View source for Talk:Transsexual

{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
  {{WikiProject Sexuality|class=B}}
  {{WikiProject LGBT studies| class=B}}
  {{WikiProject Sociology|class=B|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 9
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Transsexual/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90 |units=days }}
{{discretionary sanctions|topic=pa|style=long}}

{{Wiki Loves Pride talk|2015}}
{{Old merge full|otherpage=Transgender|date=2015-07-08|result=the articles were not merged|talk=Talk:Transsexual/Archive_7#Merger_Proposal_with_Transgender}}
{{pp-move-indef}}
{{Old merge full|otherpage=Transgender|date=2018-01-19|result=the articles were not merged|talk=Talk:Transgender/Archive_7#Merge_transsexual_into_transgender}}
{{Annual readership |width=570 |days=182}}
{{Section sizes}}
<br/><div align="center">'''Kindly remember to put new topics at the end of the page, not the top.'''</div>

----
<br/>
__TOC__

==Transsexual== 
The article doesn't really address or explain the fact that some transgender people find the term "transsexual" offensive. Needs a revamp I think. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.15.14.115|216.15.14.115]] ([[User talk:216.15.14.115#top|talk]]) 17:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)</small>
==Biology== 
I was hoping to find out something about the biology. Is it always XY chromosomes? What kinds of sexual organs develop? Are they fully matured? Does it happen in other species? This article is full of anything and everything other than what I imagine most people like myself would like to know.
[[Special:Contributions/77.8.41.177|77.8.41.177]] ([[User talk:77.8.41.177|talk]]) 10:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

== Requested move 23 November 2020 ==

{{requested move/dated|Transsexuality}}

[[:Transsexual]] → {{no redirect|Transsexuality}} – The first use of ''transsexual'' in the article is as an adjective, whereas titles should generally be [[WP:NOUN|nouns or noun phrases]]. A [[Talk:Transsexual/Archive 7#Requested move 8 March 2015|2015 RM discussion]] suggested that ''transsexual'' is the [[WP:COMMONNAME|most common name]], but its use as a countable noun ("True transsexuals feel..." [https://books.google.com/books/about/Trans_Bodies_Trans_Selves.html?id=oZeAAwAAQBAJ&q=%22true+transsexuals+feel%22 à la Harry Benjamin]) is on the same level as ''blacks'' for African Americans. That is, it's either [[WP:JARGON|academic jargon]] or [https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender simply outdated]. '''''Transsexuality''''' is used by published, reliable sources such as [https://www.britannica.com/topic/transsexualism ''Britannica''], [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/transsexuality ''ScienceDirect''], [https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144330783 Diamond (2013)], [https://www.worldcat.org/title/how-sex-changed-a-history-of-transsexuality-in-the-united-states/oclc/643228831 Meyerowitz (2009)], and [https://books.google.com/books/about/Transsexuality_in_theology_and_neuroscie.html?id=znqJjwEACAAJ Schreiber (2016)]. [[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 21:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. There is no more of a valid reason to move this article to "Transsexuality" than there is to move the [[Transgender]] article to "Transgenderism." The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transsexual&oldid=990263706#Terminology Terminology section], which focuses on the term ''transsexual'' (not ''transsexuality''), is reason enough to leave the article where it's at. And although we do sometimes use ''transsexuality'' on Wikipedia to address the topic of transgender identity in general, it is a term that makes people think that the topic is all about, or mainly about, sexuality...when it's about more than that. And there are academic sources that address confusion over the term ''transsexuality'' in that regard. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 00:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
**The same section says, [[Special:Permalink/990263706#Terminological variance|"The word ''transsexual'' is most often used as an adjective rather than a noun"]]. That's the main reason to move the article, because article titles should be [[WP:NOUN|nouns or noun phrases]]. I don't see any significant risk of confusion here; if ''transsexuality'' is good enough for the likes of [https://www.britannica.com/topic/transsexualism ''Britannica''], it should be good enough for us. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 02:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
*::Dictionaries, such as [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/transsexual this] [[Dictionary.com]] source, list ''transsexual'' as a noun and as an adjective. They also [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/transgender do so] regarding the term ''transgender.'' In fact, they tell us that it's usually offensive to use the term ''transgender'' as a noun. They state that "Use of ''transgender'' as a noun is declining and is usually taken as offensive. And people object to the adjectival variant transgendered because the –ed suffix could imply that something happened to make the person transgender." I wonder why you aren't suggesting that we move the Transgender article. And no need to bring up [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]]. As it notes, such arguments can be valid or invalid. And, in this case, you have brought up what