Talk:Transmisogyny

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vprice03.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

User:Yworo has been incredibly hostile. I created this article earlier this morning, and since then I've been constantly adding to it. They are acting like the article should have been 30 pages long *right from the start*. Of course it isn't absolutely comprehensive *right now*. It's only a couple of hours old. Alyxr (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The topic is already covered in the article, transphobia. Alyxr has not discussed duplicating/splitting content from transphobia on Talk:Transphobia. This should be discussed there and a consensus formed about it before proceeding, which Alyxr apparently refuses to do. I have no objection to the article being drafted as a Userspace draft, but I expect that would be a waste of time without getting proper consensus first. Yworo (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It's barely covered. Transphobia only gives a defintion. That's not "coverage". It's mentioning. Whipping Girl also "covers" transmisogyny by your criteria. Why shouldn't it be dealt with on Whipping Girl then? Maybe because it's a seperate topic with a seperate defintion and with seperate things to be written about it? Alyxr (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I'm of the conservative opinion that the article title should somewhat reflect the article topic. Expanding the transmisogyny definition in transphobia would turn the transphobia article into an article on transmisognyny. "Transmisogyny" requires more than just a definition. There's so much to cover. If I moved what's on this page now I'd get people telling me to move the transmisogyny bits it to it's own article. Alyxr (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop being so disruptive. If you want something useful to do, help me continue to improve the article. Alyxr (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Bull. You essentially are (and would have to) duplicate existing material about discrimination already present at Transphobia#Harassment_and_violence, Transphobia#In_feminism, and Trans_woman#Discrimination. All I am asking you to do is to get consensus at the existing article. Forcefully forging ahead tells me you know full well you will not get such consensus. Otherwise, you'd bring it up for discussion. There is no deadline. Please proceed in a collaborative manner. Yworo (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

10 years and the post still stands... must have been a real non-issue you were fighting over. 199.168.95.209 (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

slurs

""Tranny" and "shemale", the two most common transphobic slurs, are reserved for trans women." no they're not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.18.97 (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Transmisandry

While the term is used far less, it's still a problem. I'd say that the only problems would be actually finding sources for it, but someone skilled enough could locate some. It may not warrant its own page, but it certainly deserves a sizable section on the Transphobia page. Or the Misandry page. Or both. 69.49.78.232 (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

article about women

some guy for some reason: but what about men??????? :((((((( ~2025-35881-85 (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree 100% (Atlantic Ranter 9705 (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC))

Adding onto this, I'm the person behind the page discrimination against transgender men (transandrophobia/transmisandry) - so if any folks reading this want to help contribute to this sibling concept it's greatly appreciated! Vulture (a.k.a. Transandrosupport) (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Counterpoint: misandry isn't real — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.93.60.40 (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Needs citation

I've removed the following from the introduction of this article, as it lacks any sources:

The term "transmisogynoir" was created to refer to the intersection between transmisogyny and misogynoir, meaning the oppression of black trans women. In it, it composes transphobia, misogyny, and antiblackness. It was coined by Trudy of Gradient Lair, a womanist blog about Black women and art, media, social media, socio-politics and culture.

-- The Anome (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Truncated or run-on sentences

It's not clear exactly what happened here or what the original intent was, but this needs a fix:

When Julia Serano touches on transitioning, According to the National Center for Transgender equality (2011), describes transitioning as, “The time when a person begins to living as the gender with which they identify rather than the gender they were assigned at birth, which often includes changing one’s first name and dressing and grooming differently.

Seems like two or even three sentences maybe got merged into each other. This is from the #Sexual harassment section. Savmkim-10, this looks like it was your edit, can you please fix this?

