-
Shemale (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) (
restore|
cache|
AfD)
I am posting for deletion review under point that new information came to light after deletion. Shemale term has its own meaning and place apart from usage as derogatory. I have added 2 new refs one being from mit.edu which is
WP:RS. I have proposed different lead section for deletion review here
Talk:Shemale/DRV proposal. During AfD, term was believed to used only as derogatory to
transwoman, and original meaning was either not known or no ref was available. It has also
editor bias since it is derogatory to some people of
a wikiproject. But in an uncensored encyclopedia, shemale deserves seperate article, and valid academic refs can be found by google search (shemale "secondary sex characteristics").
Lara_bran 09:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Note to closer This is a review of the "Merge and redirect" to
Transwoman close of
AfD #1 dated April 25, 2007. --
Jreferee (
Talk) 23:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Note Some reports on this article include (1)
April 25, 2005 RfI post, (2)
January 5, 2006 RfI post, and (3)
April 16, 2007 AN post --
Jreferee (
Talk) 23:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- For what it's worth that seems more like information you can add to the existing article rather than making it a standalone article. In any case, a redirect is an editorial decision so there really is nothing to review at DRV - discussion on the article's talk page is a more appropriate venue.
ɑʀк
ʏɑɴ 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- There is scope for an image, also the term is popular in porn industry and also gamers. I think article will expand.
Lara_bran 03:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Permit re-creation It could justify a separate article. The terms seem to be distinct, and it is now adequately sourced.
DGG (
talk) 20:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I don't claim to be an expert on this topic, but my understanding is that "shemale" (usually "she-male" in porn, but contracted to "shemale" as a gloss on "female") primarily differs from "transwoman" by being considered derogatory. Its omission from the latter article means its near-complete omission from this entire encyclopedia, which seems incorrect. If it is to be merged the information should be there; if it is not merged it should be properly distinguished (rather than just defined, as the definition will be confusingly close to transwoman for most people). --
Dhartung |
Talk 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Transwoman is different from shemale, and i have removed "why (addressing as)shemale is derogatory to a transwoman" points(3 of them) from earlier version, due to lack of ref. In the net, its difficult for anybody to find ref for shemale(try), i could, only because i knew it beforehand. An entry in wikipedia would be hence justified. Also it redirecting to transwoman is rather wrong which i dont wish to elaborate much, without demand(transwoman is mental state, not necessarily
hormonephysical characteristics imbalance). Thanks.
Lara_bran 03:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
Shemale is a
transexual
Intersexual than a
transgender. (transwoman is transgender) (wrong statement)
Lara_bran 04:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
reply- Yes, I understand some of the issues. The point is that the article, if the AFD is to be overturned, must show this in a substantial and referenced way. If "due to lack of ref. on the net" we can't do that, and nobody is willing to research in print sources and the like, then our article would fail
WP:V, a core policy. --
Dhartung |
Talk 22:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, 'Transwoman is different from Shemale' in that 1. 'Shemale' is derogatory where transwoman is not, and 2. 'Shemale' is a derogatory term used to refer to a subset of transwomen - those who still possess male genitalia. That's the extent of the difference that I've seen cited. In what other, referenced ways do the two terms differ? What is the distinct difference in meaning? You struck out your only contribution of such information directly above as being in error, and have not factually demonstrated this 'distinct meaning from transwoman' here. I think you'll find that it's a simple fact - whether in porn or otherwise, the word 'Shemale' is a term used overwhelmingly as a derogatory reference to transwomen - specifically, those with male genitalia. And if you do decide to provide the information to which you allude, please include links to the source. Thanks. --
User:RyanFreisling
@ 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Permit recreation - due to substantial new information that came to light after deletion. In this situation, a normal way to proceed would have been to add you material to the
Transwoman artice and then seek to
spinout a 'Shemale' article through discussion at the Transwoman talk page. But, since you are here, your
Talk:Shemale/DRV proposal contains substantial new information that came to light after deletion to justify recreation over the close of
AfD #1. --
Jreferee (
Talk) 23:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- As for spin out, there is actually no place for shemale in
transwoman. Earlier there was confusion about definition of shemale itself. Two articles overlap only there in its derogatory usage, which im not sure why, and could not find out also. Thanks.
