I do not like Wikipedia's current introduction on Transsexualism. Here's the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexualism

I posted a response in the discussion about what I'd like to be fixed in the introduction.

Quote"Condition" etc.

Since this page cannot be edited, I was hoping that we could indicate that citation is needed regarding whether or not transsexualism is a condition. The debate is still ripe and hot just like the fight over homosexuality in the 70's. Homosexuality was also once considered a mental condition and was removed from the DSM and was not present in the DSM-III-R (the revision, published in 1987). I think it is inappropriate to call it a condition, life choice, or life style. I think it is best said as, "Transsexualism is when one identifies with a physical sex different from the one with which they were born.

Also, while transsexualism is stigmatized in many parts of the world, it is also accepted and even embraced in others (Thailand is a good example). Transsexualism remains controversial mostly in the United States. I do not feel this article's introduction gives a healthy global perspective on transsexualism. To add, I do not like the term "so-called" used to describe two-spirits. This implies that their belief is invalid, and thus gives the article's introduction an inappropriate tone.

Thank you, and please take these notes into consideration.

--Ectopedia (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I of course will probably find more in the body of the article, but I thought I'd start small.

Call me pessimistic, but after seeing the major trans articles on wikipedia, I can't help but think about their "no original research" policy and the "good 'old boys" pack mentality that the admins have.

I thought the whole point of wikipedia was to have a easily updated, bias-free source of information. Not a place where a million different people put uneducated or even malicious rubbish wherever they see fit.

Guess that's why I'll never write there.
Just my not-so-humble opinion

Exactly.

I generally only write there to correct malicious lies and fix/add movie/tv trivia.

The wikipedia actually was the first source of information found on transgender.  But least I continued to research into it

You know... I never really thought to dissect that article after reading it. That really is bogus.

Wikipedia in general can be hit-and-miss. Some articles are quite good; some are quite bad. Wikipedia was not ever considered to be an acceptable online source when I was in college.