(While you're at it, please change to straight quotes, not curly.) Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Savmkim-10:, I haven't been able to determine a meaning for this content (or a source, which would help us determine the meaning) so I've removed it from the article. If you know the intent, please revert my last article edit and fix it accordingly. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Oxford's definition

It's of course false that Oxford doesn't define it. Definition of transmisogyny in US English: transmisogyny NOUN Dislike of or prejudice against transgender women. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:ALLEGED concerns

In edits like this one, Valkyrie Cain is adding the text "what she saw as" to a sentence. This appears to be WP:ALLEGED to me. Per WP:STATUSQUO, [[WP:BRD}], and all that, I'd like to discuss it. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Regardless it needs to change because it is not neutral to leave it as it is.Valkyrie Cain (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Valkyrie Cain: Why is it not neutral? We make it clear it's her view by quoting from her directly. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"The term was coined by Julia Serano in her 2007 book Whipping Girl and used to describe the unique discrimination faced by trans women"

This is basically stating Serano's view is a fact.Valkyrie Cain (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM

Hi, @Newimpartial: I saw that you reverted my claim -> say edit here with the edit summary Let's stick to sourced wording, please. What do you mean? The source is a particular radical feminist criticising the concept of transmisogyny. Following WP:CLAIM, I almost always change instances of "claimed" to "said" or "stated" wherever I come across them. Cheers, gnu57 15:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You are right, of course; for some reason I thought a secondary source was being used. While so think it would be more neutral to find a secondary source reporting the claim in question, a quick search does not reveal any to me (because critics are less likely to engage with the provocative paragraph on p.8 than with other parts of the book). This is a case where write/comments would read more naturally to me than say/stated, if we are stuck with the primary source. Newimpartial (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

"Traps Are Gay" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Traps Are Gay. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Restructuring Ideas

I have some ideas about restructuring parts of the article. For organizational purposes, I think the information under Relation to Patriarchy could go with the information at the very beginning of the article. I'd also like to add a large section, "Types," with the following transmisogyny subtypes:

violence; sexualization and harassment; media (mis)representation; employment discrimination; healthcare; justice system

This section could be followed by Instances. I would also like to expand instances to include other countries and more detailed statistics for the U.S. and Ecuador, although I have only found info for the United States and Canada so far.

I have laid out more information on my User page. --MBJAnderson (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Paraphrasing Quotes

I am changing some quotes to paraphrase findings since it's better Wikipedia form. If someone feels like important information is lost, please let me know.--MBJAnderson (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Merging the "Instances" section

As it stands, this article's "Instances" section is better suited to Trans woman#Discrimination. There's no discussion on how sexism and transphobia intersect to form transmisogyny. In fact, it goes on to say that it is mostly experienced by specifically Black trans women, with no justification why their femininity and transness are still the key factors - a common criticism of the concept presented in one of the sources already in the article. --Equivamp - talk 05:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. Instances of transmisogyny should be cases of discrimination against transgender women that is worse than or different to the discrimination that either transgender men or cisgender women face. There are hints of this in the section, with the comparisons to trans men: trans women, on average, lose almost one third of their salary ... trans men often experience salary raises and greater authority in the workplace and trans people experience a disproportionately large number of hate crimes, with trans women experiencing the majority of these crimes. Rewriting, trimming parts, expanding parts and adding analysis could improve the section, but I think it does fit here. — Bilorv (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Science and the Gendered Body

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 9 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jwgoedert (article contribs).

Wiki Education assignment: Global LGBTQ Rights and Representation

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IAmNotTLockett (article contribs).

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-02

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Averd7 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Parkerclaudio.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kendall16C (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Cindyjost132.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Disputed concept

The concept of Transmisogyny is disputed by gender critical activists and radical feminists, for example Sheila Jeffreys who writes that "misogyny is redefined by transgender activists so that it means disparagement of the femininity that is attractive to cross-dressers" and "transgender ideology is full of such reversals, in which the material reality of biological and existential womanhood is usurped by men who fantasise about being women."

I tried to add this to the article but it was reverted and dismissed by various editors, who presumably don't like it being pointed out that this is a controversial concept amongst feminists.

