Talk:Transphobia
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 21 August 2014, Transphobia was linked from The Hill (newspaper), a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2020, between 24 August 2020 and 2 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Undeemiss. Peer reviewers: Juliahonda, Myusername101, Jlomax1, Marroyo7, Ezia9.
Paragraph 2, section "Origins".
Within this section numerous claims made by the original author of these sections lack any direct citation, remain vague, and written with unsusicnt structuring, ultimately deviating from actually discussing transphobic, instead presenting an uncited and misattributed justification of transphobia.
The following is the extent of the content of the article I criticise within this post.
"Other transgender rights authors argue that a significant part of the oppositional sexist origin of transphobia and violence towards transsexual people is linked to psychological claims of difference between male sexuality and female sexuality in the brain's protection mechanisms from committing sex crimes. These authors argue that the paradigm of acceptable sexual behavior that assumes men's sexual arousal is category-specific and women's sex drive is lower and more inhibited causes allegations that transsexual people have neither safety system in the brain and are therefore sex criminals. They argue that studies that claim to show such sex differences have flaws, such as the possibility that more men are deterred from participating in sexual arousal studies than women due to fear of being alleged to be inappropriately sexually aroused.[20][21][clarification needed]"
I read through the available sources, 20 and 21 yet found no major content in this literature that these claims could have been derived from. The sources remain unsupportive of this claim and have been missatributed so. Hence, the citations provided reference literature that provides nothing of support or evidence in favour of the claims.
Number 20 is an anthology of 16 essays from 17 authors of including the foreword by Desmond Tutu. Any of which could, and should have been mentioned if any of the content of these articles was actually relevant to this claim. Yet, the information remains absent.
Number 21 also fails to contain any supporting information. It has also been cited poorly. The publication date is 2013, not 2017 (https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/233).
The wording and structuring fails to be descriptive of these points within the context of people who progenit an evidential basis or narrative root for transphobia. There needs to be a linkage provided to maintain relevance to this article instead of parroting a justification of transphobic rhetoric from unsupportive or indistinct sources. It fails to mention the primary sources of narrative and rhetoric instead parroting a basal description of a theory without vital citations to do so. As aforementioned this should not be contained within this article as it is a deviation from the topic at hand. This topic should be deligated to its own article with appropriate citations and subsequently referenced back within this section.
The article mentions authors indistinctly when in this context direct names, origns of the publication website, or social media, and the author said this must be stated.
Due to 1, missatirbution of references 2, a, lack of quotation, b, the lack of citation, 3, the poor structuring and presentation, 4, deviation from relevance to documenting and descrobing transphobia, I request the quoted text to be temporarily/indefinitely omitted from this article until appropriate sources are found, and editorial revisions made. 2.123.50.246 (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Anti vs Phobia
Why is the article basically describing the definition of anti for a phobia? 2405:6E00:2229:7BB:112A:78DC:C83D:41C4 (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's a short section, Transphobia#Etymology and use, that addresses this question. While there are arguments pro and con as to why "transphobia" should or should not be the word to describe the phenomenon that it describes, this article respects that "transphobia" is in fact the word that is most commonly used. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)