derogatory and that that fact should be part of the introduction, as before:

Shemale is a pejorative term used to refer to transgender women. It is frequently employed as a sub-genre of pornography.

The latter is accurate in that it states clearly that the term is pejorative (and is backed by two citations) and doesn't create a false distinction that a pornographic usage is somehow 'not derogatory', as the former version does with it's usage of the 'also' phrase. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe my edit emphasizes the usage of the word, defines it, then it states it implications. Is shemale a sceintific term? No. Is it a philisophical term? No. It is a pornographic term in today's common usage. That is why I think that should be stated first, then people's reaction to the term. It is not just an offensive slur, or is offensive at all times. It's common unfettered use in adult marketing proves just that. Just calling it offensive does not define it. A word needs to be defined first, not just how people react to it. Shemale is not solely used as an insult or slur, like Faggot or Nigger.--Patrick80639 03:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Using the term in pornography is still pejorative. There's been no citation of widespread, notable and nonoffensive use of the word 'shemale', but your version creates the impression that the porn usage is somehow not offensive. That's misinformative. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it pejorative in pornography? Constantly asking me to disprove you rather than you providing sources for your assertions is not reasonable. I can supply sources to enforce the concept that the term "Shemale" is not pejorative or offensive in pornography through actual examples. Would that be allowed here, though?--Patrick80639 03:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's pejorative. It's still pejorative whether used in pron or not. The sources don't substantiate your view and unless you can demonstrate with notable, verifiable sources that the pron usage is somehow inoffensive, your edits are unfounded personal opinion. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions

To both editors:

1. Can you agree and are there reliable sources that say "shemale is a pejorative term"?
2. Can you agree and are there reliable sources that say "shemale is used frequently in the adult entertainment industry to refer to transgender women"?

Sancho 03:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with, and there are reliable sources that say 'shemale' is a pejorative term. As an example, two are already on the article (Wikidictionary and reference.com) that establish this clearly, and a third, WordWeb, says 'sometimes derogatory' (without further explanation).

I also agree (but have not sought to cite) that the term is used in the adult entertainment industry to refer to transgender women. As a third and central point of this disupute, I believe that the latter fact does not influence, mitigate or reduce the former fact. The usage of a term in pornography does not reduce it's pejorative or derogatory nature, nor does it magically represent a new, non-derogatory usage of that term. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Shemale is a pejorative term, but not always. The term is not solely an insult. It is used frequently in the adult entertainment industry to refer to transgendered women and not in an offensive sense. Transgendered models are photographed and presented in just a positive light as some genetic women, for example. I can provide references, but doubt they would be allowed here. --Patrick80639 03:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Using the term 'Shemale' to refer to transsexuals in pornography does not make it any less, or non-offensive, than in any other context. It has no effect on the nature of the term. This is pure logical fallacy. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It certainly does. "Shemale"-labeled websites are marketed to men attracted to such women. The sites vastly depict them in a positive light, as attractive and to be admired. There are many Transgendered women artists who advertise themselves as "shemales". It is not an offensive term in the adult entertainment industry. It's a common marketing term. Again, sources could be provided if someone will give me the green light.--Patrick80639 03:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. To use your own example, a hypothetical porno called 'Nigger cocks' is still a grossly offensive use of the term, as would a pron called 'Shemale cocks', for example. And, restrain yourself - you don't need to show examples of porn. Whether they use the term in porn or not doesn't change the fact that the term is no less offensive simply because it is used in the fetishized porn/sex industry. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So it seems that the best sources provided so far (I've looked in the article history) give us the following: "shemale is used as derogatory slang", and "shemale is a form of transexual, especially one in the sex industry". To say more, like "Shemale is a term commonly used in the adult entertainment industry to refer to transgender women.", we need to include a reliable source that says so. Could you please provide one here Patrick80639? (I ask you, because you were the one that would like this wording). Sancho 03:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, there would need to be a source that states that the usage in porn is not derogatory to substantiate Patrick's usage of the false distinction created by his use of the 'also' phrase. Using the term in porn doesn't qualify automatically as somehow 'non-derogatory'.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. I was taking this step-by-step, but if you can include a reliable source that says this too Patrick, that would be helpful. Sancho 03:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You have the "green light", Patrick. Please provide a Wikipedia:Reliable source here that says that not all uses of the term shemale are pejorative or derogatory. Sancho 03:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