Let's work towards adding this to the article in a way that satisfies neutral point of view. As at the moment, the article is entirely one-sided. 2A00:23EE:15C8:8B77:B446:8C15:E1F0:39B3 (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that as "disputed" or "controversial". Various authors such as Jeffreys are not saying transmisogyny doesn't exist, which appears to be your aim. They are supplying a nuanced viewpoint about the issue. Binksternet (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

In her book Gender Hurts, Jeffreys rejects Serano's redefinition of misogyny and by doing so disputes the concept of transmisogyny.

This is common to the radical feminist perspective. For example, as human rights lawyer Christen Price writes, "This turns language in on itself. Refusing to deny women the right to spaces where men are not becomes 'cissexism' and 'transmisogyny' - colonizing feminist language to defang feminist work."

This feminist dissent should be included in the article, to avoid it being biased towards one side. 2A00:23EE:15C8:8B77:B446:8C15:E1F0:39B3 (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there is no dispute as to whether trans-misogyny is a real concept. Why try to add information that just completely discredits this topic as valid? We don't use Hitler to discuss Jewish hate, we don't use KKK rhetoric to talk about BIPOC hate, so why are we using Posy Parker to discuss trans hate? Your want to use Posy Parker isn't for neutrality, it's an attempt to give a platform to hate speech. Please stop pretending that trans hate has a place in discussions about trans people. 199.168.95.209 (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I certainly agree, this article is extremely prejudiced and one sided. ~2025-43374-60 (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

References

New Sections Proposal

I would like to propose adding two sections to the article; one talking about common transmisogynistic stereotypes and their proliferation online (e.g. the "groomer" stereotype which surrounds online bathroom bill discourse), and one talking about the concept of autogynephilia.

Both are matters which I think are important to the subject, being weaponized by anti-LGBT extremists to traget predominantly trans women, and autogynephilia in particular is something that Julia Serano has extensively criticized.

I picked up this idea from the Greek article on transmisogyny which includes these sections. We could simply translate them from there and incorporate them in this article. The greek article includes Serano's quote about how most transphobic jokes involve "men wanting to cut their dicks off" in it the section about stereotypes, so we could add them as a sub-unit to the "relation to transphobia" section of this article. Amateur Truther (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2025 and 16 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chansondesjumelles (article contribs). Peer reviewers: KooperzKape25.

— Assignment last updated by WikiEdit7205 (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Inclusion of very recent neologisms with contention (TMA/TME)

I have noticed recently the inclusion of the neologisms TMA/TME in this article (and also in a Wikitionary entry, where it was soon deleted by another user). While I'm not opposed to the mention of this terminology in the article on principle, I am concerned about their uncritical inclusion in this article (and in other wikiprojects), with the opposition to the terminology being conspicuously absent. The initial wording of the article seemed to imply that all transfeminists used the terminology and there was a consensus around the use of the terms. This is inaccurate and misleading. I have since added some sentences and sources on the opposition to the terminology in the trans and intersex communities in an attempt to establish balance in the section (more and better sources also welcome). I recognise some transfeminists do use the TMA/TME framework but it is far from universal. To put it another way, because the terms are neologisms with no consensus on how or if they should be used, it would be inappropriate to present them as uncontroversial and universally accepted pieces of terminology in transfeminism.

To use a comparison with another trans community - there are several terms used to describe the discrimination nonbinary people face. E.g. exorsexism, enbyphobia, abinphobia (though the latter is much rarer than the first two) - if one were to rename the page discrimination against nonbinary people to Exorsexism, say, that would also generate the same problem the uncritical inclusion of TMA/TME in this article does. Exorsexism, like TMA/TME, is a neologism which, while unarguably used sometimes in trans studies and transfeminism, is far from a universally accepted piece of terminology. Likewise, TMA/TME, if it should remain used in the article, should never be presented as consensus (excepting if it ever becomes a widely agreed upon term).

