Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search


re "comment out supposed adj def"
It was in the 1913 dictionary. Perhaps marking it (obsolete) is better than deleting it?

Question: insnare or ensnare?[edit]

insnare or ensnare? TableTop 28 June 2005 10:42 (UTC)

ensnare is normal, insnare is a variant SemperBlotto 28 June 2005 10:44 (UTC)

Traps - the police[edit]

In Polanski's Oliver Twist, the characters--especially Bill Sykes--use a word which sounds like "traps" to refer to the Police. As I have not found any other reference to it, nor have I found it in a dictionary, I would be grateful for enlightenment offered by anyone who can! Thank you.--PeadarMaguidhir 13:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trans slang[edit]

While initially used as a pejorative, I believe we should also recognize that the slang has come to have a positive meaning as well. Much like other terms which have been appropriated for usage by those who do not dislike what the slang refers to. For example, the Guilty Gear character 'Bridget' is often fondly referred to as a trap by many fans. The very idea of 'trap' is that the trans person 'passes' so well that the person believes they are genetically what they appear as physically. For those who are not outraged by this, and when the person acquires extreme attractiveness (like with Bridget, or many trans models in the orient) it is used as an endearing inside joke for those who would like to refer to it, but in a casual fashion which indicates awareness of the normal person's hostile reaction to it. Ty 06:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we include the etymology of that sense?--Simplificationalizer (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is STILL pejorative, because the name implies transsexuals are tricking people.--Voidkom (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm largely agreement with the current definition of this term as of the revision of 13 January 2019, but for the benefit of future users researching the etymology of this sense of the word, I'd like to provide some historical information, as someone who was involved with the site's early development.
Around 2003 or 2004, 4chan added an image reply feature (the site's predecessor, 2chan, only allowed text replies). A primary use was to post image macros, comical stock reply images usually with white Impact font text which were popular on Something Awful (nowadays people call these memes). However, a secondary effect was that users could post an entire set of images they had acquired from a porn site (in 2004, video on the internet was poor quality and image sets were common). In some cases, the user would simply repost a set they had previously acquired from a 4chan thread days or weeks earlier.
One user began posting such a set of images, only for an image to reveal that the woman pictured had a penis. For many viewers, this was an unexpected development. This started a trend of intentionally posting series a of images of pornography where a female-appearing person is revealed to have a penis, and this became a popular prank fad.
At some point, a user either recognised a set or predicted the prank, and replied using a then-popular image macro of Admiral Ackbar from Star Wars, with the bottom text of the line he says at the Battle of Endor: "It's a trap!"
Bear in mind that the word "trap" had not yet been defined at this point. The intended meaning was to comically inform users that the pornography being posted is not what they expected. It became a game to see who could post the Admiral Ackbar meme first, or whether the poster could complete his thread before anyone could post Ackbar.
Eventually, however, this prank decreased in popularity, for two reasons. One, the joke became stale and predictable through overuse, while the popularity and rapid deployment of the Ackbar meme prevented it from being effective. Two, the community gradually grew in acceptance of transgender or crossdresser pornography, so the prank no longer had its intended effect.
One user decided to intentionally subvert the joke by posting, as the opening image in a thread, pornography of a woman with a penis, captioned "This is a trap". The joke is that nobody can call Ackbar on him if he's done so himself. This became commonplace as acceptance of this genre of pornography among heterosexual men increased.
As the site grew exponentially in popularity, new users arrived, eager to learn the site culture in order to fit in, but unaware of old site memes or history. Much like with the word weeaboo, they mistakenly understood the meaning of "this is a trap" or "it's a trap" to mean that a "trap" was the person depicted in the image, inferring a meaning approximately equivalent to "someone who appears female but has a penis; implying a pornographic context or genre of pornography".
Mainstream understanding of transgender identity was still poor at this point, especially among the young men whose primary experience with this group was as a genre of pornography. It was not well understood, for example, whether the person depicted in an image identified as male or female. Since the images were typically reshared from a porn site without context, it was difficult to track down the person depicted in the image to ask them about their identity. Remember that in 2004, digital cameras were not common or of high quality, meaning that if you had a picture, it was almost certainly professionally produced by a pornography company and not a self-posted image.
It is therefore not entirely accurate to suggest that the word, at least as it was originally coined, referred exclusively to transgender people, nor that it implied that the person posting the image was attempting to trick anyone.
The meaning of the word shifted when scanlators, fan-translators of obscure (and sometimes pornographic) manga, found themselves wanting an elegant translation for the Japanese word 男の娘, otokonoko, slang popular on 4chan's counterpart 2chan, and meaning a crossdresser or a male who appears female. The translators found a particularly apt equivalent in trap, and began translating thus.
