Talk:Trans man
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be bloc
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trans man article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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)
- Hi all. The opening sentence currently reads as "Transgender men (often shortened to trans men) are men who were assigned male at birth." But why are they transgender; all men will be assigned males at birth. Thus the original assertion appears right [This should read "A trans man is a person who was assigned female at birth, but who identifies as male." ]. This becomes clearer, when we read a corresponding entry on Trans woman [Transgender women (often shortened to trans women) are women who were assigned male at birth. ].Neotaruntius (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, Neotaruntius, and welcome to Wikipedia. This thread you are replying to is old, and in any case, some editors have found the opening comment offensive, and deleted the whole thread. I've restored it for now, but I don't really disagree with the editor who originally deleted it; also, it was moribund before you jumped in. It might be best to take this up in a new thread if you still have comments to make about it. Before you do, please have a look at the rest of this page, and then look at the box at the top that has Archives listed in it, and browse the discussions there. A lot of your questions are probably answered in previous discussions. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks sir. It is somewhat easier for me to understand the issue now, since I can see the talk. Initially I did think of starting a new thread, and as you say, I did have a look at the rest of the page. I did not want to commit an inadvertent mistake, as I am so new. And I did find the very same query asked about a year ago. I was a bit surprised that there was no response to the original suggestion by EmeraldGander1999. My query was exactly the same, so I thought starting a new thread for the "very same question" might be seen as disruptive. Now I vaguely understand that this issue is quite sensitive, and I would avoid asking any further questions - especially since I know/conceive this subject subject purely as a layman. What indeed surprises me that my suggestion has actually been carried out. Neotaruntius (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, Neotaruntius, yes, the way you thought about whether or not to start a new thread for essentially the same question is just about how I would have considered the question, also. There is no right or wrong here, and just the fact that you thought about it makes me think you will be a good editor here. Don't worry about making mistakes; that is how we all learn. The fact that you are aware that it is a [very] sensitive topic is an excellent start. By the way, your suggestion wasn't exactly carried out—it was a coincidence of timing that made it seem like a long-planned change by a third party editor which happened to come right after your suggestion was in response to your suggestion; it was not. Had he been a faster typer, it might have come out just before your comment, but it didn't turn out that way.
- Your instincts about the sensitivity of the topic are good, and I would tread very lightly around this whole topic, until you have read a bit, and gotten your bearings. You could start with articles like Sex and gender distinction, Gender identity, Gender role, Trans woman, and Transgender, and perhaps Intersex. Browse the Talk pages and the Archives on some of them, to get an idea of what the points of debate have been (and still are). Once you get through those articles and have browsed some of the discussions, you will be much better prepared to make suggestions on how to improve them. One last ting: no need to call me 'sir'—just 'Mathglot' is good enough.
Mathglot (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Mathglot. I am truly "floored" by your kind words "just the fact that you thought about it makes me think you will be a good editor here," especially since I am aware you are a pro with almost 90,000 edits [I am not sure, if I read that right; appears so surreal to me, especially since I am at a measly 250]. Thanks again Mathglot, you are a true teacher, and I hope to keep learning from you. You are so kind too. Spending time with a newbie might not be the best way to spend time for a professional like you. Thanks again. Neotaruntius (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- You are very welcome, and I look forward to seeing and hearing more from you as you gain experience and develop as an editor here. In the meantime, best of luck, and feel free to contact me on my Talk page any time. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Mathglot. You are too generous. I will definitely do that. Neotaruntius (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- You are very welcome, and I look forward to seeing and hearing more from you as you gain experience and develop as an editor here. In the meantime, best of luck, and feel free to contact me on my Talk page any time. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Mathglot. I am truly "floored" by your kind words "just the fact that you thought about it makes me think you will be a good editor here," especially since I am aware you are a pro with almost 90,000 edits [I am not sure, if I read that right; appears so surreal to me, especially since I am at a measly 250]. Thanks again Mathglot, you are a true teacher, and I hope to keep learning from you. You are so kind too. Spending time with a newbie might not be the best way to spend time for a professional like you. Thanks again. Neotaruntius (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks sir. It is somewhat easier for me to understand the issue now, since I can see the talk. Initially I did think of starting a new thread, and as you say, I did have a look at the rest of the page. I did not want to commit an inadvertent mistake, as I am so new. And I did find the very same query asked about a year ago. I was a bit surprised that there was no response to the original suggestion by EmeraldGander1999. My query was exactly the same, so I thought starting a new thread for the "very same question" might be seen as disruptive. Now I vaguely understand that this issue is quite sensitive, and I would avoid asking any further questions - especially since I know/conceive this subject subject purely as a layman. What indeed surprises me that my suggestion has actually been carried out. Neotaruntius (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, Neotaruntius, and welcome to Wikipedia. This thread you are replying to is old, and in any case, some editors have found the opening comment offensive, and deleted the whole thread. I've restored it for now, but I don't really disagree with the editor who originally deleted it; also, it was moribund before you jumped in. It might be best to take this up in a new thread if you still have comments to make about it. Before you do, please have a look at the rest of this page, and then look at the box at the top that has Archives listed in it, and browse the discussions there. A lot of your questions are probably answered in previous discussions. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Split out sports section