The purpose of starting this topic though, for me, was to make it clear why I've added the opposition to the terms. I hope that I have been clear enough in my reasons for doing so. I'm all for neologisms, but we have to be consistent! - Fwltur Fwltur Gwydr (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Already had to restore a revert by a user who seems to have made an account on mobile just to remove my edits. I welcome good faith discussion of the changes I've made and whether or not the edits should stand, but this is not the way to go about it. I urge anyone who has strong thoughts about the inclusion or exclusion of the edits to reply so that a consensus can be reached civilly. Thank you. Fwltur Gwydr (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

As the user who made this edit was not a trans woman, speaking as one myself I want to confirm from the transfem perspective that TMA/TME are - not - accepted terminology among a great deal of transfeminists, many of whom find it actively harmful. Anything purporting, as the article previously did, that transfeminists use those terms without at least mentioning they are contested among transfems is misleading at best.

I'll also note that this is my first use of a new account, but I previously made a couple of accounts awhile ago to make edits to related topics, but I did not save an email address with because I did not plan at the time to make Wikipedia something I invest a lot of time in. As that's starting to become the case I've made this permanent account to contribute on a more regular basis. VelVexations (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

TMA/TME are a pretty consensus view among transfeminists these days, in acceptance if not in use, as exhibited on popular transfeminist social media sites like Tumblr and Bluesky. Secondcodwar (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia orients itself after scholarly (and other serious, published) sources, not Tumblr and Bluesky, and most definitely not personal experiences, coming from trans women or from anyone else. The question at hand is really pretty easy to solve: are there reliable sources that use the terms? If yes, describe that somewhere. In no, then don't. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty great leap to describe Tumblr as a transfeminist site! Likewise Bluesky. Especially since in recent years, Tumblr's moderation has come under criticism for removing and deleting the blogs of several trans women (ostensibly due to automated filtering). As Maddy from Celeste said, reliable sources which use the terms are scant - and other transfeminist sources (such as A Short History of Trans Misogyny by Jules Gill Peterson) are opposed to exempt/affected terminology. Fwltur Gwydr (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

No, it isn't, it's used by an extremely specific circle of people on social media that very often argues about it with the great deal of trans women who do not accept it, that's not what consensus is.

Referring to Tumblr as a "transfeminist social media site" is very strange, because the same people who use TMA/TME often describe it as "AFAB 4chan" and routinely talk about how trans women are constantly banned from the service for no reason. I don't see how it could be taken as a hub of transfeminist discussion when a regular talking point is how the majority of trans women have been driven off the website, which further points to the group that uses TMA/TME to be a small niche. VelVexations (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Since scholarly sources have used or referred to the terms TMA/TME, with sources both in favor of and opposed to their use, it seems as though the article should include the definition and criticism of them rather than simply removing the section entirely. I agree that sources are too thin to uncritically include the terms, but I don't think they are so thin as to merit their absence. Multiple prominent transfeminists have at least acknowledged their existence and significance in the field (Jules Gill Peterson, Talia Bhatt, and Julia Serano), and they are used in peer-reviewed journal articles such as "Landscapes of possibility: An introduction to fantasy in SLGBTQIA+ and disabled therapeutic contexts." "Consensus" around whether or not the terms are accurate and most appropriate isn't the litmus test for inclusion; if it were transandrophobia, anti-transmasculinity, and transmisandry would all be removed from the sibling page discrimination against transgender men, as there are prominent transmasculine scholars who have opposed each of those three terms. I do agree with @Fwltur Gwydr however that the section could use a rewrite.

Also, calling Tumblr "transfeminist" or "AFAB 4chan" both seem a lot like trying to litigate Tumblr drama on a Wikipedia talk page, which is not germane to the conversation at hand. I don't believe we are discussing Tumblr as a source. Xxis0belxx (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I was discussing Tumblr as a source because Tumblr was brought up as a source, and my response was about why it doesn't make sense to cite it as a "popular transfeminist site" to give it a proper source's authority.

If reference to critique of these terms is included I have less of a problem with it being there, but it's something to be cautious about because of simply presenting it as fact is, unlike the terms you listed, necessarily making very non-neutral claims about other trans people being "exempt" from meaningful transphobic violence and discrimination. If that seems like more litigating of Tumblr drama, I understand, but I think it's important to not let Wikipedia accidentally lend it's authority to very harmful notions that actively erases others.

