Last modified on 20 December 2014, at 10:56


Return to "transgender" page.

Multiple SensesEdit

  • I cleaned up the merging of the various senses, but this word is confused enough in popular usage that I think the multiple senses should be explicitly listed. Nicoleta
  • I'm going to put back up the multiple senses until we can get more discussion. Proposed merged definition: "Pertaining to someone whose gender identity or expression is not aligned with their biological sex; sometimes used as a general, inclusive term, and sometimes as synonymous with or opposed to more specific terms such as transsexual, crossdresser, etc." Nicoleta
You may put them up, but all Wiktionary definitions are supposed to be attestable. If something isn't challenged, there may not be any attestation shown: it is time consuming to attest a definition. Rarely, colloquial terms may be deemed "in widespread use" by acclamation. Otherwise, a challenged sense needs attestation. We are not inherently interested in making distinctions that are not attestable. Wordy definitions are extremely hard to attest. I strongly recommend making sure that you start with one or two senses and find quotations that show them in use. It is amazing what one can learn by attesting. DCDuring TALK 20:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


Translations are under the adjectival definition, but seem to be nominal? Can we split these up under adjectives vs. nouns? The Ido translation I put in is adjectival; the noun is transgenro. Nicoleta

English doesn't always make that distinction. Quite often, English adjectives are used as if they were nouns, so we tend not to create separate sections as a noun for these unless there is a demonstrated pattern of use as a noun. For example, "the poor", "send me your poor", etc., are common usage so poor will also get a Noun section. We otherwise do not do this, since practically any English descriptive adjective can be used as if it were a noun. Also, please note that new talk sections are generally added at the bottom of the talk page, rather than the top. People may not spot your comments if you create new sections at the top instead. --EncycloPetey 03:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Euphemistic UsageEdit

Is "euphemism" the proper term to describe using "transgender" in lieue of "transsexual"? Transsexualism in and of itself isn't something that necesarily should be or needs to be euphemized, it's society's cultural stigma on the "-sexual" suffix that makes the word sometimes avoided (as well as its association with the psycho-medical community), same as the usage of "gay/lesbian" as opposed to "homosexual." Is there a better word to use besides "euphemism" to describe this sense? "Euphemism" I feel puts too negative a context on "transsexual." Nicoleta


Definition mergesEdit

I agree that there aren't five definitions, but maybe there are two. Can transgender refer to someone who has had a sex change operation, but also to someone who hasn't? That might count as two definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  • The term was coined in an attempt to describe both of those things and more -- basically anyone with a "non-cisgendered" identity. But various groups have sought to restrict the meaning in various specific ways, and I don't think it's helpful or even possible to unpick them all. Ƿidsiþ 06:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
As with many words like this, it is very difficult to find true adjective citations that could not be read as attributive use of a noun. There are not very many citations for this word following "become" or "seem", used comparatively or superlatively, or graded (as modified by "too" or "very". Examples showing use as a predicate after a form of "be" requires a great deal of care and are likely to be debatable. It is difficult to establish for sure that this is a true adjective at all, rather than attributive use of a noun, however awkward the wording of the noun senses might be.
Perhaps we should also see what citations can be found that unambiguously exhibit true nominal use: use following determiners and/or articles without a following noun, plurals, etc. Starting with the grammar will keep us in dictionary rather than encyclopedic territory. DCDuring TALK 11:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The 1992 quote and the 2010 Guardian cite both seem unambiguously adjectival to me. Ƿidsiþ 15:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussionEdit

Green check.svg

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

Adjective. The usual wordy encyclopedic definitions that seem to heavily overlap the noun definitions. We need cites to show that this is an adjective for each of the five senses claimed to be adjectives. It is likely that at least some senses are only attributive use of the noun. Also, the senses are wordy/encyclopedic and therefore it is almost impossible to confirm that all aspects of given definition are invoked in a given quotation. DCDuring TALK 09:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't a word that's used attributively to modify a noun, an adjective by definition? Or am I missing something here? —CodeCat 14:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
See [[Wiktionary:English adjectives]].​—msh210 15:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I merged all the defs: DC is right, that kind of desire to pick out shades of desired meaning cannot be supported by citations. Ƿidsiþ 06:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I have added a citation showing unambiguously adjectival use. One of the citations (1998) seems to be a mention, not a use. The 2010 NYTimes citation could be read as attributive use of a noun. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I consider this well and truly verified. Ƿidsiþ 14:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)