First, here is a source reflecting widespread usage of the term "Shemale" as a pornographic term: Google and here is an example of "shemale" not being used as derogatory Foxy Angel's Blog(last paragraph). The author is a professional transgendered woman entertainer and owns her own self-titled site, www.foxyangel.com. I can produce many more sources that display the uses of it as non-offensive and show it the dominance of it's pornographic usage, if need be.--Patrick80639 03:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a link to a personal blog of a 'tgirl goddess' in which she uses that word and a link to google are simply nowhere near on-topic, or appropriate to justify your view. I don't wanna say anything that will offend you, etc., but until you can provide citations that demonstrate your view, I request that your edits be reverted back (or we settle on this version). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort Patrick, but these references only allow us to say in the article "Google returns _____ results when queried with the term shemale", and "at [Foxy Angel's Blog], the term shemale is used. If you don't want the term to be described as pejorative or derogatory in all situations, please provide a Wikipedia:Reliable source that says pretty directly that "the term shemale is not always derogatory/pejorative/offensive." The dictionary definition that is referred to in the article now says directly "Usage: derogatory slang". We'd need something equally as direct to be able to discuss a distinction. Sancho 03:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My opinion

The reliable sources cited to date support the following statements in the article: "the term is used in the adult entertainment industry to refer to transgender women", and "the usage of shemale is as derogatory slang". There is no reliable source given to date that we could use without entering the area of Wikipedia:Original research that says we should make a distinction between the derogatory nature of the word and its use in the adult entertainment industry. Sancho 04:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited the article to be in line with the provided references, but I don't claim that this is the best way to present the material. Feel free to change the article as consensus will allow. Hopefully you can both work together well in the future. Sancho 04:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement with your edits, but I would prefer if the sentences were swapped in order and edited so that the derogatory nature of the term is mentioned before the affiliation with the pron industry. An additional edit is required since the term has been used both within and outside that industry, something along the lines of the prior edit:

The term 'shemale' is derogatory slang. It is frequently used in the adult entertainment industry to refer to transgender women.'

The current version implies the pron usage is the only one. Most of all, I'm very grateful for your assistance and (extremely helpful) third opinion. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your edit, Sancho. It is fair as I cannot yet find a source that falls under the needed guidelines to limit the connotation of the term. When I find something, I will post it here first. I don't believe the "Shemale" page needs to be changed anymore at present.--Patrick80639 04:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What about:

Shemale refers to transwomen (male-to-female transgender or transsexual people) who typically have breasts of an adult female (through hormone replacement therapy and/or through breast augmentation), and who usually have other female secondary sex characteristics, but who have not undergone genital reassignment surgery. One usage is in the in the adult entertainment industry to refer to transgender women. It is considered derogatory slang.

? Definition -- usage -- interpretation. Or maybe Definition -- interpretation -- usage is better? I do think the straight up definition should come first, derogatory or not, what do you think? Sancho 04:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Usage is such a defining factor for this term that I think it should be left as it is, usage-definition-interpretation.--Patrick80639 04:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think something like 'Shemale is a derogatory term used to refer to transwomen... etc.' is more brief, more informative, and a 'tighter' edit overall. I have a sense that placing the derogatory reference at the end of that long paragraph is obscuring that fact from ready view. I believe mentioning it up front is better editorially and works better to inform quickly about the nature of the word.

In addition, your use of the word 'it' in the last sentence implies that the use of the word in the adult entertainment industry, and not the word itself, is considered derogatory. User:RyanFreisling @ 04:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see that ambiguity now. I'll correct that. Sancho 05:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that I still strenuously object to the 'derogatory' information being relegated to the end of the paragraph. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please provide a reliable source clearly stating where else, besides in the context of the adult entertainment industry, the term is used? If this isn't possible, I feel emphasis needs to be made on the term's usage. Again, this may explain why the term is considered offensive.--Patrick80639 05:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the most notable [5]. Many transsexuals found Raymond's premise and book offensive, for example as described here:

Janice Raymond published The Transsexual Empire (1979), in which she attacked transsexuals' claim to womanhood and went so far as to equate sex reassignment with rape