As a result, among afficionados of Japanese erotica, trap came to be synonymous with, quite specifically, male-identifying characters who appear female, often very precisely and stereotypically so, particularly in the context of pornography as well as fictional characters, particularly in manga, anime and games. Circa 2005, the character Bridget from the video game Guilty Gear X was massively popular on 4chan as the definitive "trap"; Bridget was widely understood to identify as male, and apart from his male genitalia was widely depicted in fanworks as appearing and behaving in a feminine manner.
The term "trap", circa 2005 or 2006, became a shibboleth for members of 4chan culture, a kind of secret codeword identifying the user as part of the in-group accepting of this particular genre of pornography and/or this character archetype in Japanese pop culture. The catchphrase "traps aren't gay" was as much a statement of one's identity as a member of internet culture as anything else. As a word of pornographic context, it had a vulgar context, but at this point it had not been coined or intended as a word of insult.
We see this meaning of the word "trap" used as an in-joke in the Scooby Doo cartoons made around this time, where a character has a magazine named Traps Illustrated, featuring a woman and a bear trap; the joke is that the word had a double meaning, and could be either a magazine on dangerous objects or pornography. It was not widely considered a slur at this time, and as such the show's creators did not consider this joke unreasonable.
However, the culture of 4chan also frequently used words of a vulgar context outside of that context, leading to, by extension, the use of the in-group jargon "trap" to refer to transgender people in general, something which was not widely welcomed due to the implication of the objectification of transwomen in general. Similar porn usage previously made the pornographic terms "tranny" and "shemale" offensive terms when used in reference to transwomen outside of the context of pornography.
In September 2007, Urban Dictionary user Michaels V posted a radically different definition of the word "trap", no doubt familiar with the popular slang but unfamiliar with its origins, etymology or meaning beyond use through context. Michaels defined a trap as someone who passes as female to lure unsuspecting men into sexual encounters, a definition also previously given by user AustinAech in July 2006 around the time the term began to enter the mainstream.
This new definition was offensive, controversial and failed to make any link to the original usage of the word. Unfortunately, Urban Dictionary was also highly influential at this time as an authority on slang.
Over time, this meaning of the word came to be widely known, including by the transgender community, who have since widely condemned the word owing to that definition. Many internet communities, unfamiliar with the word's etymology, an alternative back-formation was created: the sense that "trap" refers to the actions of a transgender person who lures heterosexual men into sexual encounters; a widely offensive idea, in particular given the high-profile cases where transwomen have been murdered by partners.
We see this definition take hold particularly even in communities like 4chan where origins of culture and slang are not well-recorded. For example, recently you'll see "trapper", a newer synonym for "trap" which explicitly attributes deception to the individual, a meaning which would not have been understood by the originators of this slang.
In 2018 in particular, the offensive later definition has widely spread due to the viral effect caused by outrage. More offensive understandings tend to trump more nuanced ones, and among the transgender community and well-meaning supporters in particular, certain particular misunderstandings have taken hold: the idea that it was coined with its current meaning rather than that meaning having been thrust upon it through ignorance years later, the idea that this is the only meaning anyone has ever assigned to the term, the idea that the word has always been intended as a slur, and the idea that everyone who uses the word knows the newer offensive definition.
While this offensive definition is recently gaining wide acceptance, it clashes with alternative, incompatible and arguably more historically authentic definitions of the word which have long been held by two groups of people in general: the anime community, who have long used it as a word for the popular character archetype of a female-appearing male character; and self-producers of transgender or crossdressing pornography, who embrace the word for its original and intentionally pornographic context.
A side-effect of this is that that some are now using "trap" as an intentional insult against people they know will find it offensive. At the same time, the current popularity of the offensive definition poses challenges for anyone arguing against the descriptivist notion that a word which many people come to identify as a slur is a de facto slur.
The tl;dr on this is that the current definition here (as of 13 Jan 2019) is elegantly quite accurate, in that notes that the word can refer both to real people (in which case it is chiefly offensive due in part to its implication of pornographic context, in much the same way that calling a woman "tranny" or "shemale" would be offensive when many transgender porn stars use these terms to refer to themselves; and that a second meaning exists in which it refers particularly to an anime or manga character who "passes" as female due to the advantages of the medium allowing the artist to simply draw a stereotypical female character and declare them male, though it is sometimes considered offensive in this due to the offensiveness of the previous meaning. 03:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beware of the etymological fallacy. Even if all of this is true (and since it difficult to document, and more or less lost to history, it doesn't really matter that much anymore), dictionaries document current usage, first and foremost. There are etymological sections, but usage sections don't trace etymologies. "Traps" may exist in fiction, but not in real life: "Traps" Don't Exist And Here's Why. In actual contemporary usage, "trap" is basically never anything but pejorative (and deeply problematic because of the implication of deceptive intent), especially when applied to trans people. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020[edit]