is done for other articles, as if we never have any exceptions regarding article titles. I will state that we commonly/usually do not copy what other encyclopedias do. That is what makes Wikipedia different. As for what is confusing or not in this case? I'm only interested in what academic sources state on the matter. We already have the Transgender article, which is about the transgender topic in general. Considering that the term ''transsexuality'' is used to refer to the transgender topic in general, renaming this article that confuses what this article is about. We do not need two articles on the transgender topic in general. The Transsexual article is supposed to be about being transsexual specifically. And we know that enough transgender people consider themselves transsexual, with some dissociating themselves from the larger transgender community. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 02:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
*:::OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument in this case. I haven't mentioned ''any'' other articles for comparison, but in fact I would support a move of {{xt|[[Transgender]]}} to a less outdated or demeaning term. Right now we're discussing ''this'' article. [[WP:NOUN]] is policy, which means it represents established consensus. If we want to [[WP:IAR|ignore policy]] in this case, then we would need a convincing argument for why doing so is an improvement, not just vague hand-waving about "exceptions". Specifically, I'm not aware of any blanket ban on copying other encyclopedias. Avoiding doing so just to be "different" frankly seems bizarre. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 03:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
*::::You stated that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in this case. And you stated that presumably because you argue that you "haven't mentioned ''any'' other articles for comparison." You brought up WP:NOUN in terms of what we do with other articles. That is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. You need not specifically mention other articles for that to be the case. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is valid for what I've argued. No one stated anything about a blanket ban on copying other encyclopedias. No one stated anything about avoiding doing so just to be different. The point on other encyclopedias is that we usually do not do things just because they have done it. And my point about renaming this article? I do not see how I can be any clearer. "We do not need two articles on the transgender topic in general. The Transsexual article is supposed to be about being transsexual specifically. And we know that enough transgender people consider themselves transsexual, with some dissociating themselves from the larger transgender community." No to a [[WP:REDUNDANTFORK]]. When it comes to the Transgender and Transsexual articles, a case can be made that if any of the two should be titled "Transsexuality"...then it's the Transgender article. But I wouldn't support changing the title of that article either. If the Transgender article was about the term ''transgender'', then your case for renaming this one would be strong. This one would then be the one about the transgender topic in general. But it's not. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 04:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)     
*:::::I have no idea where this OTHERSTUFF argument is coming from. I cited [[WP:NOUN]], which is part of [[WP:TITLE|article titling policy]], as a justification for renaming ''this article specifically''. If we're saying that policy arguments are just OTHERSTUFF, then I guess we can get rid of [[WP:PG|policies and guidelines]] altogether. And the notion that "we usually do not do things just because [other encyclopedias] have done it" nullifies both [[WP:TERTIARY]] and much of the logic behind [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. We use other encyclopedias (especially academic ones) as a guide all the time. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 05:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::You don't get it. Understood. For example, using other encyclopedias as sources in our articles is obviously not the same thing as copying what they do. And tertiary sources obviously aren't the strongest sources. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 06:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Per [[WP:TERTIARY]]: ''"Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight"''. If you want to argue that ''Britannica'' is not a reliable teriary source, fine, but there's nothing in the policy that justifies ''not'' using tertiary sources as a model. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 06:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::Doesn't take away from what I argued. Neither does you, as usual, putting words in my mouth. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 06:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::Not what I meant at all. To be clear, one ''could'' potentially make a case that ''Britannica'' itself is not the strongest source. ''If'' that's what you're arguing, fine. If not, then I don't see anything in the policy that specifically ''discourages'' using published encyclopedias as a model; quite the contrary. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 06:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::What is "quite the contrary"? [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 06:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::[[WP:TERTIARY|"Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics ... and may be helpful in evaluating due weight"]]. We can use tertiary sources as a basis for constructing articles, and by extension, naming articles. [[WP:WEIGHT|Due weight]], as a component of NPOV, applies to [[WP:POVTITLE|article titles]] as well. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 07:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You don't need to quote WP:TERTIARY to me. You don't need to quote any policy or guideline to me. But you already know that. I've stated it to you enough times. You argued "quite the contrary", as if Wikipedia is in the habit of copying what other encyclopedias do. It's not. I asked "What is 'quite the contrary'?" for examples. I know <del>what I'll be getting any</del> I won't be getting any. Again, using encyclopedias in our Wikipedia articles is not the same thing as copying what they do. Our [[WP:Manual of Style]], as discussed on that guideline's talk page times before, even makes a point of not doing what other outlets do for a number of things. But, hey, you do you. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 07:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::[[WP:TITLE]] says {{tq|Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used}} and {{tq|it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias...}} [[User:WanderingWanda|WanderingWanda]] ([[User talk:WanderingWanda|talk]]) 07:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)  
:::::::::::::::Essentially repeating what Sangdeboeuf stated, and like I don't know everything that WP:TITLE states. Yeaaah, that's helpful. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 07:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)  
::::::::::::::::Actually, the part of [[WP:COMMONNAME]] that WanderingWanda quoted is an even stronger endorsement of using sources like ''Britannica'' than what I said, and directly ''contradicts'' the notion that "we usually do not do things just because [other encyclopedias] have done it". —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 07:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Doesn't contradict my statement that "we usually do not do things just because [other encyclopedias] have done it" whatsoever. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 07:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
*::: "Being transsexual specifically" is exactly what ''transsexuality'' means, not "the transgender topic in general": [[Special:Permalink/989993774#Transsexual and its relationship to transgender|"''{{strong|transsexual}}'' has generally been used to refer to the {{strong|subset of transgender people}} who desire to transition permanently to the gender with which they identify ... {{strong|transsexuality}} may be said to deal more with {{strong|physical aspects of one's sex}}, while transgender considerations deal more with one's psychological gender disposition or predisposition"]] (my bolding). —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 03:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
*::::If you are going to argue that the term ''transgender'' -- a well-accepted umbrella term -- is demeaning and offensive, then you should provide reliable sources, especially reliable academic sources, backing you up on that. Since you want to mention ''Britannica'' as support of what we should do here at Wikipedia, I note now that [https://www.britannica.com/topic/transgender it also] has a Transgender article. Well, it's titled "Transgender (gender identity)" when viewed from the outside of the article. But it's still there -- "transgender" right in the title. The difference is that Wikipedia would not disambiguate like that since [[WP:Primary topic]] exists and all. You argued, "'Being transsexual specifically' is exactly what ''transsexuality'' means, not 'the transgender topic in general'." I don't feel like sitting here and listing sources that clearly show that ''transsexuality'' doesn't only refer to those who have undergone hormone <del>replacement</del> therapy and/or surgery. By contrast, ''transsexual'' does. The reason that the Causes of transsexuality article has "transsexuality" in the title is because [[Talk:Causes_of_transsexuality/Archive 1#Requested move 4 June 2016|there was an objection to the term "transsexualism."]] [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 04:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)  
*:::::I am not arguing that ''transgender'' is offensive; your own ''Dictionary.com'' source does that: [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/transgender ''"noun: 3: {{strong|Usually Offensive}}. a person who is transgender"'']. Regarding the need to have undergone hormone therapy/surgery, your own source for the definition of ''transsexual'' belies this: [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/transsexual ''"1. a person having a {{strong|strong desire}} to assume the physical characteristics and gender role of a different sex"''] (my bolding). Basic English grammar (i.e. the use of the suffix '' [[wikt:-ity#Suffix|-ity]]'') means that ''transsexuality'' is the state of being ''transsexual''. I won't hold my breath waiting for sources saying ''transsexuality'' means something entirely different, because I'm pretty sure they don't exist. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 05:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::You are the one who stated that you are considering moving the Transgender article "to a less outdated or demeaning term." And what term would that be? Hmm? You are the one who pointed to ''Britannica'' as support of what we should do here at Wikipedia. I pointed it back at you, showing that it also uses the Transgender article title. Regarding not holding your breath when it comes to me providing sources? Many editors know that I don't state anything about the literature on whatever unless it's true. As seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transvestism&oldid=875713949#Transvestite_as_an_outdated_and_derogatory_term here] at [[Talk:Transvestism]], I'm known to provide a collapsed box of sources to support my arguments. But you aren't going to goad me into doing that at this talk page. My previous interactions with you on transgender topics have already made it clear to me that there are a lot of things you aren't aware exist in this field. I mean, not looking beyond dictionary sources when it comes to what ''transsexuality'' can refer to? Citing passages from this Wikipedia article? I usually don't have to request sources on this topic. I know what I'm talking about. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 06:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
::::::::I don't know what you're driving at here; I didn't mention the {{xt|[[Transgender]]}} article until you yourself brought it up. I replied that I would apply the same reasoning to that page as to this one. But I really don't care at this moment what we do with that article. I cited four academic sources plus ''Britannica'' on what ''transsexuality'' refers to. The dictionary sources are the same ones you and Crossroads used to justify your own arguments. I countered this by showing that they say the opposite of what was being claimed. If the section on {{xt|[[Special:Permalink/989993774#Transsexual and its relationship to transgender|Transsexual and its relationship to transgender]]}} that I cited is in error, feel free to correct it. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 06:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::Uh-huh. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 06:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't know why you think that the section you've referred to using the words "generally", "may be said to deal more with physical aspects of one's sex", and "transgender considerations deal more with one's psychological gender disposition or predisposition" translates to "''transsexuality'' has only ever referred to physical alterations." But whatever. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 06:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC) 
::::::::::Not surprising, since I never made that claim. Being ''transsexual'' does not always mean physically altering one's body. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 07:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::Never explicitly made the claim, but have been stating it nonetheless with comments noting that you doubt it means anything other than the physical aspects of one's sex (hormones and surgery) and what you cited regarding what  ''transsexuality'' refers to. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 07:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC) 
::::::::::::Nope, never said that. Now who's {{diff2|990393757|putting words in whose mouth}}? —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 07:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The receipts are above. If you felt that the term meant anything else, you would not have argued what you argued, including regarding me providing sources that I can very well provide. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 07:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::So we've gone from putting words in others' mouths to simple mind-reading? I feel fairly sure that if I made a remark like ''"If you felt X, you would not have argued Y"'', it would be called condescending and [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]]. And rightly so. Very amusing, I must admit. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 08:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::So we're to play dumb then? Okay. And as for condescending, we both know that I can point to all the times you've condescended to me and I told you to stop (including on your talk page). And putting words in others' mouths is your game. My "07:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)" post is not something that I consider condescending. But you are clearly free to view it how you want to. And, no, I would not point to WP:Civil. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 08:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)  