Maybe the Raymond usage should be mentioned in the article as well (as I recommended above). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but reviews of a book cannot possibly constitute a reliable source. And where does it say clearly how the term "shemale" is used outside of pornography? Just applying the same standards here.--Patrick80639 05:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The 'book' is the source. The link i provided was to the book 'The Transsexual Empire - The Making of the She-Male'. The term 'She-Male' was used by Raymond in the book to describe transsexuals in a non-porn context. That's why it's a valid source (there are tons more, or I can just list the ISBN). And the review by Bockting is just one verifiable source that I cited to describe the context and reaction of Raymond's book so I didn't have to editorialize with my own summary. All as per WP standards. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I really do prefer blunt, non-valued, definitions to start off an article, though. Now all three of us disagree :-) However, I'm not stopping anyone... it's only a preference. If this a disagreement now about the ordering of the three setences, I really don't think it matters too much, since the reader only has to take ten seconds to read the entire article. Maybe look at some examples of other articles to see how they do it?Sancho 05:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To use Patrick's example, Nigger explains the derogatory usage in the second sentence, and Faggot (epithet) does so in the first. When a word is seen as a 'powerful term of abuse' (as the article read before Patrick's edits), it does matter. Putting it at the end as he apparently insists on is simply inferior, misinformative and remains unsubstantiated by any new cites since the edits were made. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, it shouldn't be the first sentence. I'm glad we agree on that. So to be fair, how about definition-interpretation-usage?--Patrick80639 05:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it should be in the first sentence, like 'Faggot'. You've provided no citation of usage of 'shemale' that's anywhere near to the 'non derogatory' use of 'Nigger' amongst certain black folks. Stop intentionally misstating what we agree on. It's uncivil. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, stop with the personal attacks. I made a mistake in interpreting what you wrote, I was not being uncivil. You're writing style is confusing for me at times, I will make more effort to decipher it in the future.--Patrick80639 12:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the article slightly, as per above and as per precedent (Faggot (epithet)), and as per the existing citations. I hope everyone can agree that the edit improves the brevity, readability, informativeness and accuracy of the article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, I like the way it reads right now. One or two exceptions does not break the general consensus that the term is regarded as pejorative. Right now, it reads a whole lot better. - Alison^☺ 06:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I suppose the derogatory nature of the word is so prevalent that it deserves precedence over definition. Sancho 06:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Source material

Both of these def., which are from Intersexed\Transgendered websites, contain a strong sense of the derogatory nature of the term.

[6]

Shemale: Derogatory slang used in the porn industry and escort services to wrongly describe an intersexed, transsexual or third-gender person. In some cases, intersexed, transsexual or third-gender portrayed in pornography are actually women with prosthetic penises adhered to their body. Shemale does not accurately describe intersexed, transsexual or third-gender persons. This slang is embraced by some, but not by all, transsexuals. Related words include she/he, he/she, shim.

[7]

A genetic male who has physical characteristics of both male and female by choice (due to hormones). The term accurately describes most MtF transsexuals during transition, but it is generally used by those working as a show-girls, or otherwise exploiting their physiology. (NOTE: Because of its usage by the pornography industry this term is generally derogatory, and many are highly offended by it.)

I think these definitions support the current wording of the article. (That is "shemale is a derogatory term...".)Fixer1234 06:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Derogatory

"X is a derogatory term" means that X is a term which is always derogatory. "X is a term [...] it is widelyt considered highly offensive[cite]" is more accurate (since not all use is, according to some at least, derogatory), seems stronger, and has a specific reference. I don't see the need to restore the word derogatory to the first sentence, as it is redundant and possibly not wholly accurate, but it would certainly be reasonable to move the qualifier higher up. Or "X is a term, usually considered derogatory, ..." Guy (Help!) 12:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious - what evidence or citation has been provided that the term is not used derogatorily, besides a single online reference that reads 'sometimes' derogatory (compared to two that make no such disclaimer)? If some uses are not derogatory, where are the cites that are required to establish that fact? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A cite has been provided saying very clearly that the phrase is "sometimes derogatory". I have yet to see a single source that clearly says it is "always derogatory". I say leave it as it is, it's reasonable for all sides.--Patrick80639 22:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And what is the reason for the 'sometimes'? It doesn't say. And if two cites say 'derogatory' and 'pejorative', and one says 'sometimes derogatory' it's pretty POV to choose the latter without ANY information as to how it's sometimes not derogatory. As it stands, after numerous requests to you to provide reliable, notable, verifiable sources containing a discussion of possible non-offensive, non-derogatory uses of the term have gone unresponded to, yours is clearly the uncited personal opinion here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your summation of the situation here, Ryan, though I'd thought that consensus was reached on this issue yesterday. Note that Fixer and Sensho also seem to concur from their comments above - Alison^☺ 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My only issue is that there's no information about WHY the term is supposedly 'sometimes', and not 'always' derogatory, except a single mention of the word 'sometimes' in a dictionary cite. It seems unencyclopedic to me to parley that distinction into this article since there's no verifiable information available anywhere to date that describes under what conditions it's not derogatory.