As I said, though, I would not oppose a more neutral rewrite that presents a clearer picture of the word's context. VelVexations (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

As I stated in my reply to @WeatherElectric, I personally am willing to consider this matter closed, at least for the moment. That said, I would like to clarify that responses to @Secondcodwar re: Tumblr were in fact on-topic, and also that the term's use in any context on Tumblr should not factor into the discussion whatsoever. I said "I don't believe we are discussing Tumblr as a source," which was inaccurate, what I should have said instead was, "I don't believe we should be discussing Tumblr as a source, nor should we attempt to affirm or refute other statements about the overall tenor of discussions that take place on Tumblr surrounding transfeminist issues," as activity on Tumblr is almost universally not considered to be a reliable source per WP:reliable sources. That is what I meant by "litigating Tumblr drama," and why I said it was not germane to the conversation at hand.

I have relatively few edits—all registered to my IP address rather than this account—and precious little experience directly engaging in conversations editorial best practices, so I am open to correction by experienced wikipedians. Xxis0belxx (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Since writing my first post in this thread, other users removed the existing sources which were in favour of the use of TME/TMA on the grounds that they were unreliable (e.g. one source appears to have been a bachelor thesis, which isn't reliable as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP). I believe it's probably better to leave mention of the terminology off the article until there's more substantial sources both for and against the terminology. I note that "Landscapes of possibility: An introduction to fantasy in SLGBTQIA+ and disabled therapeutic contexts." uses the terms, however, I would argue that this source is still weak as it only mentions TME/TMA in passing. Using ctrl+F I found only one use of TME and only two uses of TMA. The first use of each was as the shorthand TME/TMA and defining the terms. The single use of TMA afterwards was in reference to one person in passing. Transfeminists such as Serano have made blog posts and tweets (Xs?) in favour of TME/TMA terminology, but social media isn't a reliable source. I've come to agree with the users who think it's best to leave off mention of the terms until there's more sufficient sources.

I also query your point about "prominent transmasculine scholars" who are against the terms for discrimination against transgender men - which prominent transmasculine scholars? I created the page for discrimination against transgender men and if there are such scholars, I seem to have somehow missed them entirely. What are their names and where did they talk about their opposition to certain proposed terms for the discrimination? I would be interested to know so I can update the page for discrimination against transgender men if appropriate. However, the fact that you call these scholars prominent but don't name them is a bit odd, since you mentioned several prominent transfeminine scholars by name earlier in your reply.

I understand your confusion at tumblr being brought up as a source - but @VelVexations was bringing it up to refute the claim tumblr could be a source.

In my mind the situation with these terms is comparable to the term thagomizer - a non scholarly word coined in a comic in 1982, which was then adopted by paleontologists because it filled a genuinely useful niche in the field of paleontology. Thagomizer was used in reliable scholarly sources and evetually became the accepted term for the tails of stegosaurs. However, it remains to be seen whether TME/TMA will become accepted terminology in a similar way to thagomizer, or fall by the wayside if they are deemed to be unuseful for their proposed purpose. Fwltur Gwydr (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

To chime in as the editor who originally removed this stuff, I simply don't feel the sourcing is there to write anything useful about TMA/TME, description or criticism, that last part feeling crucial to emphasize to me since others here have already noted some of the sourcing problems with even providing a simple description I would strongly oppose any inclusion of this stuff unless reliable sourcing can actually be demonstrated, and I doubt we're there yet from this discussion.

