Talk:Discrimination against transgender men

Bias

This article provides substantially uncritical coverage to the use of "transandrophobia" as a term. This has mostly sprung up online and including it blindly ignores any transfeminist analyisis or criticism of it. ConnieC420 (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you point to any transfeminist criticism or analysis of the term in secondary sources?

Nominating the article for deletion on what appears to be this issue is spurious and unnecessary. If you are aware of any valid sources, by all means include them to improve the article if you feel it is necessary. Otherwise we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater over a single term used in the article. Fwltur Gwydr (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

It states that transandrophobia is a term used to describe discrimination of transgender men. That isn't bias, because people do use this word so it is factually correct. This word does not appear elsewhere in the article other than that context. The article is not saying "transandrophobia is a great word and everyone should use it".

If you want there to be criticism then you should do as Fwltur Gwydr said and find referenced secondary sources that critique it. ~2026-31764-59 (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The term isn’t typically criticized by transfeminists nearly as much as it is by TERFs. ~2026-35934-38 (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

ok, then use less biased language. wikipedia is editable for a reason, if you see bias and you think it's fixable then fix it, replace the words, whatever. refer to the first talk subject if this is the only issue you have Jan-pi-suli-ala (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

The situation with the user who started this thread was resolved in May, there's not much need to continue it any further Fwltur Gwydr (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Redundant mention of Robert Eads

I noticed that Robert Eads is already mentioned in the "in healthcare" section of the article on Transphobia. Without a notable source which separates the topic at hand from the overall topic of transphobia in relation to his story, it doesn't add any value to duplicate the information in this article. Forivall (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Discrimination against trans men is a subset of discrimination against trans people as a whole, so it makes sense why it would be there. Articles can duplicate certain sections if relevant to the article, which this certainly is.

I’m not exactly sure how the sources fit into this, because I don’t work with sources. I would think that it is relevant to include, though… 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Irreversible Damage

I'm surprised the book Irreversible Damage isn't mentioned in this article? I don't feel confident writing a section myself, as I don't own it and frankly don't think I could read it with a clear head as this is a topic I am deeply passionate for, but it is one of the most notable and impactful transphobic pieces of literature specifically targeting trans masculine people. It pushed the myth that trans men are confused girls into the mainstream afaik. Anyone who has actually read it have any comment on this? Gordonthefreedman (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

i second this, it's probably the most quoted book on any form of transphobia, and the subtitle is directly about trans boys. if it had any place to be noted about aside from its own page, it's here Jan-pi-suli-ala (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gordonthefreedman @Jan-pi-suli-ala if I remember correctly either I or another editor did include Irreversible Damage at one point, but for one reason or another it was edited out over time. I agree though the book is highly relevant to the subject matter of the article. Fwltur Gwydr (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Fwltur Gwydr Oh, sucks it was edited out. Glad folks agree with me on this though. Gordonthefreedman (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Reiterating content from other articles, issues with general structure

A good chunk of this article feels entirely unnecessary. The article is about discrimination against trans men, so why reiterate issues face by all trans people? Sexual violence, misgendering, discrimination in lesbian communities, radical feminism, medical marginalisation, and mental health risks (including suicide) are already documented in Transphobia, and lack of visibility/erasure of transgender individuals has a section in Queer erasure and a dedicated article in the form of Cisnormativity.

Transmisogyny sets a precedent (as this article's senior) of only actually talking about issues directly affecting trans women such as trans women being the victims of the majority of trans hate crimes or the idea autogynephilia predominantly targeting trans women. This article also spends roughly a third (by my eye) of its length discussing four individual examples, yet lacks a section on the the origins (as in the transphobia article) or framework (as in the transmisogyny article) of the concept.

In short, this article spends the majority of its length talking about issues already extensively discussed on other pages, and fails to actually define itself. I'm mostly adding this topic because a deletion nomination (which I personally see as justified) would be bad faith. AutisticIris (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, misandry in general is not a real societal force (see the third paragraph of Misandry), so sections that state trans men are oppressed for their gender (being men) as well as their transness are inconsistent with the general consensus on Wikipedia. AutisticIris (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, trans men are men, but this article is about discrimination against trans men specifically; it's not equivalent to purported discrimination against cis men. Funcrunch (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I am aware trans men are discriminated against, but they are discriminated against for being transgender, not for being men.