Before Patrick began his edits, the article read 'Shemale is a slur used against transgender women' and that has been 'scaled back' a great deal, with nary a citation specifically justifying the change. Such a change should be based on more than one source's unattributed, unexplained use of the word 'sometimes' when so many other verifiable sources do not prevaricate at all on the offensiveness of the term. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) "there's no verifiable information available anywhere to date that describes under what conditions it's not derogatory." - precisely. Some cites to this effect from Patrick would go a long way to justify his position - Alison^☺ 22:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Before I began my edit the vast majority of the article was uncited and poorly organized. My source says "sometimes", there is no need to explain further. It is very clear. Again, I would like to see a source that says clearly the term is "always derogatory". Please stop ignoring my requests, that is uncivil.--Patrick80639 03:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being uncivil nor am I ignoring anything. I just got here a few hours ago. It's just a little unfair to suggest that I am here - Alison^☺ 03:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, that message was intended for someone else, it some how got mixed up in the wrong place when I posted it.--Patrick80639 04:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Can we all watch our indents here (me included) so there's not misattributes? - Alison^☺ 04:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a source that clearly demonstrates the term is not always derogatory, Urban dictionary.--Patrick80639 03:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are another two, it makes no mention whatsoever of the term being derogatory or offensive, Sex Dictionary & Dictionary of Sexual Terms--Patrick80639 03:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of these can remotely be described as reliable sources. Urban Dictionary?? - 03:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why these are not reliable? Is urban dictionary less reliable than Wiktionary? That is a source that has been used in this discussion to support another's arguments. Urban dictionary clearly displays that over 300 people agree with a definition that says nothing about the term being an offensive slur or anything of the sort.--Patrick80639 03:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You'll also note that nearly the same number of people believe that the definition for 'president' is:

political figurehead that all of America blames their problems on, acting as if the president had any real power and was diliberately making horrible decisions.

I have to ask - are you just trolling? Urban dictionary is so not WP:V. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, please refrain from personal attacks. You can disagree with me without insults to my intentions on cleaning this article up. My point in citing urban dictionary is to support my stance that the term "shemale" is not always an offensive slur. You may not agree with all their definitions, but the numbers of people who do are undeniable. If you made the statement above about all the sources being not reliable (I'm not sure since it was unsigned), please tell me how the other two are not reliable?--Patrick80639 03:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack so stop crying 'wolf'. Thus far in trying to prove the term is 'sometimes not derogatory' (like in pron), you've not provided a single, close-to-reliable source. You've now provided links to 'urban dictionary' and other sites that just don't meet WP:V, so don't call your cites 'undeniable'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Accusing me of trolling certainly is a personal attack. You have repeatedly ignored my requests that you substantiate your claims that none of my sources are reliable. You have also ignored requests to provide a source clearly stating the term is "always derogatory" Like others before me on this page, I see no point in communicating with you further on this matter, due to your behavior.--Patrick80639 04:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I just asked you if you were trolling, since you were trying to pass off those links as reliable sources. If you choose to ignore me, fine - but I'll continue to try to work to resolve the debate. I've ignored nothing, and provided numerous sources stating the term is derogatory. Your insistence on a source saying 'always derogatory' is just your latest response... which, combined with your lack of valid sources, caused me to ask. I fyour feelings were hurt, i'm sorry! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned about who's argued what previously. Urban Dictionary isn't remotely reliable as a source, sorry, regardless of who's using it. 300 random people does not make it a reliable source - Alison^☺ 03:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Following such logic, would you agree that Wiktionary is not a reliable source? And to confirm, are you stating that you recognize 300 random people support a definition of the word "shemale" that mentions nothing about it being an offensive slur or anything of the sort?--Patrick80639 03:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's my general understanding that including Wikidictionary infoboxes, etc. is an accepted practice on WP articles. The general logical fallacy you have repeated regarding the definitions and now specifically attempting to use one of UrbanDictionary's user-generated site's references to 'Shemale' as 'a woman with a penis' as proof the term is used non-derogatorily, strikes me as preposterous. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Objectification

As with many similar terms, the word is almost always used in the porn industry as a noun; that is you hear ("a shemale was [blah de blah]") and never "a shemale woman", etc. It's used to objectify and this is also what many find offensive about the term. Unlike Transsexual, which is often used as an adjective ("a transsexual woman"), this is never the case with 'shemale'. - Alison^☺ 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a POV statement and as such, is not appropriate for use in the article.--Patrick80639 03:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that this be incorporated into the article. It's merely here as commentary and serves as background to the whole concept of objectification of those (esp. women) who work in the industry. Do you dispute this? - Alison^☺ 03:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I assumed you were suggesting that be put into the article. Per Wikipedia guidelines stated at the top of this page, I don't think your question is appropriate in this forum, though I'd love to answer it.--Patrick80639 03:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's only there to lend perspective. I find it interesting to note the parallels between the word "shemale" and the word "slut" as they are both used by the sex industry. Interesting, no? - Alison^☺ 03:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Slut" is not a genre of pornography.--Patrick80639 04:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but 'gangbang slut' is, for example. I think Alison's analogy is completely accurate. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Both are nouns used by the porn industry. Both are considered pejoritive. The parallels are decidedly valid. From "Slut"; "Slut is a pejorative term for a person (usually female) who is more sexually promiscuous than is socially acceptable. The term has traditionally been applied to women and is generally used as an insult or offensive term of disparagement." - Alison^☺ 04:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Gay" is also a noun used in the porn industry. It is not pejorative. Your parallels are too vague. "Slut" is a term that is very commonly used outside of pornography. However, "shemale" is almost exclusive to the adult entertainment industry. There is no such thing as "slut porn", for example.--Patrick80639 04:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Gay is almost never used as a noun. It's always a "gay man", etc. Quite a different story. As to whether it's pejorative or not, well ... a day as administrator here will tend to disabuse you of that idea :-) - Alison^☺ 04:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I concede it is not used as a noun nearly as much as "slut", but "slut" is definitely not a term exclusively used by the adult entertainment industry. See, though, "Gay" can at times be used as a pejorative term, but not always. My contention is that "Shemale" can also be a pejorative term, but not always. To many it is a simple synonym for transgendered woman. I am not insisting that be the sole definition, but should be taken into consideration. At the end of the day, it is a marketing term, that many transgendered woman entertainers self-identify with.--Patrick80639 04:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny, all editing done the past day seems to be a less-complete, redundant version of this version, [8]. How about we revert to this? It seems to cover all the bases and looks more detailed.--Patrick80639 06:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For all the reasons I stated above, I strongly oppose changing the current version to the alternate layout proposed by Lwollert. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Recreation per deletion review

