Talk:V-coding

Can this image be removed for being inappropriate?

My understanding is that the first image of this article is an erotic illustration of a woman being raped. This seems a very inappropriate choice for the subject matter. I would like to see it removed or replaced Lerfound (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, imo the image helps illustrate the violence of V-Coding and the fact that it is orchestrated by several men, not merely individual and ponctuous acts. I'm open to reconsidering, obviously. Médicis (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Offensive material : "Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. (...) However, offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. (...) should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less (...) relevant (...), and no equally suitable alternative is available." In my opinion the image remains relevant for this topic, note that I already searched for more suitable images (protests against V-Coding...) but I didn't find much. Médicis (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we could find another image that has the same effect while not being draw by an eroticist? Lerfound (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a better alternative? I personally do not mind the current image, and WP:NOTCENSORED applies. The image fits in an educational manner to illustrate the point, and shouldn't be removed because it may offend. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 15:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not perfect but may I suggest (this). I feel the illustration is less erotic and brings to mind the subject matter of the article Lerfound (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I only knew of this painting by the painter, but after seing the other paintings I understand the problem now; I don't like Lerfound's proposition much because the violence and collective rape isn't (clearly) portrayed in my opinion. I found two other paintings not drawn by an eroticist which depict collective rape by officials, which might fit the topic: (1) (2). Médicis (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

V-coding isn't about all rape trans woman experience in prisons, it's specifically about putting a trans woman in a cell with a rowdy inmate. Therefore while collective rape is applicable to the wider topic I think in the case of v-coding my illustration choice is more appropriate ~2025-38398-57 (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The definition I'm using is the Wikitionary one btw Lerfound (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

What's your illustration choice Médicis (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

That's me Lerfound (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Could you argue why you think yours would be more accurate? Médicis (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Because v-coding involves "pacificing" a rowdy inmate with a trans woman. Your choices don't reflect this as well because they bring to mind the concept of militaries abusing and killing woman in enemy territory instead of prison rape Lerfound (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

this "pacifing" is depicted as violent sexual assault by the media and experts, although collective rape isn't specifically deemed v-coding they're still very much intertwined, with the intent to please inmates or officials by using trans women as objects: "It is common for correctional officers to publicly strip search trans women inmates, putting their bodies on display for staff members and other inmates. Trans women in this situation are sometimes made to dance, present, or masturbate at the correctional officers' discretion"

Once again your proposed picture undermines the violence, and your argument about my proposed pictures not depicting prison rape could be also applied to yours. Médicis (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Another solution would be to include both of our proposed images. Médicis (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Your citation isn't referring to v-coding, it's referring to more general sexual mistreatment of trans woman. While I understand the desire to reflect the violence of rape your suggestions are simply too far from the specific type of prison rape that this article is about Lerfound (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Without more votes I propose not to put any picture yet. Médicis (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Does this article use too broad of definition of "v-coding"

This article defines v-coding as the any systemic sexual mistreatment of incarcerated trans woman. However, Wikitionary defines it as "The placement of incarcerated trans women in cells with aggressive cisgender male inmates as a form of reward or pacification for said male inmates." A much more narrow subject matter. Should the article narrow in scope or stay as it is? Lerfound (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

TA adding "trans" to mentions of "women" or "woman" in lead

@~2026-16558-26: it's already made apparent in the lead that this practice is focused on trans women. Why are you assuming that using a broader term to refer to trans women implies that the practice only "affects females/ciswomen"? Bridget (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Deliberate misspelling of "trans woman" as "transwoman" (one word) is a well known dogwhistle and it should be reverted on the spot. It normally an attempt at subtle vandalism. That is why I reverted those edits. Of course, it can also sometimes be a genuine mistake, so we shouldn't bite people for a first use of it, but we absolutely should warn for vandalism if they keep on doing it.

I would be fairly neutral on the edit if it had been spelled correctly. The addition of "trans" seems unnecessary as the context is already well established. It wouldn't really clarify anything but it doesn't seem particularly harmful either. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

consistency is key, that is all. ~2026-16558-26 (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

its not that it could be construed to imply that it only affects cis women; but that it affects cis women at all. consistency is key and there is zero need to imply through the lack of trans prefix that cis women are implicated ~2026-16558-26 (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Nowhere in the lead do we "imply through the lack of trans prefix that cis women are implicated". The context has been clearly established. Bridget (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

is there any reason to resist adding trans to the only instance of woman in the entire article that lacks it? seems like a lot of senseless reverts and yammering, why quibble over such a minor detail, what harm is done by adding it? ~2026-29547-94 (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Inaccuracies relating to the sources

I think that there's a lot of information in this article which doesn't correspond to the information in the sources, or exaggerates on them. Such as using the term coercion in relation to trans women taking on "husbands" at 80%, the source doesn't mention coercion. This doesn't mean that no women were coerced into taking husbands, but that it includes people in fully consensual relationships, it isn't wholly women being pimped. And similarly the article implies that sexual assault is the same as v-coding, in the way that the statistics given for experiencing sexual assault over the length of a woman's life in prison is implied to be the same as being v-coded. The sources given say most women in prison are assaulted once, rather than multiple times. None of this is to say that v-coding isn't a problem, there's obviously many women who this has happened to, the problem is that a lot of the sources don't back up the text in this article and I think there should be a significant rewrite to make the article more factual and less sensational. ~2026-33467-04 (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33467-04

Page 248 of Captive Genders:

"They're basically pimpin'. If you look like a female, they'll put you in a cell. I've had them put me in a shock holdin' cell, and I told them I did not want to be there. They told me that's gonna be your husband, and that's where you're going to be and you're going to love him. And I did my time with him."