::::::::::::::::Now we are definitely approaching incivility, not to mention [[WP:ABF]] and [[WP:GRUDGE]] territory. Regarding sources, the first source I cited, [https://www.britannica.com/topic/transsexualism ''Britannica''], says, ''"Transsexuality {{nowrap|[is a] variant}} of gender identity in which the affected person believes that he or she should belong to the opposite sex."'' Nowhere does it state that ''transsexuality'' "only ever refer[s] to physical alterations", hormones, or surgery. So I really have no idea what this line of argument is driving at. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 08:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Your "Now we are definitely approaching incivility, not to mention [[WP:ABF]] and [[WP:GRUDGE]] territory." commentary is laughable. You are one to talk. Pot Meet Kettle. And since I stated "we're to play dumb then", I guess I'm being uncivil to myself as well. You can keep playing. But, like I noted, the receipts are above for everyone to see. Everyone can see you stating that you "won't hold [your] breath waiting for sources saying ''transsexuality'' means something entirely different, because [you're] pretty sure they don't exist." And if you think stating "entirely different" is supposed to be some out for you, it's not. I was very clearly stating that transsexuality does not only refer to the physical, and can refer to being transgender in general (namely social aspects of being trans), while you kept quoting things about the physical and insisting that this is all it's about. The wording "gender identity in which the affected person believes that he or she should belong to the opposite sex" is what the topic of [[transgender]] in general means. Well, except for when cisgender cross-dressers and cisgender drag queens are counted, and when considering what type of non-binary person someone happens to be. Being transgender is usually about a person having a gender identity that does not match their assigned sex (and gender)/that person identifying as the sex (and gender) they feel that they are. And now you want us to believe you were arguing otherwise with regard to your view of what transsexuality can mean? No. One of my points has been that Wikipedia does not need two articles about "gender identity in which the affected person believes that he or she should belong to the opposite sex."  ''Transsexual'' is a subset of ''transgender'' (as made clear in both the Transgender and Transsexual articles). We present it as being about the physical (primarily anyway). But when one uses the term ''transsexuality'', it's a little looser than just stating "transsexual." [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 23:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)     
*::::Less outdated or demeaning term? And what would that be? If the point is that is what is being done here, I see no evidence that "transsexuality" is better than "transsexual". <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 03:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
*:::::I would prefer to stay on the topic of ''this'' article, but the [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/transgender definition of ''transgender''] that has already been given should indicate that it's inappropriate to use in noun form. See also [https://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender "GLAAD Media Reference Guide – Transgender"]: ''"Transgender should be used as an adjective, not as a noun"''. {{xt|[[Transgender identity]]}} ([https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22transgender+identity%22+-wikipedia Books] • [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22transgender+identity%22 Scholar]) might be a good option. Using the adjective form for either article title is confusing in that it goes against our standard practice of using [[WP:NOUN|nouns or noun phrases]]. The fact that ''transsexuality'' is unambiguously a noun (as in {{xt|[[Causes of transsexuality]]}}) should be all the "evidence" we need that it's a better title for this article. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 08:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Flyer22 Frozen covered it well. The proposer's comparison to the term "blacks" has nothing to do with this situation, and the claim of "outdated" has to do with how "transgender" is the common umbrella term nowadays; in no way is "transsexuality" to be preferred on that basis. [[WP:JARGON]] weighs ''against'' "transsexuality", as readers will tend far more to think it has to do with [[sexuality]]. "Transsexual" is a noun; see [https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/transsexual Lexico] and the [https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/transsexual Oxford Learners' Dictionary]. There are plenty of sources that use "transsexual" too. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=transsexual&btnG=] <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 03:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
*: The top results of that [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=transsexual&btnG= Google Scholar search] all use ''transsexual'' as an adjective, not a noun. According to both your dictionary sources, ''transsexual'' as a noun refers to a person, not a generalized medical phenomenon; on that basis [[Special:Permalink/990381393|the lead sentence]] should read, ''"'''Transsexuals''' are people who experience a gender identity that is inconsistent with their assigned sex"'', which seems both outdated and unduly personalized. The article is about the broader phenomenon of transsexuality or state of being transsexual, not transsexuals as a group of people. The ''[[BBC News Style Guide]]'' cautions against such usage, even comparing it to the term ''blacks'': ''"Use ['transsexual'] as an adjective - do not say 'transsexuals', in the same way we would not talk about 'gays' or 'blacks{{' "}}'' [https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/g]. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 04:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per above arguments.--[[User:Ortizesp|Ortizesp]] ([[User talk:Ortizesp|talk]]) 05:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per above arguments. --[[User:John B123|John B123]] ([[User talk:John B123|talk]]) 07:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)