Article is recreated per deletion review here. Article was AfD'd here, and was permitted recreation on basis of new ref's came to light after AfD. Lara_bran 04:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Article was Deletion reviewed using taking this as proposal. Lara_bran 04:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

image required

Image or comic image(manga) is required to illustrate shemale. Help is appreciated. Lara_bran 04:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

derogatory slang

In the ref provided(dictionary.reference.com), it is just mentioned that it is derogatory slang. But no mention of "to whom" it is derogatory. WP:SYN is removed, thanks. Lara_bran 10:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's unjustified. The term is clearly derogatory, and derogatory when used to refer to a transsexual person. Last, revert warring on the first day is bad form. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 11:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You can mention that term is used as derogatory, please dont synthesise 2 seperate sentences to derive something else, see WP:SYN. You can provide different ref, if you want the same sentence. Thanks. Lara_bran 11:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no WP:SYN violation here. The term is derogatory to its subject. What other subject is it derogatory to? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 11:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly visible you are deriving 2 separate facts "derogatory slang" and "meaning"(they are mentioned in ref seperately) into 3rd your own sentence. Please provide different ref. Thanks. Lara_bran 11:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The facts are shared between the cites and cross-corroborated. Your claim (2 separate facts, WP:SYN violation) are utterly baseless. I've repeated the cites for you to examine below: -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English [9]

   • Definition: "a genetic male who has both male and female characteristics; a male who has undergone surgical feminization"
   • Usage: derogatory slang

2. TG Terminology [10]

   • Definition: "a sexualized term popularized in pornography for a transgendered woman who has not had surgery. Often considered highly offensive."

3. WordWeb [11]

   • Definition: "sometimes offensive) a form of transsexual, esp. one in the sex industry"

4. TG Terminology (MIT) [12]

   • Definition: "A term, usually derogatory, used most often in the porn industry for a pre-op transsexual who has already developed breasts but still has an intact penis."

5. Transgender Terms and Definitions

• Definition: "A highly demeaning/derogatory term used to describe transgendered people. Term comes from the pornography industry, characterizing those with fem features and male genitalia. This term is also often used to portray "girls" involved in prostitution and pornography." [13]

Needless to say, we can agree to disagree. However, edits that state 'Shemale' is a derogatory term used to describe transwomen are not a WP:SYN violation at all. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Intersexuals

Note - besides corroborating the 'incredibly offensive' nature of this term, the 'what's offensive page' clearly reads to me to indicate that the term 'shemale' is not applicable to intersex people, and isn't used to describe them:

"This is an incredibly offensive term. It reduces those on the MTF spectrum to the old "man in a dress" designation, and I have yet to meet an MTF who won't bite your head off or get very upset on hearing this term. Just say "pre-op or non-op MTF" to indicate someone who has breasts and a penis. (By the way, lots of intersexed people have both breasts and a penis naturally.)" [14]

This is corroborated by the following in-article cite:

"a genetic male who has both male and female characteristics; a male who has undergone surgical feminization " [15]

Which pretty clearly excludes intersexuals. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Content Edits

Just an FYI. I just made some significant edits:

1. I edited down the multiple-redundancies in the intro
2. I removed the 'Futanari' text but left the WP link to Futanari, since the word 'Shemale' is not mentioned on the original external link at all.
3. I placed a 'citation needed' tag on the 'intersexuals' text, since the citation provided does not validate the text. This section is largely erroneous and should be removed, in my opinion.