Possible positive connotations are covered by definition Noun 19. Definition Noun 21 is incorrect, that is not a widely understood usage. I've made edits to reflect this. Definition Noun 20 is clearly pejorative, as demonstrated by the already included quote. 李艾连 (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments: This sense was RFVed several times in 2012 and 2013 (as seen below), and has been reworded several times:
  • In December 2017, it read: "(slang, informal, chiefly derogatory, offensive) A non-op trans woman or (femininely dressed) transvestite."
  • In January 2018, a second definition was added: "(slang, informal, offensive) A fictional character from anime, or related media, whose character design or voice actor is coded to a different gender than their textual one." Tweaked in July 2018 and later.
  • In April-May 2019, the first definition was expanded with "Some speakers distinguish the term from transgender on the basis of self-designation."
  • In August 2020, a series of edits resulted in three definitions:
    • "(slang, informal, sometimes considered offensive) A fictional character from anime, or related media, who is coded as or has qualities typically associated with a gender other than the character's ostensible gender; otokonoko."
    • "(slang, informal, chiefly derogatory or offensive) A non-op trans woman or (femininely dressed) transvestite. Some speakers distinguish the term from transgender on the basis of self-designation." (The label a little different but the wording unchanged from above.)"
    • "(LGBT, slang, informal) A young male, genderqueer, or rarely a trans girl who adopts a feminine aesthetic. (Usually used as a form self-identification.)"
  • Now, these were changed back to two senses:
    • "(slang, informal, sometimes considered offensive) A fictional character from anime, or related media, who is coded as or has qualities typically associated with a gender other than the character's ostensible gender; otokonoko."
    • "(slang, informal, chiefly derogatory or offensive) A trans woman, transfeminine person, or crossdressing man."
To me, pending citations showing distinction, it seems like there are no more than two senses, because use as a self-identification seems to refer to the same kind of people as could be described by the slur, and could be covered under the same sense, like at tranny, dyke, etc. The wording of the non-anime definition feels broadly OK, though citations could clarify whether surgical status (being "non-op") should be part of the definition again; the near-nonexistence of "post-op trap" even on the web suggests it might be. (But the earlier word "transvestite" was ambiguous and could have referred to a cis woman who dressed like a man, which "trap" would not normally cover, so specifying "femininely dressed" or the current "crossdressing man" does seem closer to what speakers mean.) I am a little sceptical the anime sense is truly a different sense. (Off the immediate topic, the stepladder sense should be RFVed on the grounds that it failed RFV before and was re-added without citations.) - -sche (discuss) 04:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to research the statement above by that this sense/usage originates from c. 2004 era 4chan / Ackbar memes. To my surprise, other slang dictionaries I checked don't have this sense at all, and so are no help. All I could find were relatively less reliable internet sites, which do say that that is the origin. - -sche (discuss) 14:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV 1 - trans / crossdresser sense[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

Rfv-sense: "An arguably convincing crossdresser, transvestite or transsexual, a person born with male genitalia that one engages in a relationship with, believing that person to have been born with female genitalia."

A definition more fitting an attempt at attestation is "crossdresser, transvestite or transsexual"; the rest seems dubious even before an attempt at attestation has been made.