That is clearly coercive. It is in the source listed on the page. The source backs up what is said on the page. Enanthia (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

They are referring to the claim that 88% reported having been "coerced into a marriage-like relationship" I believe, supposedly sourced to "The centrality of relationships in context: a comparison of factors that predict the sexual and non-sexual victimization of transgender women in prisons for men".  Tewdar  12:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Fails verification, by the way...  Tewdar  08:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The source linked to the section is "The centrality of relationships in context: a comparison of factors that predict the sexual and non-sexual victimization of transgender women in prisons for men" which does mention coercion in regards to pairing (see: footnote 4), but as a transactional relationship of "protective pairing". This can possibly be shown in the "marriage" statistics as it does slightly increase the amount of sexual victimization to 1.18 but decreases the amount of sexual assault to 0.81 and overall assault to 0.51. In this case the base level of sexual assault is 1, as it's the ratio of likeliness. Having a sexual relationship with another prisoner increases the risk level to 3.33 for sexual assault, and developing mental illness or being a high school graduate also increase the risk level.

In terms of being sensational, the wikipedia page says this as well: "69% of trans women prisoners reported being made to perform sexual acts, 58.5% reported being violently sexually assaulted" while the study would better say this as "69% of trans women prisoners are noted as having either been sexually assaulted or having willingly performed sex acts which they'd rather not have, and 58% were sexually assaulted". There's no specifics in the study that the sexual assault was violent. The questions asked were: ‘Have you ever had to do sexual things against your will with another inmate while living in here?’ and ‘Have you ever had to do sexual things with other inmates that were perhaps not against your will, but that you would have rather not done?’

And instead of "88% reported having been "coerced into a marriage-like relationship"" it would be more accurately, "88% of trans women are reported to be in a marriage-like relationship, which can be fully consensual or coercive, but does reduce the amount of sexual assault and violence she may experience, but can be in exchange for a slight increase in transactional rather than enthusiastic sexual activity."

It's not a study which can be used to determine the amount of v-coding which goes on by any means. ~2026-37350-77 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Serious factual accuracy issues and misleading sourcing

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The current framing of this article is highly irresponsible, presenting a sensationalized internet rumor and pop-culture trope as a factual, approved administrative policy within correctional services. While sexual vulnerability in prisons is a documented reality, presenting "V-coding" as a sanctioned institutional tool is highly misleading to the public. The article relies on an echo chamber of severely misinterpreted sources:

1. Misrepresentation of Studies: The cited Indiana Journal of Law Note (Kulak, 2018) explicitly describes the behavior as illegal staff misconduct and corruption—the exact opposite of an "approved" bureaucratic policy. Furthermore, the UC Irvine study (Jenness et al., 2007) states that staff are largely unaware of these incidents, completely refuting the narrative of an orchestrated administrative strategy.

2. Flawed Logic of "Pacification": The premise that a facility would use a vulnerable inmate to "pacify" a violent offender is criminologically counterintuitive. In reality, prison systems handle high-risk and vulnerable inmates via over-isolation (Administrative Segregation/SEG) to limit state liability. Intentionally engineering cell-share sexual assaults would maximize legal and institutional liability.

3. Misapplication of "Frailty": Criminological data shows vulnerability is based on a broad matrix of factors (physical stature, young age, mental health, sexual orientation), not just gender identity.

4. Irrelevant Citation Padding: Half of the article's footnotes are news articles regarding general transgender prison housing directives. None of these journalistic reports actually mention or validate the concept of "V-coding." Using unrelated political news to artificially bolster the credibility of an unproven rumor violates Wikipedia's No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Synthesis (WP:SYNTH) policies.

Leaving an unverified rumor presented as an established government policy undermines Wikipedia's credibility as a reliable source of information. This page needs to be heavily restricted, rewritten to frame the term purely as a pop-culture myth/slang term, or nominated for formal deletion. ~2026-38910-86 (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

You are aware that something can be common practice while still being officially an act of misconduct, right? Snokalok2 (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

That misses the point of the objection. The issue isn't whether staff misconduct or corruption occurs—we all agree that prison violence and guard malice are documented realities.

The issue is WP:V (Verifiability) and WP:SYNTH. The article currently frames 'V-coding' not as an act of rogue misconduct, but as an approved, systematic administrative policy used by institutions to pacify inmates.

When you trace the citations currently in the article, they trace back to an echo chamber referencing a single qualitative personal account. None of the independent, empirical studies cited (like Jenness et al.) validate the narrative of an engineered, institutional strategy; in fact, they state administrators are largely unaware of these specific dynamics. Worse, half the citations are general news articles about housing directives that don't mention 'V-coding' at all.

We cannot use Wikipedia to synthesize a widespread, official bureaucratic protocol out of a slang term and individual allegations. If it is an informal act of misconduct, the article needs to be completely rewritten to reflect that specific framing, rather than misleading the public into thinking this is a sanctioned government tool. ~2026-39109-76 (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

That misses the point of the objection. The issue isn't whether staff misconduct or corruption occurs—we all agree that prison violence and guard malice are documented realities. Oh I see, you wrote this with AI. Snokalok2 (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

AI — (sic) Certainly looks that way to me.

The article obviously has some problems, but reframing the topic as a pop-culture myth/slang term or formal deletion is definitely not the solution.  Tewdar  17:54, 10 July 2026 (UTC)