Talk:Transphobia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2020, between 24 August 2020 and 2 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Undeemiss. Peer reviewers: Juliahonda, Myusername101, Jlomax1, Marroyo7, Ezia9.

How exactly is the message on the bus transphobic?

Although it can be seen as anti-trans, it is clearly not transphobic as it is clearly saying that "Boys have a penis. Girls have a vulva. Don't let them deceive you. If you're born a man, you are a man. If you're a woman, you'll keep being one.". It clearly states one side of the debate on a topic and we can't just call everything we don't like transphobic, racist, etc. It has to be neutral. It's like going on a topic like abortion and calling an anti abortion person a woman hater. Cormio (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to that. If I say "People of African descent deserved to be enslaved" am I merely taking up one side of a debate? There are a few who would agree with the "just debating" perspective, but the vast majority would label that as hate speech without hesitation. When a person's "just debating" statement serves to suppress the freedoms of others it comes across as more than "just debating" to the people whose freedoms have been denied. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

That's completely different though. The issue of racism, as in whether it should exist or shouldn't isn't a debate anymore and we have mainly reached a consensus on that, but on issues like trans politics it's an ongoing debate where both sides haven't had any consensus. The said sign on the bus didn't say anything to individual trans people, it was more of a message to show their stance on that issue. And besides, saying "people of African descent deserved to be enslaved" can be considered racist since obviously slavery isn't different for Africans and for any other races, but in the bus it states something that is a fact, born males do have penises and born females indeed do have vulvas. Cormio (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead of this article currently states "Transphobia consists of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender people or transness in general." The sign on the bus clearly meets the definition of transphobia. And you are misstating the message, it does not say "born males have penises" nor "born females have vulvas". Funcrunch (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is quite literally a matter of life and death; transgender people are murdered or are suicides at a much higher rate than the general population. If differentiating a marginalized person serves to help that person (e.g. a doctor who is proposing treatments may need to know both the current gender and the gender assigned at birth, might need to know genetic (racial) ancestry, etc.) then that's good. If it is merely "neutral" then you have to ask yourself why you are saying it, because it is literally a matter of life and death if your "neutral" statement is easily interpreted as hostile. If you can find a way to avoid them, I plead with you to avoid these "neutral" statements.

As a general rule, people have reached consensus that hating people for who they are is hate. Yes, someone who beats or robs you, etc. can be faulted for what they have done, but transgender people aren't doing anything to harm you, they're just trying to live their lives as openly as anyone else. Bothering them with these "neutral" statements is of no help to anyone, but too easily leads to discrimination and death. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims not worthy of mention within Paragraph 2, section "Origins".

Within this section numerous claims made by the original author of these sections lack any direct citation, remain vague, and written with unsusicnt structuring, ultimately deviating from actually discussing transphobic, instead presenting an uncited and misattributed justification of transphobia.

The following is the extent of the content of the article I criticise within this post.

"Other transgender rights authors argue that a significant part of the oppositional sexist origin of transphobia and violence towards transsexual people is linked to psychological claims of difference between male sexuality and female sexuality in the brain's protection mechanisms from committing sex crimes. These authors argue that the paradigm of acceptable sexual behavior that assumes men's sexual arousal is category-specific and women's sex drive is lower and more inhibited causes allegations that transsexual people have neither safety system in the brain and are therefore sex criminals. They argue that studies that claim to show such sex differences have flaws, such as the possibility that more men are deterred from participating in sexual arousal studies than women due to fear of being alleged to be inappropriately sexually aroused.[20][21][clarification needed]"

I read through the available sources, 20 and 21 yet found no major content in this literature that these claims could have been derived from. The sources remain unsupportive of this claim and have been missatributed so. Hence, the citations provided reference literature that provides nothing of support or evidence in favour of the claims. Number 20 is an anthology of 16 essays from 17 authors of including the foreword by Desmond Tutu. Any of which could, and should have been mentioned if any of the content of these articles was actually relevant to this claim. Yet, the information remains absent. Number 21 also fails to contain any supporting information. It has also been cited poorly. The publication date is 2013, not 2017 (https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/233).

The wording and structuring fails to be descriptive of these points within the context of people who progenit an evidential basis or narrative root for transphobia. There needs to be a linkage provided to maintain relevance to this article instead of parroting a justification of transphobic rhetoric from unsupportive or indistinct sources. It fails to mention the primary sources of narrative and rhetoric instead parroting a basal description of a theory without vital citations to do so. As aforementioned this should not be contained within this article as it is a deviation from the topic at hand. This topic should be deligated to its own article with appropriate citations and subsequently referenced back within this section.

The article mentions authors indistinctly when in this context direct names, origns of the publication website, or social media, and the author said this must be stated.

Due to 1, missatirbution of references 2, a, lack of quotation, b, the lack of citation, 3, the poor structuring and presentation, 4, deviation from relevance to documenting and descrobing transphobia, I request the quoted text to be temporarily/indefinitely omitted from this article until appropriate sources are found, and editorial revisions made. 2.123.50.246 (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)