Edits leading to the current definition (probably incomplete): diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored part of the definition per Dan's comments. This new definition should be easily verified, I think. —CodeCat 20:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV 2 - stepladder[edit]

The following sense failed RFV: "A kind of movable stepladder." - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

Rfv-sense: movable stepladder. This seems like it is probably the same as the Dutch word trap, but I've never heard this word being used in English. —CodeCat 14:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"American Mechanical Dictionary" 1884 [1] Also in an 1826 dictionary [2]. Non-dictionary usages of "trap ladder" abound including [3] from 1832 etc. Appears to refer either to a foldable or moveable ladder, especially one leading to an attic. Collect (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "section" is supposed to accomplish, but clicking on the above link just took me to the top of the page. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but it works the other way around. We currently have two senses of trap for RFV, so to make the RFV link on the entry point to this discussion, I added a section link to distinguish the two. —CodeCat 16:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. DCDuring TALK 21:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that uses of "trap ladder" don't verify "trap", so I've removed the sense. If you disagree, let's discuss... - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFV 3 - trans / crossdresser sense[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

Previous discussion: Talk:trap#RFV_1

Rfv-sense: (slang, pejorative) A female crossdresser, transvestite or transsexual.

Added in diff by CodeCat (talkcontribs) on 2 December 2012. I request attesting quotations, at least by means of links to them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much familiar with this sense, if it helps any. -- Liliana 13:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like the entry to clarify whether a shemale or a female-bodied person is meant by "female crossdresser". - -sche (discuss) 17:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more like a genetically male person dressed up as a female for whatever reason. -- Liliana 17:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it's only a crossdressing boy. shemale is shemale (or newhalf in Japanese). Minirop (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen it used in reference to any convincingly feminine individual with a Y chromosome, whether there is hormone modification or not.
A trap is an idealized young homosexual boy: biologically male (with a penis) but otherwise androgynous, foppishly dressed, possibly prepubescent but definitely under the age of consent. (The word "trap" was used with the same meaning as "jail bait".) This was the original meaning several years ago when it was used for internet drawings. It is now used for any type of a fictional twink. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. In the realm of erotic Internet drawings, a trap is an underage boy (anatomically male at any rate; one can't tell anything about psychological gender from a drawing of an imaginary person) dressed as a girl. A twink dressed as a male (or completely undressed, for that matter) is not a trap. —Angr 15:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; my use of twink was misleading. Do you know of any other use except for drawings? I'm thinking of changing the definition to:
(slang) An idealized underage boy, anatomically male but dressed as a female, used primarily in Internet drawings.
--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say "used primarily in shotacon manga" or something like that. I don't know enough about the genre to know for sure that such drawings also appear in print, but I'd be surprised if they didn't. —Angr 10:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it online in connection with photographs of people.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this is a 4chan thing, so association with erotic drawings is purely circumstantial and meaningless on a semantical level.
Second of all, the whole point of the term is that the person described with it appears to be a member of the opposite sex that he (or she, for reverse traps) actually is a member of. It not only does not cover all instances of crossdressing, since a male dressed in stereotypically female clothes can still be instantly recognizable as male, it does not even necessarily imply a crossdressing is taking place. I've noticed the earlier definition that mentions this crucial detail has been struck down for whatever reason ("seems dubious", apparently).
Third of all, while I'm not exactly convinced archived 4chan posts are a reliable enough source, they nevertheless exist and contain plenty of uses of the word, including ones that prove my second point above. Let me choose three examples just from today (plus a bonus one from the earliest archives):
"I'm like 50kg, but my face is too manly for trap without tons of make-up." [4]
"Traps don't necessarily identify as not-men either. In fact it implies they are a "trap" (i.e. male and thus not suitable for a hetero relationship), so it's really inappropriate to lump them in with people who are transgender." [5]
"I like trap and don't consider myself gay, science agrees, it's not denial because I don't care if it's gay or not in the first place." [6]
"So I'm organizing my images and I found this, I got it from /a/ but I don't remember, is that a girl or trap?"[7]
So there you have it. Please revert the definition to its earlier version, at the very least. Squeal (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are still no citations after two RFVs and several months of discussion, so I have deleted the sense as RFV-failed. Do not re-add it without valid citations. - -sche (discuss) 21:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFV 4 - crossdress (verb)[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

trap (verb)