The Sports section of this article basically just consists of a list of trans men who have competed in sports. Ideally, it would contain broad analysis of the topic of trans men in sports. I've been trying to find good sources that talk about this topic, but having perused around, I don't think there is enough written on this topic to make a good section. Therefore, I'm proposing we remove this section, and create a "List of trans men athletes" article. —Of the universe (say hello) 12:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Edit request
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- What I think should be changed:
(in the Mental Health subsection under Health)
| − | 44.9% of American trans men have attempted suicide during their lifetime. Among all trans Americans studied, those whose families | + | 44.9% of American trans men have attempted suicide during their lifetime. Among all trans Americans studied, those whose families do not support them, those who have experienced conversion therapy, those who report experiencing transphobic discrimination, those who have experienced physical or sexual violence, and those who have experienced intimate partner violence were more likely to have attempted suicide. |
- Why it should be changed: MOS:N'T
- References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): n/a
3005 talk/contribs 19:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
References
Duplicate image
The current image is a duplicate of the one on Brian Michael Smith. IWannaBeSedated24 (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- It's actually the same image file being used on both articles. It's not the same image uploaded twice. The image is appropriate for both articles so this is fine. It's perfectly normal for one image to be used in many places. This image is actually used on five different articles. That's not a problem. It's not like anybody is spamming it in places where it isn't relevant. DanielRigal (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- The same image can be used on multiple articles, especially as examples or visual reference for what the text is saying. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 23:22, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Hidden.
The proposed definition is now hidden. ~2026-42690-33 (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- You didn't propose a coherent definition. You just came here to try to argue that you didn't like the correct and well sourced definition in the article. That is off-topic per WP:FORUM so the comment was removed. I am not sure if it was intended to be offensive but it was not actionable. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- It was coherent, definition may be a stretch. The opening definition of a "trans man" has no works cited... meaning it is opinion. Opinion can be argued. You're so afraid that you flagged my talk post citing photo duplicate. ~2026-42690-33 (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- Wrong on both accounts. First up, we generally don't have sources in the lead section because the sourcing goes in the body and there shouldn't be anything in the lead section that is not in the body and sourced there. See WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. I have absolutely no idea what you mean about "photo duplicate". I just went back to check that I didn't accidentally give you the wrong warning template but I didn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- Anon is correct that we probably should have at least one citation for this perennially controversial sentence. I have cited the Merriam-Webster definition of trans man to match trans woman. There are plenty to choose from at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions. Anon, it may be worthwhile to read that page to get an idea of how sources tend to define these terms. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 02:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- Your definition of Trans man does not match the cited merriment Webster definition... it reads " a transgender man : a man who was identified as female at birth"
- Very deceitful... where is the integrity of wiki here? ~2026-42690-33 (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- So is all this noise just that you think that it should say "identified" rather than "assigned"? That's the hair you are trying to split? This is a distinction without a difference. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think it should say that, it's defined that from merriam Webster. Correct your works cited or remove it. I'm not a fan of deliberate misinformation. It would ruin this platform if that happened once per page. ~2026-42690-33 (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- So you won't like it either way but you want to kvetch about it anyway? Please stop wasting our time. You wanted a source on it. You got that. Please take the W and move on. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- Its the wrong source. That definition does not match the cited source. ~2026-42690-33 (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- The cited source, Merriam-Webster, reads:
a transgender man : a man who was identified as female at birth
. If you click on assigned female at birth in the lead of the Trans man article, you'll land on sex assignment, which reads:Sex assignment refers to the identification of an infant's sex at birth
. Everything matches, now please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Funcrunch (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- The cited source, Merriam-Webster, reads:
- Its the wrong source. That definition does not match the cited source. ~2026-42690-33 (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- So you won't like it either way but you want to kvetch about it anyway? Please stop wasting our time. You wanted a source on it. You got that. Please take the W and move on. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think it should say that, it's defined that from merriam Webster. Correct your works cited or remove it. I'm not a fan of deliberate misinformation. It would ruin this platform if that happened once per page. ~2026-42690-33 (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- So is all this noise just that you think that it should say "identified" rather than "assigned"? That's the hair you are trying to split? This is a distinction without a difference. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- Anon is correct that we probably should have at least one citation for this perennially controversial sentence. I have cited the Merriam-Webster definition of trans man to match trans woman. There are plenty to choose from at Talk:Trans woman/Definitions. Anon, it may be worthwhile to read that page to get an idea of how sources tend to define these terms. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 02:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- Wrong on both accounts. First up, we generally don't have sources in the lead section because the sourcing goes in the body and there shouldn't be anything in the lead section that is not in the body and sourced there. See WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. I have absolutely no idea what you mean about "photo duplicate". I just went back to check that I didn't accidentally give you the wrong warning template but I didn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- It was coherent, definition may be a stretch. The opening definition of a "trans man" has no works cited... meaning it is opinion. Opinion can be argued. You're so afraid that you flagged my talk post citing photo duplicate. ~2026-42690-33 (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.