Lara_bran 03:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Consensus need not be wise consensus. : ) Anyway, under the circumstances, your DRV request is appropriate. Since you are at DRV, DRV can provide a definitive answer. We are already discussion the matter and it would be pointless to send this to the transwoman talk page from DRV. --
Jreferee (
Talk) 20:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Recreate immediately. "Shemale" is not even discussed in the target, a wonderful example of wikipedia's "leave 'em guessing" attitude. From the talk page, it seems that the editors of
transwoman agree that there is not place for "shemale" in the article, so this should either be a standalone article or merged into something more appropriate. I think a
list of terms for transgender people or something like that is needed.
Kappa 09:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I suspect it to be misleading comment, since this is not a valid reason. And this invalid reason is supported by another user User:SatyrTN blindly, who belong to wikiproject lgbt studies. This seems like a conspiracy, like strawpuppet usage, giving void reasons opposite to their actual motive. Also notice Kappa's overrection in below comments. I am really sorry if it were otherwise, since im assuming bad faith, speedily close DRV if im visibly wrong, maybe myself biased.
Lara_bran 15:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- You are saying it is acceptable to have a redirect to an article which doesn't talk about the topic? You think readers will just guess that "shemale" is supposed to be a synonym for "transwoman"?
Kappa 01:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- You are right, but this your problem can be solved with merge(merge was there in afd but not implemented). And merge does not need DRV. I am sorry for keeping you in gray region.
Lara_bran 06:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I thought that the article was merged, but the merged material has since been removed. In any event the term "shemale" used to be discussed in this article, but that is no longer the case.
Kappa 11:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Maintain redirect and resolve issues at
Transwoman. There is no difference between a 'shemale' and a 'pre-operative transwoman', except that the former term is unacceptable in everyday use to describe such a person. There is no reason for a separate list that includes derogatory terms for transgendered people on WP, but this term's derogatory usage (both inside and outside the porn industry), as well as the first use of the term in Janice Raymond's "Transsexual Empire: Making of the She-Male" (which was highly derogatory) are definitely noteworthy and encyclopedic. The 'gaming' use folks mention is, in my opinion, not enyclopedic (and certainly not encyclopedic enough) as to justify an article rather than a redirect. The best approach, as mentioned, is to re-introduce this encyclopedic information by resolving the content issues on
Transwoman. --
User:RyanFreisling
@ 13:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Would you care to provide some evidence that "there is no difference between a 'shemale' and a 'pre-operative transwoman'". I'm sure such evidence would be helpful in resolving the issue.
Kappa 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Without appearing to avoid your request, I've already patiently done so repeatedly (for example in a number of the links provided above, both before and after the deletion review, by jreferee). However, here is but one of those conversations with a series of anons and other single-role accounts pursuing this matter
ad nauseam,
[1],
[2]. I'll include some more as needed. Most importantly,I don't think a pained restatement of the numerous arguments that led to the deletion is called for when an editor is seeking to undo a merge/redirect - especially when the rationale centers around an inability to resolve the issue on the merge target page as it does here. In this case the onus is on the nominator to post the 'new evidence that allegedly came to light since deletion' to this review. I'm looking forward to seeing it because so far, I'm having trouble finding (to say nothing of assessing) this 'new information'.
- So far, over the course of months and months of endless repetitive debate, there has not been a single piece of evidence presented that establishes a valid, notable and non-derogatory use of the term 'Shemale'. Given that the overwhelming use is a plainly derogatory term (including in pr0n, where the term refers to a pre-operative male-to-female transsexual, in other words a 'chick with a dick', as the article once
clearly stated), these 'manga' and 'gaming' references may command entire chapters for the 'Shemale' article on ED or Uncyclopedia, but they aren't notable or encyclopedic enough to justify a reversion of the merge on WP. The term is plainly derogatory slang as numerous dictionary and glossary cites establish, and is overwhelmingly used in reference to a transwoman who possesses 'male' genitalia. This is also an uncontested fact. These two central facts, the facts that underly the 'merge-redirect' to Transwoman, have not been credibly questioned to date. However, I'm hoping for a presentation of the supposed 'new evidence, since I always try to keep my mind open to new possibilities. -- 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Transwoman and Shemale are different. Transwoman is just a mental state, and vast meaning, which covers shemale, but not whole of shemale. I had not even been to transwoman talk, since they are different. Also shemale is more searched and known than transwoman, it redirecting would be advertising transwoman. Shemale has specific biological definition, not mental, and differs.
