Talk:Transsexual

Kindly remember to put new topics at the end of the page, not the top.

---

Citation needed for last paragraph in intro

"Understanding of transsexuality has changed very quickly in the 21st century. Many 20th century medical beliefs and practices around transsexuality are now considered deeply outdated. It was once classified as a mental disorder and subject to extensive gatekeeping by the medical establishment, and remains so in much of the world."

No citation provided. This reads like a reddit comment. 47.220.158.216 (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

"She points to the medical community's long love of now outdated theories such as autogynephilia." Only source that says Autogynephilia is outdated is Seraonos own book i suggest updating it to reflect that Transhistory (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually the text is correct. The only reference to autogynephilia in the DSM-5 and DSM-5-R is in the chapter on transvestic disorder, where "with autogynephilia" is a specifier. The ICD-11 makes no mention of it anywhere. Aside from a handful of proponents of Blanchard's theories, research has moved on. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Citation cleanup and article state

I've just completed a citation cleanup on the article, making all of the citations consistent with Help:CS1. In the process of doing so, I discovered and tagged several citations that are in need to improvement including; 8 book citations that require pages, 2 citations that refer to older versions of ICD 10 and DSM-IV-TR and need updating, 1 section Employment issues that needs updating with case law newer than 1996, 1 citation with better source needed, and 1 citation as verification failed. Check the article for specifics.

On the whole, the article is pretty badly in need of an update. There's a number of sections that we should re-write in summary style while pointing towards specific articles that now exist for that content (eg, Gender roles and transitioning -> Gender transitioning, Psychological treatment -> Sex reassignment therapy#Psychological treatment)). We also have a section that was transcluded from Transgender and has not been kept in sync with the state of that article. As such, I'd suggest that we should go through each section, one at a time to bring it up to date with current content relating to transsexuality. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th I had been working on improving the article, but am a bit stymied by the imprecise definition and usage of the term. Depending on how its used, there is a lot of overlap with transgender. I've been noodling on how to better clarify the scope of the article. So far I'm leaning towards this page being more medicalist, and the transgender page being less so, but beyond that the literature isn't particularly helpful since terminology has changed pretty fast. Since some folks even see transsexual as a slur, most new sources aren't really using it, which further stymies efforts to improve this page.

On a different note, which section are you saying was transcluded but not kept in sync? The historical section is currently in part transcluded using templates, which means it is exactly what the transgender page says. Do you mean a section was copied over from transgender and they diverged? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I can sympathise with the difficulties on definition. This Ngram shows how usage of the two terms intersected over the last sixty years. At an individual level, and speaking purely anecdotally from my experiences on social media, I find that in broad terms, the trans people who call themselves "transsexual" tend to be either older people who transitioned more than two decades ago, or transmedicalists. There are of course exceptions to either group, but they seem few and far between. I'll not comment on the transphobes who use the term, other than to say they overwhelmingly do so in a derogatory manner.

The diverging section is Transsexual#Historical understanding. If you compare the text there with Transgender#History which is what the {{Section}} template is using, you can see the two are not in sync. According to the text at {{Section}} this appears to have been broken since sometime around or after June 2012. The text at Help:Transclusion doesn't even mention {{Section}} and instead says you should use {{excerpt}} at WP:SELTRANS. Even with it being out of sync, it's also not transcluded properly as the first two sentences Transgender people are known to have existed since ancient times. A wide range of societies had traditional third gender roles, or otherwise accepted trans people in some form. However, a precise history is difficult because the modern concept of being transgender, and gender in general, did not develop until the mid-1900s. Historical understandings are thus inherently filtered through modern principles, and were largely viewed through a medical lens until the late 1900s. are written in the source of this article, and are not coming from the transclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Last paragraph of lead

BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 The lead as it stood before your removal read Understanding of transsexuality has changed very quickly in the 21st century. Many 20th century medical beliefs and practices around transsexuality are now considered deeply outdated. It was once classified as a mental disorder and subject to extensive gatekeeping by the medical establishment, and remains so in much of the world. I'm not sure what part of it you are saying is unverifiable and why. While I agree that the article could overall use better sourcing, and I am working on that, I don't see how this paragraph is so wrong it has to be removed right now. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This section should not have ever been added to the article. It was completely unsourced for a period of time, and the recently added "sources" were wholly unsatisfactory. Simple single-page memos about gender dysphoria do not at all support the claims being made in that section of that lead. Websites (such as Hornet.com) also serve a terrible sources. Hornet is an openly pro-LGBT sensationalist news media body, whose own mission statement, according to their "about" section is: "Amplifying the radical, affirmative power of the queer community...", making it a pretty appalling choice of source for an article about transsexuals. It is comparable to using Breitbart as source for the lead of the US Republican Party article.

I suggest not re-adding this section to the lead unless genuine, relevant, and relatively unbiased sources can be provided to support them. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I was just about to type this up myself. I don't agree with the characterisation of the four sources in this edit summary. Source 1 is not a "memo about gender dysphoria", and is instead an explanation from the APA as to why they reclassified gender dysphoria away from a mental health disorder. A statement from the APA is usually pretty high up the WP:MEDRS pyramid. Source 2 is a secondary source discussing source 1. While not MEDRS in and of itself, it does help us contextualise source 1 from a from a media perspective, though there's almost certainly stronger sources for this. Source 3 is weird, it's just a link to the WPATH website and not a specific page on it. That said, I would never categorise WPATH as a "non-academic sensationalist website". Is there a specific page on WPATH's site that was meant to be linked? And source 4 appears to be a trans support provider based in New South Wales. While they will be biased, again I don't think they are a "sensationalist website". Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

With regards to stronger sourcing for the paragraph, Source 1 is fine. We can replace source 2 with Scientific American which discusses briefly the change made by the APA in 2013. This paper by the authors of the ICD-11 explain why the WHO reclassified it, and is a MEDRS. The reclassification is also supported in the Scientific American article linked previously, and in this article by Human Rights Watch (they are a RS). These four sources should be sufficient to support the removed text. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I was already writing an explanation and talk page subsection explaining why I removed that section of the lead, when you published this. That section made some questionable claims that were completely unsourced. You then re-added it with an appalling choice of sources, so I re-reverted the edit. "Lead" sections of article are not exempted from requiring sources, and sources must actually pertain to the claims being made in that section of the article. Sources should ideally also lack overt bias. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 But I fail to see your underlying concern about the text itself. Leads are generally unsourced, since they summarize the body of the article. My hasty source finding was perhaps not perfect, but I fail to see how the content itself is incorrect. Understanding of the trans experience has changed greatly in the 21st century. This can be seen by simply comparing any source on the matter in 2000 to one you read today. It is further exemplified by the revision of the ICD, and the general prominence of the topic in the culture wars. Medical practices of the 20th century, such as the Benjamin scale, ideas about autophilia/gynophilia, conception of it as a mental illness, and so on, are no longer best practices. The fact that it is subject to gatekeeping is supported by the source on gatekeeping. I just happened to pull the first source I found, if you have a better source, that'd be helpful. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Transgender and Transsexual Merge

The last time this was tried was 2018. The world has changed a lot since then, and I think a vast majority of the transgender community (including myself and many others I know) believe the term is archaic and has no business having its own Wikipedia page. Where the person who tried this in 2018 said "Transsexual is starting to be considered outdated, inaccurate, or offensive," I'm saying that it is already outdated, inaccurate, and offensive. Transsexual should be a subsection of transgender. Purplycake (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Transsexual is a terrible term.--2601:C4:C300:2890:4C8A:B212:6078:C5D6 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of this article duplicates transgender or is literally copied from there. There is scope for a section on the term itself but the content on trans people should be at transgender. Galobtter (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah no it shouldn't, the original definition is transsexual and people still use this to describe themselves since transgender also includes cross dressers. They shouldn't be merged together at all and Transexual shouldn't have to be removed just because it doesn't validate people with no dysphoria. 2607:9880:16B8:75:D8FC:679B:3525:9406 (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Purplycake Please don't speak for others, transsexual is still widely used and has many reasons for continuing to be in use. For one, it differentiates those that do medically transition and those who don't.

