Talk:trans-identified male

[1], [2]__Gamren (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@-sche, is this entry under your observation? —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 01:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I periodically watchlist all the pages that are in various categorizes, but of course, that relies on them being categorized. I'm slightly surprised both meanings seem to be attested. The contranymy reminds me a little of Talk:man-woman. I've added a category and will consider other tweaks later. Incidentally, I suspect the acronym TIM might be only attested in the transphobic sense (I wonder if TRA is attestable). - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

RFD discussion: August 2020–January 2021

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

trans-identified male

trans-identified female

Ain't this SOP? That both senses ("trans man", "trans woman") are found for both entries, matching differing stances on whether the people are "male" or "female", seems like only more evidence of SOPness. I don't think one sense being offensive makes it idiomatic, since calling a trans woman a "male" (or a trans man a "female") has that effect in any string, even unambiguously SOP ones like calling Laverne Cox a "male executive producer". "X-identified Y" is a common formula; compare google books:"male-identified person" / google books:"female-identified person", google books:"trans-identified person", google books:"gay-identified male" / google books:"bisexual-identified female", google books:"black-identified men", etc. It's not coalmined in like some other terms in this area are, and the acronyms can link to the individual parts... - -sche (discuss) 06:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Does the existence of the abbreviation TIM give this any extra credence? (I would personally think not: we have lots of abbreviations that are spelled out in per-word links and don't require a full entry.) Otherwise probably deletable. Whether it's SoP or not depends on what you think "male" and "female" mean. Hahah good luck with that! Equinox ◑ 06:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