This discussion is heavy on two camps of, IMO, equally subjective judgments of the term's utility, or opinions of online discourse, which is not particularly useful to building consensus, and seems more liable to encourage edit warring than anything. It's very light on description of potential sourcing for any of this stuff. Since other people here have mention Gill-Peterson, and "Landscapes of possibility", both of which I have read through and considered using before concluding we don't have enough useful to really write about it, it's worth reflecting on how little material both of these sources respectively have. Gill-Peterson never herself references these terms in specific; there are a few offhand sentences in the introduction mentioning the book takes the stance someone being wholly "exempt" and "affected" by transmisogyny is oversimplistic, which is ofc potentially suggestive of opinions on the terminology, but IMO requires us to get way too much into original research territory to provide the context she is likely referring to these terms. "Landscapes of possibility" is even weaker; its single use in article is a brief author bio of the author Emily Salja: Emily Salja is a transmisogyny-exempt white Jewish dyke with an ambivalent relationship to gender. Really—that's all. There's nothing close to a definition, or even the slightest context for its use. Verifiability is a basic principle here that must be satisfied in all articles, and we cannot achieve that for material about TMA/TME with the sourcing we have. Bhatt and Serano are also mentioned, but the material I can find of them in connection with this is social media posts which provide no definition of the terms, nor does it express particularly substantive opinions. Even if we were to argue this is acceptable on the basis of subject-matter expertise, it's a bit useless to write "Serano thinks the terms are potentially useful" or "Bhatt likes the terms" if we can't even explain what the terms mean without original research.

The judgment the sourcing simply is not there is not to express any particular opinion on whether TMA/TME is useful or unhelpful or good or bad, but rather that scholarly sources have simply not commented on it enough for us to provide an adequate description of the terms with clear sourcing. This is perhaps even more important to stress to those in this discussion who express comfort with including the material at a lower standard of sourcing if paired with criticism; that's simply just not at all how neutral point of view works. What matters in determining how we present these terms is the range of descriptions reliable, scholarly sources present (not whether they simply use a term, nor our own assessments of how widespread support/criticism is either way, but if they have coverage which enables us to write something about the views of terms in a way that's backed up by the sources). If they provide no substantive information specifically about it, we can't write about it.

I understand this is disappointing to some people, but since this seems to have attracted offsite attention I'd request people understand this application of policy is more of a "patience, folks, not ready yet" thing than any kind of particular judgment one way or the other about the terms. There may be some scholarly sourcing on these terms in the near future—Sarah Cavar, the author of the "Transbutch" bachelor's thesis source I removed as unreliable, published an article in the (reliable) Transgender Studies Quarterly recently which uses the terms, so we're probably getting closer to reliable sourcing on the matter, although frustratingly it still does not define them in any way we would be able to write something substantive. WeatherElectric (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I think I agree with you, for the most part. I am disappointed, as I have staked out the position that the terms and their criticism deserve inclusion, but you're right that consensus seems challenging at this time. I will draw other editor's attention to additional sources. Serano discussed them not just in a tweet, but in this blog post where she says, paraphrasing to the best of my ability, that she did not coin the terms TMA/TME but are potentially useful, regardless of whether or not people agree with their use. She said something similar in this interview in this interview on It Could Happen Here. I hope we can agree that those sources are significantly more credible than her tweets on the matter. Nsambu Za Suekama also uses the terms more affirmatively in her paper "Racial-Class Paternalism and the Trojan Horse of Anti-transmasculinity." I was not aware of that source until today; the previous Serano sources are the ones to which I was originally referring, and should have linked directly rather than allowing the assumption that her social media posts were her only use of them. I will state again that I think these terms and their definition are worth including in the article, but I'm willing to agree that it doesn't seem as though we are able to reach meaningful consensus right now, and are not yet at the point where they occur frequently enough in high-quality sources to warrant their inclusion regardless of unambiguous agreement by all contributing editors. Xxis0belxx (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

References

@Xxis0belxx: Yeah. Apologies it's tricky; definitely keeping my eye out for new sources as they come, though I'm glad we're largely in agreement. With regards to the sources you mention here, a few quick comments as to give an idea of how they might fit in.