The "in relation to racism" section states "Trans men and transmasculine people of colour face a unique discrimination as a result of their race, gender and transgender status intersecting.", however transgender men are not oppressed for their gender, as they are men, who (both within the framework of intersectionality and general society) are not oppressed. AutisticIris (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other. This article is about trans men being discriminated against for their status as trans men specifically. Not just trans, and not just men, but the combination of the two. If there are insufficient citations for this discrimination, that's worth discussing, but we need to agree on what we're talking about first. Funcrunch (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, a large part of my argument is that discrimination described within the article is only related to their transness, rather than status as men. I do not have the time presently, but tomorrow I'll read over the citations more in depth.

I also appreciate your patience. AutisticIris (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

the transmisogyny article discusses issues that are Disproportionately faced by trans women- but are not exclusively faced by them. why should this article not discuss things disproportionatley faced by trans men? and, could you point to specific instances? like, can we go through piece by piece the things you have issue with including, and see if we can reach Wikipedia:Consensus on how they should be handled? like- i see you have problems with the article, but i fear that general widespread criticism is unlikely to get any change done besides arguing. instead, i think a much more productive way to end up somewhere everyone is happy with is if you create a list of proposed changes, with sources, which can be discussed point by point to find an end point everyone is happy with Jackjd0 (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

In spite of me claiming I do not presently have time in a separate, insomnia has gifted me time. You are correct in that the transmisogyny article not about issues exclusive to trans women, and that is poor phrasing on my part, however my original point that the majority of issues discussed here do not disproportionately affect trans men (in relation to transgender women and non-binary people) still applies. I listed them in the post.

To go more in depth, the "sexual violence" category first cites the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (citation 10), however within the sexual assault, in it 51% of trans men reported being sexually assaulted at least once in their life, however 44% of trans woman also did, and non-binary people saw an overall rate of 55%. The survey also gives charts for lifetime sexual assault by race/ethnicity, but only for trans men and "non-binary people with female on their original birth certificate", which could be seen as an indicator of transmisogyny and a counterargument to the concept of transmasculine invisibility. I would also contend that a 7% difference is not "disproportionate".

The article then claims that "In 2023, the ARC Readiness Assessment of providers in New Zealand found that only 29% of those surveyed knew of safe sexual assault recovery or family violence services to refer trans men to, whereas 37% knew safe sources for trans women and 44% knew safe sources for non-binary people." I would personally argue that a difference of 8% between trans men and trans women is not "disproportionate", but will concede to that being somewhat subjective.

While it is correct that in the 'Counting Ourselves' survey (citation 12) 33% of trans men were made to have sex with someone against their will, non-binary individuals reported a greater amount, at 38%. This study (as well as the 2022 version) both featured a larger sample size of trans men compared to trans women, although both groups were outnumbered by non-binary people (likely due it being an umbrella term).

The aforementioned 2022 study (citation 13) also demonstrates a pattern of more non-binary people reporting more cases of sexual assault than trans men or women, though in that study both attempted and successful assaults were grouped into one category. Also the study is incorrectly described as "an anonymous health survey of transgender males", despite also surveying trans women and non-binary people. I will fix this after replying.

This is one example within the article of a section not being about an issue that affects trans men disproportionately, but all trans people. I will also mention that trans women generally feel less comfortable reporting sexual assault, and self reporting can be unreliable, however this is pure conjecture on my part.

Assuming we both agree this article is for issues that disproportionately affect trans men, this section should be removed entirely. AutisticIris (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@AutisticIris all of these are ones which show a significant difference- this is what disproportionate means. like. i would very much hard disagree that this is not disproportionate. i do agree that it should focus on things which disproportionately affect trans men, but I also think there is space for issues which affect trans men in a way that interacts with their specific type of transness. so I would Hard disagree that the section should be deleted- and will need a much better argument than "its not significant because I think the verifiable difference is small"

you do have a point about nonbinary folks on the one AS statistc, and I think eventually making a page for discrimination against nonbinary people would also be a good idea.

you mention trans women being less comfortable reporting- do you have a source on this? verifiability is a core principle of Wikipedia and unless you can show a source for this, Wikipedia guidelines would have us not take that into account.

also- I saw your edit, and clarified that the 16% statistic was specifically about trans men. as you seem interested in clarity of language ans avoiding misleading wording- I hope you dont mind my edit.

Jackjd0 (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

(Discrimination against non-binary people does actually exist as an article, by the way) 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 02:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Organhaver nice! I'm glad. everyone deserves to have recognition of the shit they go thru Jackjd0 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Of course I don't mind the edit, that's what we're all here for! I also did mention that the statement of trans women feeling less comfortable self reporting is pure conjecture, and frankly I just shouldn't have included it since it's not particularly relevant without data.

