Talk:Gender transition/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

Transitioning from one sex to another does not always include any gentital reconstruction. This topic should be kept seperate.

It does not always include genital surgery, but that is a big part of it for many people. So we would be remiss to not include it. That is, insulin is not always a part of the treatment for type II diabetes. But it is certainly a big part for many type II diabetics. So any article that discusses treatments for type II diabetes should include a discussion of insulin. Just because every type II diabetic does not use insulin, that does not mean that it should not be included.

Moreover, more to the point, I don't think there is ANY aspect to transitioning, that every transperson does. I know at least one prominent transgender man who is an activist who hasn't changed his name legally or changed his gender markers. Nor does he want to. So should we not include these topics because some transpeople who consider themselves fully transitioned may not do them?NickGorton 08:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Tranisitioning can also be in the spiritual sense of change and as such is not actually a change of sex. DaveM

Oppose merge, as per above comments. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The beginning of this article speaks of transsexuals transitioning as a process of changing gender to match assigned birth sex. It is in fact the reverse. Gender is a relatively fixed construct. In transitioning for a transsexual the goal is to 'change' the birth assigned sex to match the identified gender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.166.104.13 (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

• This is such a short article, and someone recently created a new article called Transgender transition, which needs a lot of work right now, but it is essentially on the same topic as this one. I think the articles should be merged in to one, which I would like to title Gender transition. But I am open to discussion as to the title of the article following the merger. Andrea Parton 02:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A merge would be useful; I think that the name should remain along the lines of 'Transitioning (transgender)'. WP:NAME suggests using the gerund of a verb where possible (transitioning is the verb, as I understand it). Transition as it's used in the transgender sense is probably still a verb. If we went for 'Gender transitioning' I think that might be clearer as 'Transitioning (gender)'. I'm not sure what the naming policy for the brackets is - it seems to crop up a bit in transgender studies, though (e.g. Hormone replacement therapy (trans), Access to amenities (trans))

The two articles are addressing exactly the same thing - I think the other article is not named as accurately as this one. We should try to get feedback as to why it was made seperately - couldn't find this article, perhaps? do we need to link it more in the wiki?

Cheers, Lwollert 09:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Perhaps the (trans) tag is less useful if we want to include gender transition for intersexed people?? Lwollert 10:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above statements. Transitioning seems to be the phrase currently in use and I wonder if Transgender transition was created to refer to the same thing as a component of this article. in any case having two articles is more confusing. suggest redirect that article here and merge articles. Benjiboi 21:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with the merger, and prefer Gender transition as a title (and note that that is already a redir to Transitioning (transgender)). This allows the article to cover intersex, plus all variants of trangender. I do think that transition in this context is a verb, and sounds more encyclopedic (to me at least) than transitioning. --AliceJMarkham 02:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As I think more on it I do prefer the main article titled "Gender transition" with the various previous titles weaved into the lede to explain the terms used. Benjiboi 03:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

References

Currently the article doesn't contain a single reference, which for such an important topic is pretty bad. I'm afraid I don't really know anything about the topic (hence me looking it up!) so can't really afford the time to find stuff myself (I'll stick to the bits I usualy edit as I do know about them!). If someone could improve the situation that would be great. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it unreferenced, it reads like original research. Without proper sourcing and better writing, this reads like an advice collumn in The Advocate or something, not an encyclopedic entry. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• The more I re-read this article, the more I question it's value and accuracy. Anyone who has ever thought about being transgender up to post-op transexuals fall under this description of "transitioning". I don't see how this article is any more than a glossary of terms related to gender identity, as opposed to an encyclopedic article on one particular aspect of gender identity. Beeblbrox (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Part of the problem is that there are no real 'authorities' or 'experts' on this subject. The medical establishment in the US has medicalized transitioning and described it as a process of coming out, then HRT, then real-life-test, and finally SRS, but when dealing with any aspect of the human experience it quickly becomes apparent that there are exceptions to the norm. With that in mind I would say that even establishment-types such as doctors and psychiatrists who deal with transgender issues as part of their careers are not necessarily more informed than a random trans-person. The muddiness we are left with here results in this article probably being worthwhile, but any statement it makes about what a gender transition 'is' could be disputed from a number of angles. I think this article is valuable because many trans-people do take medical steps to change their body to appear more like the sex of their choice, so transitioning is a life-process worth documenting, but this article should leave readers with the knowledge that the process is different for everyone, and that the final outcomes may be different as well. Lady-Natalya (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As written, this article addresses transsexual transitions, and so I think it should be considered mistitled when it is labeled as Transitioning (transgender)... since the term "transgender" is now held to cover a huge range of gender identities (including not identifying as a gendered person at all!).

Lady-Natalya, I don't believe it's correct to say that "The medical establishment in the US has medicalized transitioning" ... I think the history establishes that transsexual persons were extremely persistent in insisting to medical doctors that they needed medical treatment for their feelings of being incorrrectly sexed that directly addressed their distress at being wrongly embodied, and the "establishment" responded by contriving protocols for access to treatment... which is perfectly sensible (even if the standards imposed by many clinicians may not be?), because hormonal therapy and surgery involves a certain amount of risk.

And in many jurisidictions in the US, post-op trans folk (loosely defined, respecting the poor surgical alternatives available for trans men) have been permitted through legislative authorization to obtain legal recognition of a fundamental change in their sex (though that is undermined almost everywhere in the US, where permitted, by weak law enforcement and unsympathetic judges).

And the problem is not that there are no "experts", but that the various conditions associated with gender dysphoria and body dysphoria are extremely difficult to understand (so many types! so little knowledge of the psychology and neurobiological foundations! so many ideologically motivated controversies! ;-)...

Anyway, these are terrifically complicated issues, which I think are made almost unintelligible to the average person by the semantic morass involved with the mixed usages of the term "transgender", and the range of identities that are involved when the term "transgender" is used, rather than more specific terms. FWIW? - thanks! - bonze blayk (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel like I may have articulated that poorly. I meant that the gatekeeper system that has been set up for transgendered individuals who want to receive HRT or surgeries puts power in the hands of the medical establishment, which may lead to them being perceived as 'experts' on transgender issues when often their knowledge may not be more valuable or accurate than that of an actual trans-person.Lady-Natalya (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)