1. The article you link at The Anarchist Library, a user-submitted content site, is a reprint of a an article on the personal  Medium (RSP entry) blog of Nsambu Za Suekama, a self-published source. While she seems like, in general, a frequently insightful theorist, she does not appear to have been published in independent, reliable sources before in the way we would generally look for if we wanted to consider her a "subject-matter expert" under the terms of that guideline. This is not usable as an RS.
2. The Serano article, again a self-published source, (and podcast, which as you say largely reiterates same stuff) is a simple mention of the terms' existence. It may be conceivably usable as a source under the consideration Serano is a subject-matter expert, but the content in the article enables us to say only something very basic, along the lines of In commenting on online discussions of transmisogyny terminology, Serano noted she did not coin subsequent extensions of the term like transmisogyny-affected (TMA) and transmisogyny-exempt (TME), though she felt they are "potentially useful non-binary and non-identity ways of discussing the phenomenon. But I'm admittedly not familiar with everything that others are saying or claiming under this newer rubric, so there may potentially be some points of disagreement." My general feeling is this is not super useful to readers. It does not tell them what they mean and simply gestures to Serano's ambivalence. You are ofc theoretically free to WP:BEBOLD and try an edit along those lines, and see whether it sticks, but I suspect it is liable to be a perpetual controversy magnet, and thus I would say your judgment it's a good idea to consider the matter closed is probably wise. There's a bit of a "be careful what you wish for" aspect until reliable sourcing is stronger; any content about this is liable to be a controversy magnet that attracts drive-by editors who want to insert some random person's unreliable wordpress site or tumblr because they feel it is insufficiently condemnatory / positive about the terminology. WeatherElectric (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

This website is cited a lot on wikipedia (it's also the 9th reference on the page Discrimination against transgender men and TMA/TME are in the glossary, so I guess either delete that para from the men's page or think about adding TMA/TME here: https://genderminorities.com/glossary-transgender/ ~2026-24704-55 (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

If Tumblr was being cited to legitimize terminology that explicitly denies trans women face as much discrimination as trans men, I would support taking it out. Context matters. VelVexations (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Contradictory Studies

Under the heading "United States" under "Instances" there is a citation of a study that suggests trans men make more money after transitioning. However, I've found multiple other sources suggesting that on average all trans people make less than cis people, with one supporting the idea that trans women make the least of all and one suggesting that trans men make the least of all. I'm concerned with whether the idea that trans men make more after transitioning is actually accurate when most other studies contradict this.

The source linked in the article (from 2008): https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.2202/1935-1682.1862/html

A source suggesting all trans people make less, with trans men making the least (from 2022): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537121000415

Data from the campaign for human rights suggesting all trans people make less than cis people, with trans women making the least (based on data from 2021): https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-wage-gap-among-lgbtq-workers-in-the-united-states

I don't want to just remove the statement from the page when there is a source to back it up, but I am concerned that other sources contradict it. MKEH01 (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and edited the section in question. I don't believe this should be controversial, given both studies you provide seem far more authoritative due to their samples and time of publication. Amateur Truther (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Criticism

Is there no critique of her proposal? This page seems like a very one sided unilateral accounting. ~2025-43374-60 (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

If you (or, well, anyone, but you are the one pointing this out right now) could provide reliable sources criticising the concept/term, we could include them. I do not know how other editors feel about this, but there is a Criticism section in Homophobia, so I see no issue, though I am not aware if such RS exist. Amateur Truther (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

P.S. Apparently there is already a conversation about this above. My bad, I had not seen that. Amateur Truther (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Autogynephilia paragraph: NPOV, citation asymmetry, and missing peer-reviewed counter-sources