Your personal biases and opinions shouldn't be a factor in decisions like this. Duchy2 (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Many people still identify with this term as a legitimate identity who do not identify with the label of transgender (and see transgender as a dated and offensive label), many gender abolitionist trans people see themselves as changing their sex and see gender is a redundant construct, transgender and transsexual do not mean the same thing. 104.220.121.45 (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Transsexual is not outdated, nor should it be absorbed into an umbrella term like transgender. Transsexual describes those of us who suffer body dysphoria over our natal gender that is only alleviated by full transition, medically and surgically. For us, being trans is not a political identity, but a medical problem that has a cure, and needs curing. Stop trying to subsume our identities and lives with your gender studies talking points. We arent the same. 2600:1700:4F00:BC00:FCC8:34F3:3F53:3AC4 (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

As noted in a couple sections further up on this page, the overlap between the two topics is extensive (compromising indeed the bulk the article), and creates quite the sourcing nightmare (if we reviewed every source in this article, I wonder if we would find that they in fact all scope themselves to being about transsexual people, or whether many scope themselves to being about transgender people and hence are technically improperly used). Normally, articles are about topics, and one article covers a topic known by multiple words, even where different people (e.g. of different ages or political bents or nationalities) prefer different words, e.g. African Americans and Black Americans are one article (and the article Negro is only about the term), or Anorak and Parka. But Wikipedia is by nature [small-c, and for that matter large-c] conservative, conserving existing (separate) articles, and it is by nature behind curves, because it follows sources—it doesn't lead—so sources have to get far enough ahead of Wikipedia for Wikipedia to know what direction to follow them, if I may strain a metaphor. Things are moving in the direction of these articles being merged, both in the world at large (how sources cover the topic and terminology) and on-wiki (hence when a merger was proposed in 2015, there was consensus against it; in 2018, there was no consensus, quite a shift), but I don't know if things have reached the point where there'd be consensus to merge yet. I suppose the only way to find out is a WP:PM. -sche (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Disagree on merging. The two terms mean different things. Some transsexual people refuse to identify with the term transgender for various reasons. Likewise, some transgender people refuse to identify with transsexual. The biggest difference seems to come down to historical reasons and whether or not the person views gender dysphoria as a medical condition. Pauliexcluded (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Support merging per what -sche highlights on articles being about topics and not words. This thing reads like a WP:POVFORK of Transgender. As for a merge discussion being needed, I think this is the merge discussion. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I have notified WT:LGBT and WT:WPGS of this discussion. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Support merge. These are substantially the same topic and any nuanced distinctions and debate about the preferred terminology can be covered in the merged article. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Support merge. I would say there is enough evidence to merge the two together, due to the overlap as -sche puts it, and I also think things are moving toward both topics being merged. I can also see the transexual page as a content fork from Transgender, and would say that any nuances can be covered in a merged article. I tend to disagree with other people commenting on here like 2600:1700:4F00:BC00:FCC8:34F3:3F53:3AC4 and 104.220.121.45. Such a merger is not an attack on anyone identifying as transsexual. I would further disagree with Duchy2, who claims that "transsexual is still widely used and has many reasons for continuing to be in use" (is there any evidence for this?) And as for "personal biases and opinions", why is that an issue? At least they are being honest about their views, as some people on here hide their views being niceties, which is never good, especially if those views are nasty. Regardless of the views of the OP, this is still being decided by users on here who may, or may not, have the same views of the OP, so I honestly don't see an issue with it whatsoever. Historyday01 (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Kommentar What do RS say about the term and use? I see a lot of speculation and discussion about "widely used" or "substantially the same topic" but to support this merger, I believe most editors should strive to see how RS use the term now. Has there been a shift in reliable use of the term "transsexual" to now be synonymous with transgender? Consensus needs verifiable sources to support this use of the term, and thus the merger. King keudo (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I personally am supporting the merger as I see similar content on each page. Here's some other sources I found:

