Talk:Sissy (crossdressing)

Work-in-process

This article is under construction and I have yet to include all the necessary citations and subtopics. While grammar and syntax editing is helpful, please refrain from deleting entire section as being "irrelevant", or "unnecessary" before my work is complete. March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Tgurlcandi (talk • contribs)

You don't own the article and anyone can edit it. WP:OWN RainbowOfLight ^Talk 05:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I was sounding possessive of the article, did not mean it that way. What happened was that some of the material I was writing was undone while I was in the process of writing it. This article was started just today and I was hoping to have some time to put the content I think has relevance. Thanks and I am open to any discussion. 16 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgurlcandi (talk • contribs) 05:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, just read the sandbox instructions (sorry, relatively new user), Tgurlcandi (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge with other articles on cross-dressing or transgenderism?

Does the term "sissy" in itself warrant a separate article? Surely it's just one of many words used to describe a part of cross-dressing or transgenderism. I'd suggest it should be merged with one of those articles. Gymnophoria (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a WP:POVFORK. Further discussion at Talk:sissy. Honestly, this article has so much repetition and duplication of material from other articles, that it gives the impression it was created mainly to put someone's picture in it (the author's?). Perhaps his mistress ordered him to create it. :-/ Tijfo098 (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any immediate reason to dump various crossdressing-related articles into one namespace. A sissy is perhaps a crossdresser or perhaps trans, but it is a specific sort of activity that is not necessarily related to the other reasons one might identify as a crossdresser or as transgender. Particularly given that there is no plan in place to merge such articles in a cohesive fashion, or any particularly strong arguments put forth, I think this topic, at present, warrants its own namespace. Riverstones (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither transgender nor cross-dressing define sissy in their contexts. So, "A sissy is perhaps a crossdresser or perhaps trans". There are plenty of sources to say what sissy means though—a pejorative. So, it's used in BDSM to address cross-dressing male slaves as form of erotic humiliation. (That's the part of this article which is actually sourced: "Some submissive males may get turned on by being called a sissy, while others may find their guilt returning upon the use of that word." [1]) I don't think it's anymore complicated than that, but if you do, please add some sources. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this really a positive thing?

I think it's reasonable to questions whether this article should even exist. It's just describing a derogatory term used (also in pornography) to insult LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgendered) people. Do we really need to have this page at all? I think deletion should be considered. --Intuitive Person (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Not only. There's a specific subculture who enjoy the forced feminization aspects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.144.22 (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Then shouldn't it be categorized under BDSM and fetishism instead of having "transgender" at the top? It ought to be really clear that we're discussing bottom / erotic humiliation instead of trans issues, which are completely irrelevant to this article. This as it is is very offensive, and probably already covered better elsewhere in a place that's aware this is fetishism and not transgenderism. 24.33.94.133 (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

according to the article, "sissy" is not a transgender term...

...but a crossdressing one. why, then, is the article's title "Sissy (transgender)"? Shouldn't it be more along the lines of "Sissy (cross-dressing)"? Equivamp - talk 12:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sissy is NOT a gender identity nor a gender expression, but a sexual fetish, and is NOT transgender. The sissy fetish is negative and derogatory to the transgender community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.213.137 (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Never the less, anyone that identifies with being a sissy can easily fit under the transgender umbrella. Of course not all sissys are transgender but im sure a great many are indeed "trans". Remember to be trans all you need is the feeling of not belonging or identifying with the established binary of male and female, along with any degree of dysphoria. You can have a fetish and be transgender. I do agree that the more extreme sides of sissy play in BDSM are indeed very offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4:3680:B3E0:294C:6F7E:D3BF:858F (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's derogatory, but this definitely doesn't seem to fit under the trans umbrella in anything except frequent co-occurence, and even that is regrettably unsubstantiated. Example: I am a man. If I derive pleasure, sexual or otherwise, from dressing as a woman but do not recognize myself as a woman or seek to live as a woman in my daily life, in exactly what fashion am I transgender?24.19.196.50 (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC). Exactly, typically sissy maybe a crossdresser or transvestite but not a transgender. I do crossdress more or less etc. but I'm not a transgender (nor sissy) [thought I might go so far as even have a sex with a man while dressing but I still don't identify as a woman], I do not like the sissy term but it seem to be used in a neutral way in some contexts.

I agree. The conflation of the BDSM and transgender concepts has been a feature of the article from the beginning, but it is problematic as it seems to suggest that transness is a paraphilia. They should be separated. Feminization (activity) is already about the BDSM concept, so this article seems a bit redundant. It's not clear which of the two concepts should be removed from the article.

That said, it is admittedly true that there is quite a bit of overlap. As far as I'm aware, trans people frequently cross-dress (usually secretly) before realising they are truly trans, and the titular husband in My Husband Betty eventually did come out as trans.

If the article is to be about the BDSM activity, I agree that "Sissy (cross-dressing)" seems to be the best title. "Sissy (BDSM)", "Sissy (paraphilia)", "Sissy (fetish)" or "Sissy (roleplay)" do not sound as appropriate. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Florian Blaschke, just looking at this article, I automatically thought it should be titled Sissy (BDSM). The current title is not appropriate. Furthermore, this article should be merged with the Feminization (activity) article, per WP:Content fork. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not exactly remember why I found "Sissy (BDSM)" inappropriate at the time, but I think the answer can be found in the introduction to this article: In "sissy role play" a sissy is a person (typically a man) who adopts hyper-feminine behaviors, and engages in stereotypical "feminine" activities (e.g., housekeeping, putting on make-up), often within the context of BDSM. "Often within the context of BDSM" suggests that it can occur in non-BDSM roleplay as well, as well as in pornography. However, if "(typically a man)" means that the sissy does not necessarily have to be a man (perhaps the idea is that it could be a genderqueer person or a closeted trans woman, because I doubt a person who identifies as female openly would be called a sissy if engaging in such role-play, she would just be a maid or sub), then "Sissy (cross-dressing)" might not be a completely fitting title, either. All suggested titles have problems, but "Sissy (fetish)" may be the best of the bunch, and easiest understood. Even "Sissy fetish" would be an option.

I agree with you that the best option would probably be merging this article into Feminization (activity). This would eliminate the titling problem altogether. Will you do that? You seem to be more experienced in the area of gender and sexology. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Lack of context deletion

This poorly subjected and poorly tied together article surrounding erotic roleplaying is rather misleading and demonises LGBTIQ folks by it's subject. The body text has has nothing to do with transgender or gender identity or sexuality on who you love. This seems a pure roleplaying game article and this roleplaying (not just cross-dressing) can be done even if you are a straight hetero cisgender individual. After years of debate I wonder why this misleading article still exists at all? I have flagged speedy deletion with lack of context since it's not going anywhere and nobody cannot seem to be either able to agree on proper subject to this bad article that has itself hard time explaining what it represents. Cross-dressing btw does not either mean the person is necessarily trans or anything other in the LGBTIQ umbrella. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.86.102.67 (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)