Lara_bran 03:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- As for your uncontested fact, i wish to tell that shemale is not limited to its derogatory usage, that is just a side use of the term, during last afd article was edited to show that that is the main and only usage of term shemale. This was possible because ref for original definition was not available then. Not just ref, hardly anybody in AfD knew the original definition of shemale.
Lara_bran 04:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, 'Shemale' is a pejorative word popularized in pornography used to describe a subset of a Transwoman (a biological subset, those with male genitalia), and has been cited from multiple sources to be a highly derogatory term. --
User:RyanFreisling
@ 04:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- shemale is not just "subset" of transwoman, shemale can be and
intersexual also. Intersexual is not transwoman, but intersexual are rare due to they make surgical operation on child to make it either male or female. So adult intersexual shemale maybe a rare case, but that is definitely not transwoman. Thanks.
Lara_bran 04:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Then that's obviously the rare, and not the predominant use. And such a rare case thus proves the rule: just because a female-appearing person who has male-appearing genitalia looks that way for genetic reasons, rather than gender reassignment, doesn't alleviate the derogatory nature of the attack or limit its scope - calling an intersexual a 'she-male' would seem to me to be no less pejorative than calling a transsexual a 'she-male'. In any case, you need to actually demonstrate your view with valid citations. I've established that in it's main English-language usage, 'Shemale' is a pejorative word popularized in pornography used to describe a subset of a Transwoman (a biological subset, those with male genitalia), and has been cited from multiple sources to be a highly derogatory term. The previous VfD was that the term does not warrant its own article on WP, and the decision was to merge and redirect. The merging takes work, and you should bring your content in a way that improves the
Transwoman article. --
User:RyanFreisling
@ 04:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- And forward a link to the reference you claim represents the word's 'main usage'... I'm keen to see exactly what you're talking about. --
User:RyanFreisling
@ 04:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- As for pajorative meaning i dont think it is pajorative to shemales. It is pajorative only to rest of transwoman who are but not shemale. If this is true, since both your nor my claim about pajorative usage is verified, it is not derogative for genetically shemale people. Earlier AfD since orig definition was not known, everyone thought its used only as pajorative way, in my view shemale is not pajorative to shemales, but it is pajorative to rest of transwoman like
crossdresser etc. shemale is not pajorative to shemales, but it is pajorative to rest of transwomen.
Lara_bran 07:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment on wikipedia editor bias(derived from above statement): These rest of transwoman, who dont have biological disordance, but only mental "disordance", want the advertisement of shemale by redirect, but they dont want the term used against them. I noticed strawpuppet like(showing to be opposing own cause and accomplish) during last afd and article edits during afd, to camouflage original meaning and exaggerate pajorative meaning. Also in
talk:transwoman, which i visited after DRV nomination(maybe a mistake), such effort(exaggerating pajorative meaning) is clearly seen.
Lara_bran 07:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I am having real trouble understanding more than a few words and phrases of your argument, except to say that you're wrong about the 'pejorative' use of the word not applying to 'shemales'. Utterly, flatly wrong. The term 'shemale' is OF COURSE derogatory, as I've cited more than a half-dozen times.'Genetically shemale people'? That's a nice chunk of OR. Show me a single citation of a notable source using that language. And with all this silliness you still you haven't provided a single citation to validate your (very poorly-worded) claim. And as far as 'discordance', etc., I think you'll find that a person appearing as a female would not identify in public as a 'shemale' at the DMV, at a job interview, etc... the term is derogatory. In any case, if you can demonstrate that yours is a viewpoint that represents a notable or 'due weight' point of view, WP requires that you provide cited sources to substantiate your views. You have to do this, if you want your views to be incorporated in WP article space - to say nothing of overturning the 'merge redirect' that the prior participants elected - and you just haven't done so. Right now, I think your argument is largely incomprehensible, but what pieces I can glean are themselves examples of bizarre editor bias and original research. So, I must flatly state that I see your argument as currently baseless opinionating, without basis in actual cited fact. Last, and I mean no offense by saying this - you may want to see about getting some help with grammatical construction if you expect English-speaking people to fully understand your posts to en.wikipedia.org.