• "According to the APA Style guide, the term “transsexual” is largely outdated, but some people identify with it; this term should be used only for an individual who specifically claims it."- APA
• "[Transssexual is] an older term that originated in the medical and psychological communities...the transgender community rejected transsexual and replaced it with transgender. Some people within the trans community may still call themselves transsexual."- GLAAD

Some, like the Intersex Society for North America, seem to use them interchangeably, as does the National Center for Transgender Equality, and ISSM. There is undoubtedly more, but that is what I could find on short notice. Historyday01 (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Supporting merge. The idea that "Transgender" and "Transexual" are two seperate identities/concepts is an idea created within the past 10 years by fringe elements of the transgender community and is not adpoted by the majority. There are no credible sources that outline the idea of "Transgender" and "Transexual" as being different concepts on the basis of transexuals having a more medical approach to transitioning, this is merely a concept created by fringe online communites that has no research to back it up and very few if any credible sources describing this position. Due to this, the idea of this article being seperate from the transgender article on the basis of this specific concept that they are seperate things is a biased opinion and seperating them due to the opinion of fringe online groups and not reliable sources is a violation of policy. Keeping them seperate for this reason is intinsically a violation of NPOV policy because it would be legitimizing one side's point of view, which is made worse by the fact that there aren't any credible sources outlining this point of view. Because the term is incredibly archaic, very rarely used within the LGBT community and almost never used within medical literature pertaining to transgender/transexual people, there is no real reason for keeping them seperate except for the modern redefined meaning of "Transexual" which should not be considered legitimate, as described above. Given this and the fact that a large majority of this article reuses/rephrases content from the transgender article, there is no compelling reason as to why they should not be merged. JuliaHM123 (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@JuliaHM123 This isn't a full refutation of your argument as I don't have the time for that.

This is merely to show you that what you're claiming is false and indicative of not having done your research.

https://www.issm.info/sexual-health-qa/what-is-the-difference-between-transsexual-and-transgender

https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender-people-gender-identity-gender-expression#:~:text=Some%20transgender%20people%2C%20transsexuals%20in,often%20seek%20gender%2Daffirming%20treatments. Duchy2 (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Strongly oppose merging at this time (if we are !voting): Either this merge is premature, or it's ripe and the sources have not yet been presented. • First off, I am impressed with all of the sources that have been put forward by proponents. Oh. Wait. There aren't any, as King keudo points out. -sche's point is important as well; we trail sources, we do not lead them (I think that Maddy rather missed -sche's point). • Most folks above are focusing on the irrelevant issue of whether trans{suffix} people identify with one or the other term. That is important for biographical articles, not for those about a subject. In a shocking number of cases, such articles are titled with terms that are anathema to the people so labelled (Ex am pl es). I am as ____ as folk (or 'as three-dollar bill' for Americans) and yet deeply loathe the term queer because of its original meaning. I don't object to the article, though (or the Gay one for that matter; happy is good). •• As unfamiliar as it is to find myself on the opposite side of a !debate from DanielRigal, the status quo (two articles) must persist until the preponderance of sources (or at least some high-quality sources) equate the two unequivocally. No one above has provided such evidence. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment While I believe things may be moving in the direction of a merge, I don't that it is clear that they should be yet, and per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we can't be sure what will happen in the future with these terms. I don't think extensive overlap in content can be a sole reason to merge: related topics in topical sidebars will often have such overlap for example, but this means that they are related, not that they need to be merged. And I don't believe they are forks, either, so what would be the policy-based rationale for a merge? My sense is that transgender is more of an over-arching umbrella term, that in its broadest form can include numerous different subtypes, whereas transsexual is much more limited. In the terms of WP:Summary style, the article Transgender would be the parent article, and Transsexual would be (one of) the child articles. Finally, TG is already 52kb prose bytes, and and TS is 36kb, and a merge would put it well into WP:SIZESPLIT territory, so they would just have to be split out again, if not the same way, then along some other division. Mathglot (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Weakly oppose merging I am not an expert at all, but I believe that the two concepts are potentially different enough for two pages in some people's eyes. See what I've collected at Wiktionary:Citations:transgender. There are some cites that treat the two terms as identical, but there are some that really try to distinguish. I invite others to add cites there or on the transsexual page. I saw one comment that said that this divide was only created ten years ago. But here's a source (that I quote at Wiktionary:Citations:transgender) from 1988 (about 35 years ago) trying to divide transgender and transsexual:
"Gender identity is whether or not a person perceives him/herself to be a man or woman (see ‘man’ and ‘woman’). The problem arises when a male perceives himself to be a woman, and vise versa. Notice I said man or woman, and not male or female. The difference is important. Male and female are biological terms, while man and woman as they are used here are modes of being, ways to be, which are based on psychology and sociology rather than biology. (see ‘gender dysphoria’)
Sexual identity is a ‘transsexual’ issue and may involve sexual re-assignment surgery, but may not involve cross-dressing. Gender identity is a ‘transgender’ issue and does not involve surgery, but almost always involves cross-dressing." Lynn, Merissa Sherrill (1988). "Definitions of Terms Commonly Used in the Transvestite-Transsexual Community". The TV-TS Tapestry (51). International Foundation for Gender Education: 22. ISSN 0884-9749. OCLC 1001848585.
So do I agree with that quote? No. I'm just saying that it's a viewpoint. I'm uniformed and probably should not vote here. But I urge cautious circumspection in whatever decision is made, and I feel there may be two different articles here.
Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC) (Modified)