Anyway, thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed 'Chick with a Dick'

As per this discussion. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, i cant go to other talk page, your this edit is reverted. You can just de-wikilink, not remove term. Thanks. Lara_bran 03:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What? That doesn't make sense. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You have just completely reverted my edits without discussion, despite my postings above. Whether you disagree with my edits or not that's plainly disruptive editing. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community effort, dont singlehandedly change the article. You alone seem to be too much interested in weakening the article, and since you are alone, reversion demands not discussion. You can seek third opinion. Thanks. Lara_bran 03:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:BOLD and WP:NPA. My edits reduced plainly redundant content and grammatically broken content in the first section and I removed unsupported content from the third section. My edits were an improvement, and your blanket revert is uncalled-for and plainly disruptive (to say nothing of unjustified gramatically or regarding the content). Most of all, I heartily suggest you stop claiming I have 'interests in weakening' the article, that's a personal attack. My edits were an improvement and I recommend you self-revert, edit and/or discuss futher, if you want your conduct here to be seen as collaborative rather than disruptive. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to weigh in in agreement with Ryan on this one. We've been over this issue again and again on the talk page here. It's not a case of 'weakening the article', more a case of removing POV and dubious research (Google cache links??) - Alison ☺ 04:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Google cache was provided beside original pdf, for html version, i have fixed it now. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Way better :) I tidied up some of the other links but it looks like some of those refs are duplicated. I'll dig though them tomorrow and tidy up per WP:MOS - Alison ☺ 04:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm inclined to think that given the content on that article, the link to Futanari should be put in the 'see also' section, rather than its' own heading. I'll take a fresh look tomorrow. Thanks all! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made the edit, looking forward to any discussion so occasioned. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

please explain this edit

You changed 'male' to 'person' in the introduction with the edit summary 'per first ref' [16] but the first reference exclusively uses the word 'male', not 'person':

"derogatory slang, 'a genetic male who has both male and female characteristics; a male who has undergone surgical feminization" [17]

Can you point to the specific reference that you meant to indicate to validate this edit? Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to this edit: [18]. Thanks. Lara_bran 10:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note that reference.com, dictionary.com are not reliable sources, will be removed. Thanks. Lara_bran 11:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Your explanation doesn't hold water, and that page doesn't explain it. Your edit needs to be explained or it will be reverted. As far as your belief that dictionary.com and reference.com are not valid sources, I think you'll find your opinion is not commonly held. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 11:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

some explainations by ip

The word "Shemale" is not always used in a derogatory manner. It does not refer only to "pre-op transsexuals." This would imply that all trassexuals are bound for genital conversion surgery. There are in fact today, many non-op transsexuals, who are happy to live in between, i.e. having feamle breasts and other characteristics, but maintaining a fucntioning penis. For such people, the word "Shemale," though coined by the sex industry, has become a very appropriate name. Dr. Harry Benjamin, who first coined the word "transsexual," came up with a scale or spectrum of transgendered expression, today refered to as the "Benjamin Scale." On this scale, he included the Type 4 Transsexual, a non-op transsexual: one who lives in the opposite birth gender, and takes on physical characteristics of that gender, but maintains their birth genitals. This has become more and more prevalent as more and more transgendered individuals feel safe to live out. There had been much pressure from TS peer groups as well as from the psychotherapy community to go all the way. This is changing today.

This was posted on main page, by an ip, moved to talk, for reference. Lara_bran 16:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Shemale" is also a term used in online computer games to refer to male players playing as female characters, ^{[citation needed]} or to a female transvestite who looks like a man but is known to be a woman. ^{[citation needed]}

and another for article expansion purpose. Lara_bran 16:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that some transsexuals do not have SRS does not justify calling them a derogatory slur or reduce the derogatory nature of the slur. The appropriate term for them is 'pre-operative' or 'non-operative transsexual (less common), not 'shemale' (which is demonstrably a slur).

The section which you keep reverting already makes clear this point... and yet despite all this you haven't produce a cite for your/anon's POV claim that "For such people, the word "Shemale," though coined by the sex industry, has become a very appropriate name." If you don't cite your edits you probably won't find support for your edits.

And that gaming reference is so tangential as to be more than useless here, in my opinion.

Most disturbing, you yet again have reverted another editor's work, which I have corrected. Lara, please stop reverting other users and making edits without citation - your conduct here is not improving. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Lara, the term is not always used as derogatory. This issue seemed to be resolved prior to this article being redirected to "transwoman". --Patrick80639 18:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Usage

Removed this newly-added section, which contained a duplicate sentence (tranny, ladyboy) and another new piece of content:

"This term is used in legal matters also, especially in USA, referring to persons who have female bodies, including fully developed breasts except that they have male genitalia.^[1]"

