Talk:Trans man

Political bias and inconsistency resulting in a contradiction

A statement saying that "A trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth" is a clear ideologically left-leaning point of view and not an objective definition. The issue obviously revolves around the part "is a man". When we follow the link, it says that "A man is an adult male human" and then when we track "male" we get the statement that it "is the sex of an organism that produces the gamete (sex cell) known as sperm". This is a contradiction since, in general, a trans man does not produce sperm.

I suggest a very simple solution to the above, one that will be neither biased nor contradictory: "A trans man is a person who was assigned female at birth, but identifies as a man". reggie 7 (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not see any obvious issue here. The opening sentence is correct, and is both consistent with the trans woman article, and also supported by the great many reliable sources on this topic.

There is no contradiction as the production of sperm is not the sole defining feature of a man. Otherwise for example, any man who has an orchiectomy or is taking certain medication that inhibits the production of sperm would no longer be a man. There are many ways to define a man beyond the simple dictionary definition. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

As a complete layperson, I did get confused reading this, and it still reads as contradictory to the second part of the sentence. It feels like it would only make sense if you added that part about extending the definition of the word 'man'.

Not sure what's wrong with the idea of changing 'man' to 'person' here (for both this article and in the trans woman article. 90.116.39.89 (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey, so heads up if anyone is easily "triggered", that is not the intention, but I wanted to chime in because the sentence itself is giving me a headache and it's not because of transphobic intention or culture - I exist in an extremely open-minded place and time and see not the slightest harm in supporting trans rights and culture and I intend to continue to do so throughout my natural life.

The current "An x is a y who was assigned z at birth" semantics first of all prohibits a rare but not impossible born-of-nondeterministic-sex-assignment person from being INCLUDED in the present definition.... I would concur with reggie_7's remarks and I would add that there appears to be an attempt at almost "forcing" the "being a man" vs. "identifying as a man" semantics going on here. Are there any articles focussing specifically on the theory behind the perhaps somewhat recent shift to the "being" vs "identifying as" semantics that is agnostic of the gender identities involved so I can go read it?

Sideswipe9th, what is the motivation to "not see any obvious issue here"? There is an issue. If a trans man is any "man" assigned female at birth, and a "man" is not going to be redefined in terms of whatever trans-isn't-actually-trans-it's-just-the-thing-it-wants-to-be-and-therefore-is-without-acknowledgement-of-why theory is going on here, then a trans man is a man only by a nonstandard and unwritten definition of "man". Furthermore, "a trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth" absolves us of responsibility to define or know or clarify how one would go about "qualifying" as a trans man. If there are "meant" to be essentially "no qualifications required other than self-identifying as a man"..... then we had best actually say so, no? Or does a trans man need to be a certain kind of man? Do they need to be a man for purposes of public life, i.e. "out"? In my opinion, this language is going to cause more harm than it alleviates. It actually just glosses over the enormous complexity of all of the potential states of people existing in the multitude of in-between areas. Until relatively recently the opening sentence would not have been considered coherent English.

Here's another proposal: "a trans man is a man [link to page for man the social concept] who was not assigned *male* at birth and *who may not be a male* [link to species-agnostic biological male article]".

The "production of sperm" discussion is obviously an unintelligent argument.... we generally have no issues agreeing in society than man-ness and male-ness are separate concepts which when used to examine "traditional gender identities" have a lot of overlap and when used to examine gay-ness or trans-ness do not necessarily have as much overlap. 24.77.65.169 (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Which reliable sources are you referring to? Oxford English Dictionary defines trans man as "A female-to-male transgender or transsexual person" —Of the universe (say hello) 12:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the list of sources on the trans woman talk page. —Of the universe (say hello) 12:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything political about the original statement. It's fine. This doesn't really need to be a discussion. Jbisdavis (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Some people are born with one leg, but that does not make us a uniped species. If it's an arbitrary "assignment", is it only biological females who can be assigned female at birthFaronnorth (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• In the proposed change, "but" is being used as a weasel word. The existing presentation shows that the same information can be provided without adding that value judgement, and it follows the POV of reliable sources. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Suggest we remove sexuality from the lead

Why is this in the lead?

Although the literature indicates that most trans men identify as heterosexual (meaning they are sexually attracted to women), trans men, like cisgender men, can have any sexual orientation or sexual identity, and some trans men might consider conventional sexual orientation labels inadequate or inapplicable to them, in which case they may elect to use labels like queer.

Per MOS:Lead, "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic."

I propose we remove sexuality from the lead, OR if sexuality really is very important to the topic, we edit the article to add a prevalent sexuality section, OR we expand the lead to actually summarize all the key points of the article.

Thoughts? I don't want to make major changes to the lead without consensus. Thanks, Of the universe (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It is currently half of the whole introduction, which seems excessive. I am not sure whether it should be removed entirely or reduced to a single sentence. It isn't mentioned at all in the introduction to Trans woman so maybe that suggests that it is unnecessary here? It is easy enough for anybody interested to find this information in the body of the article. I guess it could be split out into its own section but I don't think that is absolutely necessary. It might make sense to expand the introduction a little with other matters that are more fundamental to the topic. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal I would support reducing it to a single line. Of the universe (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Me too. I think the current length would be excessive even in a fully fleshed-out lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

How about:

"The majority of trans men are heterosexual (meaning they are attracted to women), but many are gay or bisexual, or they may identify as queer."

Of the universe (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and edit, given there's no objections, and two approvals of reducing the length. Of the universe (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that mention of sexuality should be removed from the lead. None of the articles for Man, Woman, or Trans woman mention frequency of various sexual identities in the article leads. This information in the lead feels superfluous.

Additionally (and this may need to become it's own section in the talk page), I'm not sure that this information is even accurate or well-sourced. For example, the 2015 US Transgender Survey lists 23% of trans men as straight, 24% as queer, 17% as pan, 12% as gay, 12% as bi, and 7% as ace (page 59). Initial data from the 2022 US Transgender Survey is being released in a few weeks and it might be worth it to revisit discussion on the accuracy of the statement then, but I still think we can remove it now from the lead given its irrelevance. SpeechBudget (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I would support removing it entirely. —Of the universe (say hello) 12:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Zanahary (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Pepe Julian Onziema to side photos or page

I know Pepe Julian Onziema from the 2012 internet meme, but he's a prominent figure in the trans community and often put his life and freedom on the line to fight for trans rights in his country. I'm new to editing articles, so maybe someone more knowledgeable can do it. Dymardo (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Onziema is a brave man with a good cause but is not that significant to transgender history. There is no free image of him available either. Dronebogus (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Definition Error

The opening sentence contradicts what a man is, according to this site and how biology defines a man: "A trans man (short for transgender man) is a man who was assigned female at birth." This should read "A trans man is a person who was assigned female at birth, but who identifies as male." This will clear it up. EmeraldGander1999 (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Why "but"? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

“Queer-identified women”

I suggest someone with the authority to do so should change this to “queer women” where it occurs. “Queer-identified” suggests that a secondary observer has identified them as queer, or is speculating as to the nature of their gender or sexuality, when this is not the case. 38.15.59.123 (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I'm pretty sure that the person who wrote it intended it to mean self-identified but I agree that saying "identified" is unnecessary, and possibly open to misinterpretation, so I have taken it out. I think that the paragraph is still a little bit clunky, and could do with some further work, but I think this is an improvement. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)