Prince, Virginia (1969). "Change of Sex or Gender". Transvestia. IX (60). Chevalier Publications: 65. Archived from the original on December 28, 2021.: "As an afterthought, I think I might be entitled to point out that I (and others in the same position) who have had electrolysis, taken hormones and live as a woman full time am not a transexual, are wrong. While all of these things are done by those who ARE transexuals, it does not follow that all who do them are transexuals. This is the same false logic that society follows when it in effect says (wrongly in both cases) that homosexuals wear dresses and make up, therefore all males who wear dresses and make up are homosexuals. I’m sure most of you have been resenting that implication for as long as you’ve been TVs. Naturally I resent the assumption that I am a TS for the same reason—the logic is false. I, at least, know the difference between sex and gender and have simply elected to change the latter and not the former. If a word is necessary, I should be termed a “transgenderal.”" (I add this here as a potentially relevant comment- not sure)

• Support merge because almost all uses of the term "transsexual" are for the concept now called "transgender". Previous merge discussions suggested that the term transsexual was either or both dated or technical. In the past 10 years more has been written on this subject than the entirety of the historic discourse, so unusually for Wikipedia source checking, we have a lot of WP:WEIGHT on recent sources which almost uniformly use the term "transgender". The article text cites GLAAD as a champion for transitioning all use from transsexual to transgender. Other LGBT+ rights organizations recommend the same, and I think that there are no stakeholder organizations advocating for preservation of the term "transsexual". I acknowledge that there are technical or historic applications for a term "transsexual", but those are not the norm, and even in cases where someone uses a specific definition where transsexual is acceptable as a term, even then using the term transgender is preferable. Ambiguity in this is gone. As I read the current text of this transsexual article, I feel this is all better called transgender. If there is a distinction to be made, then that distinction should not happen with this present text, which can be merged to transgender. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree that transsexual can be a sub-topic of transgender. The question here is, should we merge the articles? It is a terrifyingly slippery slope to conflate these. I beg you to stop and think of articles that many folks (and some highly respected sources) also think of as 'transgender'. Please do not bathe me in flames for bringing up things that I do not agree with, but sources already mentioned above conflate transgender with transvestitism, drag culture, non-binary and an array of other concepts. Each of those articles could -- but certainly should not -- be combined here. What possible benefit does Wikipedia gain by the merge when we have sources that make a clear distinction? One less article? The lede's first sentence solves any chance of confusing the reader. More to the point, what do we gain by doing it now? English is in serious flux over terms related of sex, gender, and the distinction between the two. Please explain in encyclopaedic terms the risk incurred by leaving the articles separate until a preponderance of sources clearly and unequivocally equates the terms. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Basically the entirety of the transmedical community online rejects the use of the term "transgender" to describe themselves, because it's inaccurate. This is a massive step in the wrong direction. The term is not outdated, inaccurate or offensive when it is still widely used in recent medical literature and describes a specific subset of people well. There are issues with the article Transsexual itself, but getting rid of the article instead of simply correcting those issues? That's absurd. 2A05:9CC4:7B:71A0:E064:5192:FEA:3A10 (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the pages should be merged, and a section added to the Transgender page that cover the term Transsexual, in which the things being debated in this talk section could be added and argued about. Ive never heard a single trasgender person refer to themselves as "A Transsexual" HistVa (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Support merging, though Somewhat Oppose merging* transsexual historically was used as an outdated form of transgender, but recently as it's fallen out of use as a synonym for transgender, and recently it's been used more as a distinct term from transgender, defined as "Identifying as or having undergone medical treatment to become a member of the opposite sex." [Source]. Additionally, with the newer definition of the term, not all transsexual people are transgender (for example HRT femboys), and is categorically distinct. As the article stands with the current subject, it should be merged, however I believe that we should have a Wikipedia article for this new definition of the term, and re-write the article to be according to it, as the new definition is quite useful. I think we should make it so that typing "transsexual" into the search bar goes to a disambiguation page which has redirect to transgender and saying it's an archaic term for it, and then another article of the term for itself.