Personally, I don't see how the case is relevant to the article. The mere fact that the word 'She-male' was used during a court case discussing the porn movie 'She-Male Confidential') seems neither indicative of the word's non-porn or non-derogatory use. However, I'm hoping we can discuss and resolve it here, especially since Lara removed my response to this issue from his/her talk page - I'm hopeful my arguments will survive deletion here instead. Let's discuss. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 10:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

reference.com is a valid source

In the latest round of unjustified edits and reverts, Lara_bran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has removed the reference pointing to reference.com, with the edit summary "reference.com is not a reliable source, which refers back to wikipedia. " However, this is plainly incorrect. The content there reads:

Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English
Main Entry:     she-male
Part of Speech:         n
Definition:     a genetic male who has both male and female characteristics; a male who has undergone surgical feminization
Usage:          derogatory slang
Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7)
Copyright © 2003-2007 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC

Online Etymology Dictionary
she-male  
early 19c. U.S. colloquial, "a female," from she + male.
"Davy Crockett's hand would be sure to shake if his iron was pointed within a hundred miles of a shemale." ["Treasury of American Folklore"]
By 1972 it had come to be used (disparagingly) for "masculine lesbian." The sense of "transsexual male" seems to date from c.1984.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

Needless to say, I'm of the strong opinion that a reference to Webster's New Milennium Dictionary of English is a valid reference and I strongly believe it should stay, And I didn't see a reference back to WP on that page, anyway. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 10:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism

Lara, even if you can't resist reverting my edits without justification and without discussion on talk, and even if you delete my comments about the edit from your talk page, baseless accusations of vandalism aren't appropriate. You'll note I didn't accuse you of vandalism when you removed the reference to Webster's Online, so just stop it. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 11:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

I recently had a new article rejected for DYK because some of the article's references were not sufficiently reliable. That has given me a new focus on the overall concept of reliable sources, and I think that this article has a serious problem in this regard. I had a conversation via yahoo chat yesterday with the owner of the web site:

http://ftmichael.tashari.org/offensive.html

which is presently used for two references in this article. They were extremely surprised that their personal web site was being used as a reference. Given that it is simply the opinions of one individual and has not been subject to peer review or any other form of scrutiny, I don't believe that it can possibly qualify as a reliable source.

I also note that several of the other references have been added in multiple times with different descriptions. I intend to tidy and sort the references to be readable and not repeated. I do not intend, in the first instance, to remove any of them as not being reliable, but once they are all readable, I intend to discuss which qualify as reliable and which don't. I also believe that there is excessive redundancy in the references. We really don't need several dictionary references that all say essentially the same thing. --AliceJMarkham 12:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely that that source is not sufficiently reliable and should go. It's certainly fringe and self-published, if I'm not mistaken. I'm looking forward to seeing your edits. and I hope you take a peek at my lede edit proposal, below. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tidied the refs, including hiding one that was incomplete and I couldn't immediately tie to any of the others. Given that it only referenced the fact that the masculine lesbian meaning is no longer in common use (a self-evident fact), I doubt that it is even necessary. I've also traced some that were ref'ed from http://dictionary.reference.com to the actual source used by reference.com, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=she-male and changed the refs to their real source. Now we have 10 refs total.

Woah. http://etransgender.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=188 Needs to be re-assessed for what it says. "Shemale. A highly demeaning/derogatory term used to describe transgendered people. Term comes from the pornography industry, characterizing those with fem features and male genitalia. This term is also often used to portray "girls" involved in prostitution and pornography." is a lot different to "characterizing those with fem features and male genitalia"!

The http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/SHEMALE ref is notable only in the fact of saying "(sometimes offensive)". It appears to be reliable, and is valid to retain for NPOV reasons.

I think that the http://www.mybodyvibes.com/sex_dictionary_s.html reference is an unnecessary repeat of the http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/she-male one, and as a commercial site's "definitions" section, I propose to remove the mybodyvibes ref as redundant and probably the less reliable of the two.

As mentioned above, I don't believe that http://ftmichael.tashari.org/offensive.html qualifies as reliable and propose its removal. I believe that the auther stated the opinion that "ignorant people would probably apply the term to intersex people too". Removal of this reference will leave the intersex remark unreferenced, and I propose to leave it for the moment, with a {{fact}} tag to give the opportunity for the term to be properly referenced from a verifiable and reliable reference. The 2nd use of this reference is redundant (repetition).

I can't check the 2 book references, but I note that neither ref has an ISBN. For verifiability purposes, someone with copies of these references should add the ISBN numbers.