The autogynephilia paragraph in this section has serious NPOV and WP:RS problems that I'd like to work through with other editors before proposing specific edits. Flagging the concerns here first per WP:BRD norms. 1. Framing language not supported by the cited sources. The paragraph opens by calling autogynephilia "a hypothetical paraphilia." None of the eight cited sources use that phrasing. The construct has been in continuous peer-reviewed circulation since Blanchard 1989 (J Sex Res), with replication work in Archives of Sexual Behavior through 2015 and ongoing exchange as recently as Bailey and Hsu 2022. "Hypothetical" is editorial demotion, not source-supported description. 2. Conflation of two separable claims. The paragraph treats Blanchard's etiological claim (autogynephilia as the basis for heterosexual trans women's transition) as identical to the typology distinction itself (early-onset androphilic vs. adult-onset non-androphilic). Moser 2010 and Serano 2020 target the former. Nuttbrock et al. 2011 (Arch Sex Behav 40:247-257), which the paragraph does not cite, found support for the latter, concluding sexual orientation is "a dominant and etiologically significant axis." The Wikipedia article on Blanchard's typology itself acknowledges this. The transmisogyny paragraph does not. 3. Citation asymmetry. Of eight citations, three are advocacy press (two SPLC posts, one ThinkProgress book review). These are appropriate sources for the sociological claim that the construct is invoked by anti-LGBT groups. They are not appropriate sources for the scientific status of the construct, and the paragraph blends both functions in a way that implies the scientific question is settled. 4. WHO ICD-11 and APA citations don't address the paragraph's claim. The ICD-11 "Gender incongruence" page and the APA "What is Gender Dysphoria?" page are cited to support that "the dominant scientific explanation remains the incongruence between gender identity and assigned sex." Both pages describe gender dysphoria, a different construct that the field has shifted to depathologize. Neither adjudicates the Blanchard typology. Using them as if they do is WP:SYNTH. 5. Missing peer-reviewed counter-sources. The paragraph cites Serano 2020 and Moser 2010 but not the published replies in the same literature: Lawrence, A. A. (2011). Further Validation of Blanchard's Typology: A Reply to Nuttbrock et al. Arch Sex Behav 40(6):1089-1091. PMID 21350913. Nuttbrock, L. et al. (2011). Arch Sex Behav 40(2):247-257. Hsu, K. J., Rosenthal, A. M., and Bailey, J. M. (2015). The psychometric structure of items assessing autogynephilia. Arch Sex Behav 44(5):1301-1312. Bailey, J. M. and Hsu, K. J. (2022). Reply to Serano. Arch Sex Behav 51(7):3621-3641. Dreger, A. D. (2008). The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen. Arch Sex Behav 37(3):366-421. (Peer-reviewed, published with 23 commentaries.) Lawrence, A. A. (2013). Men Trapped in Men's Bodies. Springer. Per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, a paragraph that presents one side of a published peer-reviewed exchange while omitting the other side does not represent the literature fairly. 6. Asymmetric source descriptions. Serano is parenthetically described as "a former academic biologist by profession." This is accurate but selective. The same paragraph could note that proponents of the construct include practicing sexologists and clinical researchers with relevant disciplinary credentials. Either both sides get author-credential descriptions or neither does. The current asymmetry reads as endorsement. Recommended changes: Replace "hypothetical paraphilia" with the source-supported "a typology proposed by Ray Blanchard" or "a clinical construct introduced by Ray Blanchard." Split the paragraph into two distinct claims: (a) Blanchard's etiological hypothesis about heterosexual trans women, which is genuinely contested in the peer-reviewed literature, and (b) the homosexual/non-homosexual typology distinction, which has been replicated with refinements and remains active in the empirical literature. Move the SPLC and ThinkProgress citations to a separate sentence that limits their use to the sociological claim about anti-LGBT invocation, not the scientific status. Remove the WHO ICD-11 and APA citations from this paragraph or restate the sentence they support so it actually matches what those pages say. Add the omitted peer-reviewed counter-sources listed above, particularly Dreger 2008 and the Lawrence 2011 reply, with brief neutral summaries of what they found. Either remove Serano's credential parenthetical or add equivalent parentheticals for cited proponents. I'd like to hear from editors who watch this page before drafting specific text. The goal is a paragraph that accurately represents the state of the peer-reviewed literature, including the contestation, without performing closure on a debate that is still active in Archives of Sexual Behavior as of 2022. BicycleJunkie1971 (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)