I support merging the article in it's current state and topic, as it really has no place being a separate article, however I think we should re-write the article to be by the term distinct from transgender of definition of "Identifying as or having undergone medical treatment to become a member of the opposite sex.", but as it stands, support merge.

Though, what we could also do is merge the current article, but then like 2-4 years later re-create the article with the distinct new term/definition, as by then there will (probably) be enough citations to write a separate article on the new (better) definition. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge the two articles we're discussing (i.e. these which are both about the topic / people, rather than the term); these cover the same topic, to the extent that part of one is transcluded into the other(!), and we don't POVFORK topics because of terminological differences. (For example, different groups of people in America identify as African Americans vs Black Americans or even [older] Negro Americans, but we have one article on the topic/people—Negro is about the word.) As I noted above, some people taking a small-c-conservative approach have in prior discussions wanted to wait even longer, but I think it's clear already that sources don't bear out these being separate topics.
Having said that: just like the deletion of an article on one non-notable Sergei Yakuvne is done without prejudice to someone else later creating an article at the same title but about a different, notable Sergei Yakuvne, such a merger would/should IMO be without prejudice to someone making a substantially different, italicized-title article at this title purely about the term "transsexual" (its etymology, who uses the term, how the term is perceived, etc), while the topic (medical assistance that people get, etc) is covered in one article. -sche (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I do believe that the two words are interchangeable and that transsexual is the older and less used term. The majority of the trans population across the western English speaking world more commonly relate to transgender. In fact many find the term transsexual to be offensive as it is associated with the older psychiatric diagnosis. MistressB (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge. While the view that "The two terms mean different things. Some transsexual people refuse to identify with the term transgender for various reasons" isn't nuts, there is no reason at all that two articles with substantially duplicated content cannot be combined, with the disused term covered in a section, to which the term redirects. We do this all the time in all sorts of topics, and this one should not be any different.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Support merge, w/ notes. As a queer person myself, this merge just makes sense. As others have said, the information on both articles seems to be relatively similar. I agree that a "transsexual" subsection would be better than a whole article. Perhaps one could say that "transsexual" has become unnotable. On a brief glance of the page, it seems that most of the studies and sources (especially when talking about gender incongruence) seem to be referring more to transgender as the main concept rather than transsexual, which renders it unnotable to me (pending consensus of course).