I'm happy enough with the other references, even though they wouldn't necessarily be strictly reliable. --AliceJMarkham 13:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100% with your assessment of the refs. Not sure when that 'characterizing those with fem features and male genitalia' came in, but I'm sure it's in the edit history somewhere. I'll dig up the ISBN's for Raymond and Boorstin if I can as well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• The phrase is an out-of-context slice out of the middle of the reference. --AliceJMarkham 09:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: here they are: "Making of the She-Male: The Transsexual Empire" is ISBN 0807762725 [19]. "The Americans Volume 2: The National Experience" is ISBN 0394703588 [20]. I'm very poor at ref syntax, so if you or anyone else wants to try throwing 'em in, rock on! Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done the ISBNs. They are easy. You'll note that, on this page, the combination of ISBN and a valid number is automagically converted into a wikilink. Hence, simply tacking it onto the end of a reference works fine. Ideally, all the references should be redone using the Wikipedia:Citation templates, {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} but I'd prefer to weed out the poor quality refs to avoid wastng effort converting rubbish into cite templates. :) --AliceJMarkham 13:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

specific references

I have mentioned some refs that are reliable per WP:RS in footer, since page is being modified and these may get deleted by mistake. Removing these references from article is seen as Wikipedia:Vandalism, and will be reported at appropriate place. Also do not spam talk page with too many comments. Thanks. Lara_bran 15:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... you're saying that:

1. Deleting the references you placed on the page (whether they're duplicates or not, whether they're relevant or not, regardless of the views of other editors) is 'de-facto' vandalism, and
2. Editors discussing it on this talk page (as you have refused to do on these topics above) is 'spamming with too many comments'?

If that's what you mean, you sorely misunderstand WP process. Discussion on 'talk' is how issues are resolved on WP - not revert warring and blanking other users' contributions and comments without justification or discussion. Consider this another warning to you to stop threatening other users, stop reverting and blanking their contributions and focus on justifying your desired edits to the content on 'talk'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, Lara, I have experienced similar problems with vandalism in this article as well, though I never realized it could be identified as such. --Patrick80639 22:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, this article seems more and more like a dictionary entry. Would it be an option to transfer this article to Wiktionary? --Patrick80639 22:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What Lara is referring to as vandalism does not meet the criteria to be deemed such. A quick read of the introduction of Wikipedia:Vandalism will show you that. Where edits are reverted because there is a content dispute, the content in dispute is intended to be discussed on the talk page. That is precisely what the talk page is for. I would also draw your attention to wikipedia's expectation of assuming good faith. Lara's edit summaries and comments often appear to fail that assumption of good faith and I have some reservations about her civility.

Lara's comment about spamming the talk page is quite perplexing, as I haven't seen any spam added to this talk page, or most others for that matter. Spam is usually added to articles in the hope of getting attention through people coming to the article through google and similar search engines. Since the search engines don't search talk pages, there is no benefit in spamming them.

I agree that this article is more a candidate for transwiking to Wiktionary, but I note that there is already a definition there. This article would probably be more appropriately merged into that wiktionary definition. The key question that should be asked of any article is whether is has the potential to ever reach FA (featured article) status. If not, then it really should not exist as a stand-alone article.

Noting that only one of the four references that Lara added is not a duplicate of one that is already in the article, and that the above discussion has clearly concluded that the other three are appropriate to remain in the article, I now propose that those duplicates be removed from the article in conformance with wikipedia's manual of style and that the remaining one be either converted into an inline citation or that it be moved to this talk page for further discussion to establish the context into which it is to be placed. --AliceJMarkham 01:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem with duplicates as specific references. While editing inline citations get removed, which happened here [21], this maybe by removal of content, but one reference was relavant removed from article. This maybe by mistake, but you know it is difficult to find wikipedia:reliable sources. So me keeping copy of references in footer. Lara_bran 03:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Given that User:Lara bran has been found out as a sockpuppet of an indefinately blocked user, I will now remove the redundant links while bringing the one that is not redundant onto this page for discussion. --AliceJMarkham 09:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Court reference

I've moved the following reference from the article:

• U.S. v. Pryba (April 9, 1990) 900 F.2d 748, pages 750-751 (4th Cir. (Virginia)):"she-males" - persons who have female bodies, including fully developed breasts. They are women in all respects save one: they have male genitalia.

In my experience, this is a typical behaviour of a court when faced with an industry specific or technical term. Irrespective of whether the term is insulting, in use in the general community, etc, a court will tend to use the terminology used in the case that is being tried. I'd suggest that a wording to reflect this might be the most appropriate way of using this reference. Someone might want to consult with the wikiproject law (or whatever the relevant project is called) in constructing the wording for this. I've wasted too much time on this and want to get back to productive editing and need to get some real-world work done. --AliceJMarkham 09:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Pre-op vs. Non-op

I'm glad to see that the Shemale article is written in a much less biased manner than previously (before deletion).

I have a suggestion, though. Shouldn't "pre-operative transsexuals" in the second para. be "pre-operative or non-operative transsexuals"? I don't assume it is the norm, but there are likely many "shemales" in both pornography and popular culture who have no intention of having genital reconstructive surgery.

--65.185.37.199 14:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)