- I'm heading to the beach for the long weekend so replies may be few and far between. Maybe you'll use the time to craft a cohesive, comprehensible and cited argument for why your view should be that upon which an ostensible WP encyclopedia article on shemale should be justified, given the DRV. I do hope so, I've been asking for the fabled references/links to this 'new, main usage of shemale' since I got here. --
User:RyanFreisling
@ 07:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- You can refer to lead section of
Talk:Shemale/DRV_proposal. 2 different and new refs for definition of shemale, other than earlier reference.com and dictionary.com references which are rather non-academic. I wish to mention that both my and your comment are not verified, we are not sure shemale is derogatory to whom. Is it to all transwoman(your claim), or to rest of transwomen who are not shemales(my claim) or to the whole mankind(sombody's claim). I will try to improve my english, but i here tried to structure my comments into layers like who want broad view may skip what i wrote inside brackets. ****
Lara_bran 08:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I have demonstrated my views with outside citations. So far, you have not, since I don't see anything new on that page that wasn't there at the time of redirection. Are you talking about the Davey Crockett reference and the Janice Raymond reference? If so, I think you'll find I researched and supplied each of them to the original Shemale article before it's merge/redirection. Are you talking about the reference to Anime/Manga? If so, I hardly think that usage is notable enough to validate overturning the redirect and restoring an article for a plainly derogatory term (as is well-cited). If it's something else, please repost those specific references in the next post.
- The decision was merge/redirect' last time, and if you want to overturn that, you're going to have to articulate and demonstrate your position a lot better than this. Again, You should merge the content there of value into
Transwoman (as I already said on this page) and stop this silliness (and yes, this is now silly), unless there is something actually NEW. --
User:RyanFreisling
@ 08:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I have no further replies to you, agree 2 points are yet to be verified namely 1 shemale is derogatory to whom? and is it term's primary usage? and 2 how this is related to
intersexuals. But added new ref's clear the specific biological definition, which was not known or ambigous during afd. I leave it for third party to decide, not just because you are turning discussion to personal.
Lara_bran 09:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- You still haven't provided a single link in this discussion to a specific source that points to your view. The links in that section all support the pejorative definition. What specific link validates your claim, please? And if you have no replies, I won't ask again. --
User:RyanFreisling
@ 15:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree with above - let them fight it out at the
Transwoman article and maintain the redirect. This seems like a content issue, not an article issue.
Eusebeus 20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- You are suggesting that
shemale should continue as a redirect, but whether or not it is mentioned at the target is up to editors of that page. Next time I get fucked over by a redirect which leaves me none-the-wiser I will know who to blame.
Kappa 21:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Presumably Kappa the next time you are fucked by a redirect you will be too busy languishing in the afterglow to give a damn who's responsible.
Eusebeus 22:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- No, I will remember it's the fault of people who don't give a damn about their readers.
Kappa 01:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Ignoring the hostile and personal nature of your comment, I'm saying that the redirect should persist and the content issues worked out as per long-standing WP process. On WP, EVERYTHING is ultimately up to editors of each page. This topic (an overwhelmingly derogatory term unworthy of a separate article) is no exception. --
User:RyanFreisling
@ 21:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I'm largely in your same camp here, but I take issue with your claims (here and in the AFD and some of the earlier points brought up by Jreferee) that the word is "overwhelmingly derogatory". I think, from my standpoint (and I know my pr0n and I've been socially to drag shows, pride fests and the like) that the overwhelming use is by people who have no idea there's any other term. It may be taken as demeaning, and it may have been repudiated by the serious TG community, but we should be clear about speakers in either case. Who is using it derogatorily, and who is objecting? If we can't state that clearly we're perilously close to either personal opinion or original research. --
Dhartung |
Talk
- I appreciate the question and I share your interest in discussing the issue as clearly as possible. Here's my view, as cited by numerous valid, notable sources as provided in prior conversations and repeated in the links above. Wikidictionary lists it as "(pejorative) A male-to-female transsexual or transgender person."
[3]. The Webster's New Millenium Online dictionary cites list the term as "derogatory slang for 'a genetic male who has both male and female characteristics; a male who has undergone surgical feminization"
[4], and wordweb as 'sometimes offensive, referring to a transsexual in the porn industry'.
[5]. There has so far been not a single valid cite to demonstrate when the term is not offensive. I'd love to see one, as I'm open to changing my mind, but none have been presented.
- As far as 'who' is objecting, the dictionary links do not specify, nor qualify, 'who' is being offended, but I believe it is not 'original research' to conclude that a derogatory term used to describe 'a transsexual in the porn industry' is offensive to transsexuals. Thankfully, my opinion isn't the only basis for this conclusion - it has been independently cited that the term is "a sexualized term popularized in pornography for a transgendered woman who has not had surgery.", and is "Often considered highly offensive."