Again, what does or does not count as a disproportionate amount is somewhat subjective, the closing statement more or less was that if we both agreed it was not disproportionate, it should be removed as this article is for disproportionate issues. Since we don't agree, we haven't reached a Wikipedia:Consensus that it should be deleted, so for now it shall stay as is.

Maybe we could have a third party weigh in on what is or is not disproportionate? I'd personally say that a less than 10% difference is not. (stating again purely for clarity's sake, I'm weighing proportion in comparison to other transgender people, since all trans people face issues disproportionately to their cis counterparts). AutisticIris (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

fair enough. also, i was away from my computer but im back now and am able to give a more full response to the math side

statistically, i am also weighting proportionate to other trans people. if we are going to talk about percentage difference tho, subtracting percentage is not how you do that. im a but rusty on stats so i will admit i fully did google how to calculate % difference and used a calculator to make sure im not doing it wrong. but the actual differences (rounded to the closest .1%) are

2015 U.S. Transgender Survey- 14.7% difference between trans women and trans men

arc readiness assessment- 24.2% difference between trans men and trans women

personally i think any verifiable difference is significant to count as disproportionate, as the word does not imply how much of a difference there is, just that there is a difference. if someone is, say, 1% more likely- if that 1% is verifiably there, its still disproportionate. its only a little bit disproportionate, but its disproportionate. but even if we cant agree on that, i think a 14% and 24% difference are pretty significant. Jackjd0 (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh god I completely forgot how percentages work, you're right, that is significant.

Since we're focusing on this section, an improvement that could be made would be more varied sources, considering all but one are from NZ. AutisticIris (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@AutisticIris you have a point on varied sources. ill see what I can dig up later today Jackjd0 (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

alright, i added 2 from the US as well as rearranging some bathroom stats into their own section because they were just kinda mixed in. im gonna be honest and say im not 100% up to date on the exact terminology wikipedia uses to talk about trans issues so id appreciate a proofread to make sure i used the right words to describe the stats.

btw we absolutley dont have to focus on any specific section, that was just the one i saw the most like- actionable discussion of, if that makes sense. but this can bounce around to any points you think need improvement- tho i will ask that we keep doing it like this- focusing on like 1-2 specific points at a time, simply because its hard for me (and probably others) to process info about a whole large article at once, and i feel like focusing on specific bits is going to make it easier for us to make concrete improvements, if that makes sense.

Jackjd0 (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm actually going to have to take back an agreement made earlier, the purpose of Transmisogyny is not issues disproportionately faced by trans women. It is for issues faced by trans women as a result of the intersection between transphobia and misogyny they face. By extension, this article should serve the same purpose.

I also thought you should know I removed a paragraph from the erasure section, as the statement was incongruent with the actual source, and I do not have a way to correct it, as the source does not grant free access. I am operating under the assumption that one should remove disinformation if they can not correct it.

Citation 42's link is also broken for me, it just makes me keep completing captchas AutisticIris (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@AutisticIris I was actually the one to add that paragraph so I'll go in later and fact check myself once I'm at my computer and re add it if I can figure out where I went wrong.

also, I see your other point and I appreciate letting me know your opinion had changed. does this change what you propose for the article? because while I appreciate conversation, talk pages are primarily for discussing changes to the article and would like to stay on topic, as this seems like a very loaded conversation that I dont have the knowledge or the inclination to fully participate in Jackjd0 (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I suppose my point is that the article's purpose feels quite vague. Documenting any discrimination a transgender man faces feels rather pointless, especially when many cases are not due to their status as men. If Transmisogyny is for discrimination faced due to the intersection of transphobia and misogyny, should this article not do the same? AutisticIris (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

as an example, the Robert Eads section alleges that doctors did not want to treat him due to his status as a trans man, however the sources only states "[the doctors] feared that treating this case of gender variance would hurt the reputation of their medical practices". It feels like conjecture to state they specifically refused because he was a transgender man, and not simply because he was transgender. AutisticIris (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@AutisticIris again, I see your concern, but I'm unsure what you actually want. the goal of an encyclopedia, as I understand it, is to serve as a reference for those seeking information on specific topics. if someone is seeking info on discrimination against trans men, this would be a notae case they would probably find useful- meaning it serves the purpose. it really feels like a lot of your criticisms fall more under theory than practice, and while trans people absolutley deserve to have a place to discuss and debate and understand their experiences, I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place for what youre trying to do Jackjd0 (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

You're right, I'll probably step back from this article for a while.

I'd appreciate if someone could go through the examples section for changed phrasing, similar to the one mentioned above, at some point. AutisticIris (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)