RFV-sense "To crossdress convincingly as a female." I'm not sure how to search for examples of this. See also the old RFV of the noun, above. - -sche (discuss) 21:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Googling for "crossdress trap" gives many results. More if you turn off SafeSearch. (Many more, and very NSFW.) Is the request specifically for the verb sense? I would note that the noun definition is kind of messed up right now: Sense 12 gives a sporting definition, but an example for the otherwise missing crossdressing sense. Which sense is still listed amongst the translations. —Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that. - -sche (discuss) 22:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that it's not that no-one could find attestations, but that no-one looked. (It does basically come down to googling transvestitism and recording that you did so.) From what I can see, "trap" as a noun meaning specifically "a crossdresser or pre-operative transexual who passes as female" is widespread and common (in the appropriate circles).
Here: have some links from the first page of the google results (SafeSearch on):
More examples are available for the searching. —Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of those citations are durably-archived, though. I did try searching for examples in Google Books, but found nothing. There might be citations on Usenet, though. - -sche (discuss) 22:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also those aren't for the verb trap, these are clearly for the noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this passes, how are we going to explain the lack of a noun sense? That'd be a rather glaring omission. —CodeCat 22:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too hypothetical for me to answer. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this usage is new (within the last couple of years), and hasn't had time to get into enough printed works for it to show up on Google Books. And that Usenet is of diminishing use for this sort of thing these days. (The cool kids are all on web fora now.)
Yes, the examples are all for the noun sense: I submit that the noun sense is, despite no-one proving so here, well understood and widely used. As a verb, I suspect only as a back formation from the noun. —Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Usenet for "trap" and all its inflected forms + crossdresser and crossdress and all their inflected forms. All the uses I found were of other senses of "trap". I have previously checked books. Neither the noun nor the verb seems to be used outside of a few web fora. It seems to be simply too rare to be includable. - -sche (discuss) 23:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. It appears to be widely used and understood in the LGBTQ scene. It is not showing up in books because it is too new. It is not showing up in Usenet because Usenet is simply not useful any more for newer words -- it has over the last few years become largely moribund. When you say "a few" fora, they are fora for crossdressers, transvestites and transexuals. I submit that this term is a known term of art in these communities, and is known outside of it. And no, I'm not going to do more searching on this topic while I'm at work. I'll have another look this evening, and try and get a better handle on what the concept "permanently recorded media" means when the definition excludes precisely those locations where this term is found. I presume you're not claiming that the term is not widely used in the relevant communities, much less that it is not used at all, just that it's not in the predefined allowed references? –Catsidhe (verba, facta) 00:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed stating that the term is apparently not used in the sorts of durably-archived media that are allowed by Wiktionary rules (books, magazines, journals, Usenet, songs, films)... and efforts to revisit our rules to allow web fora have been opposed by people who note that it would open the floodgates to all kinds of spelling and other errors. - -sche (discuss) 00:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... in a way which allowing Usenet does not. (My irony meter just exploded.) I'll have another look when doing so won't get me fired or arrested. –Catsidhe (verba, facta) 01:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The disturbance started over the word trap. Until recently, I was completely unfamiliar with any use of this word to mean transgender or transsexual people." ... "A couple of younger people in my twitterverse have used the word trap in this way. One trans woman self-identifies as a trap."
That's all I could find in Google Groups, which I must say is a pale shadow of what it was. And I'm surprised to have found so much, because, like I said, this term gained currency since greater Usenet became moribund.
I dunno if this is any common. Usually one would say pass, the respective sense of which I added a while ago. -- Liliana 21:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, it does not appear as a verb. trap appears as a noun, with a number of qualities, one of which is the ability to pass. So all the above is less a defence of the verb sense (which I think does not apply and can safely be deleted), and more of a "hey, I didn't even realise this sense was going to be deleted from the noun until it had been!" –Catsidhe (verba, facta) 05:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Failed. — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFV discussion: October–November 2020[edit]