They're SOP, but we do need an entry for trans-identified since it seems to be a contranym. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Can we classify this as the simple past and past participle of a verb trans-identify? I see some uses of the infinitive or present participle: [3], [4], [5]? Together with uses of the form trans-identified, there are enough uses to satisfy CFI.  --Lambiam 16:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"Trans-identifying" strikes me as just as SOP as "trans-identified": you can say anyone who identifies as X is X-identifying or X-identified, e.g. google books:"male-identifying", google books:"lesbian-identifying", google books:"black-identifying", ... I can also find talk of men/MSM google books:"who gay-identify". Do you think all those phrases are idiomatic? If not, why would "trans-identifying" or "trans-identified" be idiomatic? - -sche (discuss) 22:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That is an entirely separate issue. My contribution solely (tentatively) argued contra the suggestion we need an entry for trans-identified (presumably to be classified as an adjective). It would seem, though, that the last paragraph of WT:CFI#Idiomaticity applies here.  --Lambiam 09:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Equinox: I'd argue it's SOP independent of 'which' meaning of "male"/"female" someone uses, because the different meanings apply to any phrase, like, I don't think "male actor" is idiomatic even if used to (e.g.) insult Laverne Cox or a butch cis woman like w:Tig Notaro.
@Mahagaja: how so? Certainly it's sometimes weird or dismissive to say "X-identified" instead of "X", but it happens with all kinds of characteristics: google books:"transgender-identified", google books:"non-binary-identified", "gay-identified", "bisexual-identified", "black-identified", google books:"male-identified", etc. (IMO "trans-identified male" is only as contranymic as any gendered phrase can be, when transphobes use it one way and other people use it another; Suzukaze pointed out recently that transphobes say "transgender men are not women", which trans men would agree with, but interpret differently!) - -sche (discuss) 09:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks SOP to me, for the reasons -sche stated. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete as SOP. Imetsia (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete as SOP. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Strong keep. For these to be SOP, they would have to be lexically neutral or purely descriptive ("round-spectacled professor"), which is very much not the case. "Trans-identified male" is a slur constructed to disparage trans women. It deliberately, unamibigously denies their gender identity by labelling them "males." On a subtler level, by casting "transgender" as something one "identifies" as (rather than is), it's implying that being trans is a frivolous or faddish lifestyle choice. This is the source of the acronym TIM, widely used in gender-critical/TERF circles. It also cannot be a coincidence that acronym doubles as a male name. Much of the nuance of this term would be lost on non-native English speakers, or even just on people who aren't especially familiar with Twitter/Tumblr gender discourse. We wouldn't be doing people any favours by taking away a tool to help understand the full nuance of this term. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You make a good point an entry could inform people of the connotations, since it has recently become a stock (set?) phrase of certain people. OTOH, there are many phrases with offensive connotations that are SOP; some have the same level of set-phrase-ness as this, like that such people call all trans people "trans rights activists" (even if they're not activists: but meaning it as a claim they are), or speak of "the trans agenda" (as a coherent, nefarious thing) like the "gay agenda". Others, like that some groups accuse opponents of being "paid/funded by Soros", seem definitely SOP to me, even though that one (for example) has antisemitic conspiracy implications someone couldn't deduce from the parts even in cases where it is technically applicable. I don't know that non-neutral valence makes this entry-worthy; the same people offensively call trans women "males" in other phrases (invoking specters of "male violence", "~ entitlement", "~ privilege", "~ socialization", referring to them as plain "males", etc), and some users of other "X-identified" phrases have the same delegitimizing intent (including conservatives who use "gay-identified" and "homosexual-identified" to reject the idea that people are gay). (I'd consider adding a note to identify/identified about that if I found good refs. Or perhaps, as suggested above, an entry for those phrases would be worthwhile, based on the same arguments you make about this longer phrase, even though I'm not yet convinced of that.) It stands out to me that, as seen in the cites in the entry, several (=as many?) works use it to mean "trans man" (adj. or noun), opposite of the slur sense, and even in books that use it of trans women, at least one (Moser's) doesn't seem to use (and may predate?) the slur set phrase. Perhaps that makes the slur more important to note, or perhaps it suggests (as I initially thought) it's a literal phrase despite being a stock one of certain people. I don't know; I'm sympathetic to the point we could advise people of the connotations, I concede it feels "set-phrase-y" as a slur, and I'm more on the fence than I was when I opened this RFD, but the other examples I can think of and linked above where a phrase is meant literally and has offensive connotations don't have entries. - -sche (discuss) 18:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact that "trans-identified male"/"trans-identified female" are contranyms is an even stronger argument for keeping. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, thinking about this, it's true that these terms are contranymic in a way exceeding that of "male"/"female" alone, since "both sides" agree on most of who "male" refers to, whereas here the term refers specifically to either trans men or trans women and people have different ideas about which. OTOH, this is because of the other "parts" of the phrase and is thus also true of some other phrases (like "transgender men [are not women]", mentioned above). Ehh. I was sure this should be deleted, but now I'm not. I'm changing my !vote to abstain. - -sche (discuss) 17:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: that these phrases are in use with the particular meanings is lexicographically significant, even if argument can be developed that they can be analyzed as sum of parts. When I saw the phrase trans-identified male, my first instinct was to think that this means "biological male that identifies as trans woman" and indeed such a sense is in the entry, but labeled as offensive; there is also sense "trans man", which I understand to mean "biological woman that identifies as man". It seems that the phase trans-identified male was originally used in contrast to trans male by those who thought that the latter are in fact females, and then got decried by some people. The entry as is provides lexicographical value of disambiguation, especially by the quotations provided. One quotation that caught my attention is this: "Louise and her trans-identified male partner were considering having a baby together. Louise could not bear a child but her partner, who had not yet started transitioning, could […]"; that quotation is under "Transgender male" and yet it implies that "trans-identified male partner" refers to a biological male capable of impregnating Louise; the quotations's author Tam Sanger really does seem to use "trans-identified" as non-synonymous to "trans" without being himself hostile to transgenderism. If we had trans-identified entry, maybe redirects from the nominated entries would do the job well enough. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  You're misreading the quote. To "bear" a child means to become pregnant and give birth (senses 1.3, 5.1). Since Louise's "trans-identified male" partner is able to do this, he must have a uterus and a vagina.__Gamren (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. If it can mean both 'transwoman' and 'transman' but one of them is offensive, it must be covered in a dictionary. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  But that's a property of the word male. If it should be covered anywhere, it should be covered at that entry. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  I agree. Delete and add usage notes at male, female, and identify as needed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep all - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Even after reading this discussion, I don't find the meaning of the term remotely transparent.__Gamren (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Yuefairchild. How are you? Would you like to keep these entries you created? -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Obvious delete, what we need is a good definition of trans-identified with appropriate labels. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete per LBD. PUC – 18:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept as no consensus -- 5 keep versus 6 delete. If someone actually defined trans-identified, it might be easier to convince to delete. Note that this term is non-SOP because being trans is not determined by self-identification alone; transness describes the relationship between self-identification and assigned sex.__Gamren (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The claim that TIM is used as a deliberate slur is clearly false. It is used because of the actual fact that those that refer themselves to as “transwoman” are not biological females. It is extremely offensive to many GC (gender criticals) that such TG (transgender) appropriate the word “woman”. Using the word “woman” is deemed a knee bend to a religious ideology that GC do not subscribe to. Unfortunately, the TG activists are so narcissistic that they believe that their offense, overrides the offense that they cause to others, and thus deem all disagreement with their cult as a deliberate disparagement to them. They are unable to switch the view over and understand that offense works both ways. That’s why it is a cult. There is no acceptance that others have differing, viewpoints. — This unsigned comment was added by 77.76.102.28 (talk) at 14:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC).

Category

Can an autopatroller add the "en:Transphobia" category? Thanks. lattermint (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Male

The fragment "who believe that transgender women should be regarded as male" seems unnecessary because, by definition, they are male. Perhaps it would be better worded as "who may prefer to emphasise the sex of this group, as they do not believe them to be women" or something along those lines. 2A00:23EE:1CF8:87C5:192D:90A7:859D:8303 16:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)