[6]. In all of the prior article's citations and in the vast preponderance of practice the term is used not to describe 'gamers' but transsexuals (transwomen, specifically). So it's not
WP:OR, it's been cited and shown that transwomen are the people to whom the word 'Shemale' is 'overwhelmingly derogatory' when used.
- As far as 'who' is using it: Using a derogatory term for such a person - ignorantly, knowingly or not, in pron or not - is still derogatory and as unacceptable on WP as any other slur. The number of people who employ slurs (both those aware of and those ignorant of their nature), whether at clubs, in gaming, etc. doesn't alleviate or reduce that term's derogatory nature. Most importantly, in the overwhelmingly common usage (to refer to transwomen with male genitalia), whether used in porn or not, whether self-assigned by porn stars, marketers or not, the term when used to apply to a transwoman is 'incredibly offensive'.
[7] One drink or three, big club or small party, sidewalk or runway, referring to ladies like this as 'Shemales' is significantly more derogatory than 'Transsexuals' (or, better yet, 'Ladies')
- So if it is demonstrably 'highly offensive' to refer to transwomen as shemales, and if this is the overwhelmingly common use of the term, the information I provided above can be integrated into the 'Transwoman' article to the extent that it explains the predominant, cited view of this term. Maybe a link or two (and perhaps Janice Raymond's popularization of the term in 1979-1984, but probably not the earlier 'masculine lesbian' usage, which is no longer used) would suffice to complete the merge.
- At this point don't believe there is a credible controversy about whether the term is derogatory, as I have not seen a single citation establishing an inoffensive use of the word 'Shemale', but I welcome such evidence. I hope I've answered your questions, but if not I'm perfectly happy to continue the discussion, dig up the links for discussion (again), etc. Thanks. :) --
User:RyanFreisling
@ 22:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- If everything is up to the editors of each page, why are you insisting on a redirect instead of actually leaving it up to these editors?
Kappa 01:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment on traffic - After this merger, transwoman viewer traffic increased, and you can notice vandalism reverts. Which have started from month May, after afd in April 25, meaning that many people have come to learn about shemale, but are told of transwoman, and deprived of its true meaning. If you see older history of
Transwoman there is hardly 10 edits per month.
Lara_bran 09:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree this is not reason for recreate, but it is to give general idea that shemale gets 100 times more traffic than transwoman.
Lara_bran 14:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse status quo and speedy close, this seems to be a contentious extension of an ongoing content dispute; there has been little discussion about the AFD decision itself aside from hostile comments between a couple of editors. Since nothing has been deleted, the discussion should continue at either
Talk:Shemale or
Talk:Transwoman, but not here. Every possible solution here is editorial. --
Core
desat 09:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree i should have been to talk:transwoman, where i dint even been once before DRV nomination. But the said afd, not a single commenter knew the proper meaning of shemale, this came to light only after afd closure.
Lara_bran 14:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse redirect. The principle objection to the redirect appears to be that people looking for shemale are told that the preferred term is transwoman. I fail to see how this is bad. The fact that activists dislike the term is hardly an argument for forking it, Wikipedia is not, after all, censored - overused though that argument may be I believe it applies here, in that we are being asked to have a separate article in order not to have to mention a pejorative term. If a pejorative term has widespread recognition, it should be noted, if only to point out that it is considered unacceptable. All of which boils down to this: the challenge to deletion lacks merit, as it fails to address the deletion rationale (nobody argued that the term did not exist, only that it is a neologism for something we cover much better at a better title), and what remains is a content dispute.
Guy (
Help!) 11:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I knew scientific meaning of term and i have seen a shemale in porn video. But i was badly unaware that it is pejorative. I still think that it is pejorative only to limited people, only when used against transwomen, i think it is only against non-shemale-transwomen. But in a censored world, pejorative words, in any definition, they first bring to notice that the term is pejorative, they rather exaggerate. Term is basically not pejorative, term's side use is use as pejorative.
Lara_bran 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- quoted:"in afd, nobody argued that the term did not exist", but everyone thought shemale's main usage is pejorative, and also thought that shemale has no definition other than pejorative(due to lack of ref). Also mind you, 99% of traffic which comes here, and 99% of world population(including me) does not know that it is used as pajorative. But much more people have seen a shemale in porn videos.
