Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
This is a general example (strike one), which equates trans people to crossdressers (strike two) and states that they're still their birth sex even after physically and legally transitioning (strike three).
And this edit was made in April 2018.
Is it really a general example, though? I feel like people just use "general example" to get rid of examples they don't like. There's no reason real life examples have to be exactly about one person; they can describe a real-life phenomenon. That said, I don't think this fits the trope, though I don't believe the troper who added it was intentionally transphobic.
Keet cleanup^Yes we do, in real life sections, as long as the trope isn't No Real Life Examples, Please!.
Keet cleanupIt doesn't look like a general example to me, either.
A general example is "in genre X, there is a tendency to..." which could apply to any number of specific examples from works. This is a tight description of a Real Life occurrence (or wants to be).
TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faerIt doesn't sound like they're saying transitioning is crossdressing, but rather, that trans people acting as the gender they were assigned at birth is. Which makes sense. "Birth gender" could be changed to "the gender they were assigned at birth" to be more correct, but I think the entry pretty correctly describes the crossdressing as "pretending to be their assigned gender" and not "living out their real gender identity".
Edited by 8BrickMarioI almost feel as though we might need to ask the troper what they meant. I can see why this entry might be problematic, but I didn't read it the way OP did. To me, this entry looks like it may be totally genuine, but slightly unclear in its writing with Unfortunate Implications about trans people equaling crossdressers, which we know isn't true.
Then again, if we have to ask the troper what they meant to keep the example, maybe we shouldn't have that example in the first place. I'm not sure.
The problem is with it being on the page for Recursive Crossdressing, which is about characters being "in disguise as their real gender", implying that trans people are "really" the gender they were assigned at birth. so the issue is less the wording of the example and more it being on this page.
Edited by TheMountainKing^That's definitely a problem.
As for the wording, I think whoever wrote the entry didn't mean to say anything about a trans person't birth gender being their "real" gender. But their relatives may believe that, and force the person to dress like their birth gender. The trans person (but not their relatives) would then consider this crossdressing, since they're dressing as the opposite gender.
But this is not Recursive Crossdressing either from the trans person's perspective or from that of their relatives.
Edited by GnomeTitan^ Right, sorry, this is essentially what I meant. I wasn't saying that the troper has grammar issues or anything, but rather that I suspect they may have worded their example in a way that accidentally implies a trans person's birth gender is their "real gender." (Case in point, the line claiming they have to "crossdress.") I'm not sure that's the message they were even intending to convey.
At least, I hope not. The issue stands that it's not crossdressing, and the example is on Recursive Crossdressing.
Edited by CyokieRevottI know there are drag queens who are trans women and drag kings who are trans men. Would that fit the trope? I'm not entirely familiar with how drag plays out in those scenarios, though.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.Personal opinion only: I think that such an example isn't general and it doesn't violate Real Life troping rules, but it's perhaps better at home at Crossdresser. Recursive Crossdressing is somewhat unclearly defined and I see why listing such an example there could create Unfortunate Implications.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanWould I be OK adding the example I mentioned to Recursive Crossdressing? Or does everything need some debate.
TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faer

From the Real Life section of Recursive Crossdressing:
To me, that entry looks like it was written by someone who undestands transness as the person becoming their preferred gender at some point in life rather than having been that gender all along. Being cis myself (with a perpetually-behind education on the subject), I want to let the people the entry is about weigh in before anything is done.
Edited by Nazetrime