It has been brought up by another editor (Pauliexcluded) that certain pages should serve to exist to explain a term rather than a concept. I think a good use of this merge would be to discuss transsexual as a CONCEPT on the transgender page, BUT to keep the transsexual page as an explanation for the term. We use pages like gay to describe the concept of male homosexuality, but we use pages like fag to describe a related/relevant term, even if it's referring to the same object or thing. Jmaxx37 (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jmaxx37: regarding articles about concepts vs. articles about words, you might be interested in the discussion at WT:Article titles#Clarifying titles on articles about words. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose merge. The articles says with multiple sources: "The term transsexual is a subset of transgender, but some transsexual people reject the label of transgender." Why has that been ignored? At this rate you'd have non-binary gender merged into the page for transgender as well, no? Same deal, after all: "Non-binary identities fall under the transgender umbrella [...] though some non-binary people do not consider themselves transgender." Just keep transsexual as a child page, with transgender as a parent page (if I'm not mistaken, cross-over content can be cut down on this way as well). Obvious direction the sources point to. Also, arguments towards article descriptions of someone's identity being "offensive" would appear to fall under WP:NOTCENSORED. VintageVernacular (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have been trying to make that point and it has fallen on deaf... eyeballs. Combining these articles is possible, but it is a bad idea. Just because a subject is a subset of another is not a valid reason to remove the dependent article. IMO, that is deletionist nonsense. I would suggest that, before you make this change, you delete the article on Lesbians and lump it into Homosexuality "where is clearly belongs" according to the above argument. In fact, the case is stronger; there are transexuals who do not identify as transgender (they think of it as simply correcting a body-flaw, not changing gender) whilst there is no such thing as a straight lesbian. If after making that change you survive the flames, I'll withdraw my objection to this ill-advised merge.

I'll add one last attempt toward reason here. This will be unpopular and, if taken out of this context, would be openly offensive. The greatest battle fought to date in genderqueer liberation was separating the endocrinological/physiological concept of sex from the social/expressive construct of gender. Deleting transsexual in favour of a single article on transgender literally and specifically equates the two. One term deals with people who change their body's sex to align with their gender whilst the broader term refers to all phases of the gender spectrum beyond cis-*. I know that is not the intent of this merge, but it is the effect. Please don't do this. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

"Transsexual" is now definitely outdated in 2023 as others keep saying. The word "lesbian" doesn't have "sex" nestled within it. Opponents of equal civil rights for LGBT people love terms like "transsexual" to demonize people seeking gender-affirming care because "transsexual" as a word helps bigots to tether it to "sexualization" (see Gays Against Groomers website).--2601:C4:C300:3460:B0A3:AAE2:3378:F16B (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The "sexual" in transsexual is used in a similar sense to wikt:intersexual rather than homosexual. Why should we erase documentation of some people's identity group because there are other people willing to linguistically misrepresent them — as people are always going to find new ways to do with our flexible language? (Some alternative terms such as wikt:transsex exist but are rarer, though having much the same meaning.)

Sources that characterize the term transsexual as being considered "antiquated" or "outdated" often qualify that with terms like "usually" or "often", for good reason. There are people who disagree and continue to identify with it. It's also less of an umbrella term than "transgender" is. These are people with an identity relating more to sex-changing than gender-changing. VintageVernacular (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose merge per VintageVernacular, Last1in and others. The arguments for both sides have merit to them. However, reading through all of them, it's obvious to me that opposing the merge is the only path forward.

Proponents of the merge, while stating points logically, have largely avoided sourcing their claims. I find the arguments opposed to merging to be more coherent, and better-cited in general. There is a lot of overlap, but there is a lot of stuff that doesn't overlap. I don't really have an underlying opinion as to the actual salient argument.

Also, I re-notified WikiProject LGBT Studies. Given how relevant the merge is to LBGT. Cessaune [talk] 18:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Strongly oppose merging They are distinctly different terms. Whilst some may consider it outdated, it is both a label that is still used today, and in gender theory. I really think that this is a bad idea and it would be a travesty if it went ahead.

Also, as an aside, whilst wikipedia welcomes new editors I note that many of these comments are from new or IP accounts. It would be good to have some experienced editors commenting here before any decision is made. Nauseous Man (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)