Lara_bran 14:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- You are simply incorrect. Those are not two different definitions, they are the same definition and it is the same usage. The derogatory nature of a 'pejorative' phrase (in this case, 'Shemale') is not reduced or 'compartmentalized' simply because that term is popularized by porn. You haven't demonstrated the non-derogatory use of the word 'Shemale' at all. Stop arguing against the 'redirect' and work on the 'merge'. --
User:RyanFreisling
@ 16:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Your citation which says "sometimes offensive" demonstrates that is is not always offensive, ie it has a non-derogatory use. Also the definitions you have given do not match the definition given at
transwoman.
Kappa 21:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, and so while one of the half-dozen citations I provided may say 'highly derogatory', and another merely 'sometimes derogatory' (and woefully not qualify under what conditions it is not derogatory), the commonality between the range of citations is the predominant (derogatory) quality of the word. I don't doubt there could be non-derogatory uses out there - as I've repeatedly said, I'd welcome any evidence specifically explaining non-derogatory uses of the word - but alas, not a single reference link has bubbled up during this whole affair, so there's no new usage yet for anyone to consider. . While it's unlikely those uses predominate over the common, derogatory usage, it's important to keep an open mind. As far as the content at 'transwoman', I'm not an editor of that page so I can't speak to the content there. --
User:RyanFreisling
@ 00:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- If you can't speak to the content there, you have no business insisting that anything redirect to it.
Kappa 01:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Nonsense. I needn't have been an editor on that page to recommend maintaining the redirect and merge. Do you require everyone who participated in the original redirect decision and this discussion to have been an editor there? --
User:RyanFreisling
@ 02:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Try to follow the discussion. I didn't require to you have edited the page, just to have looked at it and noticed that it doesn't mention the word "shemale" and that the definition it gives of "transwoman" does not match the the definition you gave of shemale. This is something you don't care about because you haven't edited the page?
Kappa 13:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- They simply overinflated explaination about pajorative usage during afd. Compare first and final versions during afd:
[8] and
[9]. That too taking from unsourced user page(of an inactive user), as per afd. Lead section was filled to describe pajorative usage by the same above user User:RyanFreisling(Not because of bad faith, but because no ref was available). There was not even mention of male
genetalia in the article, during and till afd, which is now confirmed with new academic refs, see history of shemale, thanks.
Lara_bran 06:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- EXTERNAL REFERENCE LINK, PLEASE. Comparing those two page versions does not demonstrate any new information, it merely points out (again) that this is a content dispute, inappropriate for a DRV. And you still haven't provided this magical 'ref' you keep mentioning (in terribly broken English, which makes following your argument even harder than it would be otherwise). I've asked you a half-dozen times and you still haven't done so. Regardless, as Guy said above, yours is a content dispute, so stop fighting the redirect and deal with the merge of whatever information you claim 'changes everything' on
Transwoman, as you have been repeatedly advised and have never done. In any case, I'm out for the day and in passing, it's my fervent hope that you will stop baselessly challenging the redirect while refusing to cite your views, and will begin the process of content edits to
Transwoman in good faith and hopefully, with actual citations. Good day. --
User:RyanFreisling
@ 12:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Permit Creation per Kappa above. --
SatyrTN (
talk |
contribs) 13:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Change redirect to
transexual (This is suggestion, second option, my vote is recreate) - Every ref states that shemale is transexual. And no ref says it is transwoman, but saying nothing does not necessarily mean it wont belong to transwoman, but all refs consider transexual more proper than transwoman. Transexual is biological, but transwoman is mental. So if you think shemale is not notable then redirect and merge it to
transexual, not to
transwoman.
Lara_bran 06:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Transexual is a typo of
transsexual - I can't see any point in redirecting there. In any case, it may be advisable to keep the term "shemale" out of the
transsexual or
transwoman pages as that's a bad word in those respective communities. "She doesn't want to be a male", that's the whole point. The longtime association with porn also makes this an emotional issue. If there is use of the term as anything other than a pejorative or a pornographic reference to transsexual women, then recreate some sort of page at
shemale just to keep this out of the main
transwoman article. --
carlb 04:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- And like all the other sources it reads the same:
- "shemale: 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."
- Exactly the same as the predominant definition, that you tried to posit as a 'side view' days ago. Besides the fact that it disproves your original argument, I don't see how you justify a characterization of this source as an 'academic', rather than a 'pornorgraphic' reference, given the phrase 'used most often in the porn industry' in that very cite - except if by 'academic' you mean it's on an .edu web site... --
User:RyanFreisling
@ 04:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
|