Green check.svg

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

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

RfV-sense "A kind of movable stepladder." This failed RFV in 2013, see Talk:trap#RFV_2_-_stepladder, but was readded in the last couple of years. It's in older dictionaries, e.g. Century has it as "A kind of movable ladder or steps: a ladder leading up to a loft." I can find some citations (Citations:trap) referring to traps leading up into lofts (using that clue from Century), but they seem to in fact refer to trapdoors, which is a different sense. The phrase "trap ladder(s)" definitely exists, but it's not clear whether "trap" exists outside that phrase. - -sche (discuss) 05:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, with help from the EDD I can find a second collocation, trap-stair, alongside trap-ladder. A citation of "trap" in isolation would be ideal, but perhaps these suffice even without that? - -sche (discuss) 05:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trap-stair and trap-ladder seem to me attributive uses of the noun trap in the sense of trap door. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, the meaning isn't exactly clear in the compounds. The EDD does put the "trap-stair" cites (and one Shetland cite of bare trap, 1899 June 10, Shetland News: "I cam' in an' set da trapp ta geng apo' da laaft") under "Trap, sb.1 [...] A ladder; a movable flight of steps" as a different entry from "Trap, sb.3 [...] A trap-door; a hatch" and various terms derived from that sense, but Wright could of course be mistaken, and I see Ogilvie's 1883 Imperial Dictionary does define "Trap-stair" as "A narrow stair-case, or encased ladder, surmounted by a trap-door", so the senses are connected. The Shetland cite suggests bare trap did have this sense at some point, and although that cite may be Scots, I did now, thinking to look more closely into Scotland-based works, manage to find two English cites of bare trap. (The 1842 Mines report also has a verb, "I trap two doors".) - -sche (discuss) 20:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I think I've managed to cite this. - -sche (discuss) 21:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barely. The five uses as trap ladder or trap stair shouldn't count. The remaining quotations are the older ones, so we should call the word archaic or obsolete used on its own to mean a steps or a ladder. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With some effort, I also cited the verb; Citations:trap. (The definition may need refining.) - -sche (discuss) 14:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May–June 2021[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

Rfv-sense "(slang, informal, chiefly derogatory or offensive) A trans woman or transfeminine person." Removed by IP out of process in diff with the summary "3 sources required as per WT:CFI." — surjection??⟩ 19:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, with its single edit, probably has an agenda, seeking to delete usages, documented inside of long lists of meanings, that do not adhere to his preferences, and should therefore be ignored for abuse of process. This is of clearly widespread use per WT:CFI, and an international word on top of that, e.g. likewise used from English in Russian, ru:трап#трап_IV, and I am not surprised if it is also used in Finnish. Fay Freak (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is widespread use but not necessarily for that definition. Cross-dresser has a widespread use against trans people as well but it would be incorrect to add that to it's definition. I don't see how it's definition in Russian affects it's definition in English. I disagree with your assertion that this is clearly widespread use. Awhiteduck (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t affect it. It is just to show that it is of clearly widespread use, since many people do not see what is clear. And the case with cross-dresser is not comparable. While there is the phenomenon of words being abused and thus words being defined incorrectly or incompletely, it’s here that it has this sense so it is correctly added and not having it makes it incorrect. It’s about the having a particular separate sense, not the extent of its definition.
This all just distracts from the fact that the poster above just registered on Wikimedia to campaign against this word. If newcomers enter to explain the application of some rule it is only evidence that the opposite is true. Fay Freak (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's you point of there's widespread usage but it's doesn't affect it. You do not explain why it's not comparable with cross-dresser or "it has this sense" isn't a good explanation I should say. Defining it as a separate sense is not adequate and just bias in my opinion. If you're only focus is my registration then that's the clearest ad hominem I have ever seen. And no it's not evidence of the opposite is true, that's not how evidence works. Awhiteduck (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sense was improperly removed (“out of process”). Let us focus now on whether its use in this sense can be attested in conformance with WT:CFI.  --Lambiam 13:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give my reasoning as for why it can't. First and foremost, the number citations requires 3. It doesn't have 3. The clearly widespread use mentioned before is for the anime trope which is about a feminine men, not trans women. That definition has 3 sources and the history throughout the years of urban dictionary's entry for trap supports this. While a different point, even with 3 citations it would be like giving the definition of a trans person to the word "cross-dresser." A mislabel by minority alone shouldn't merit a definition. I understand people may disagree but at minimum 3 citations is needed. Awhiteduck (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you know it a priori that “it can’t”? It can’t be what shan’t be? And why haven’t you changed it’s definition to one that is in your view more correct? Since you admit there is one of clearly widespread use. Precisely this sense could be merged with “A fictional character from anime […]”, because why define it as “fictional” in the first place? If someone in One Piece, as in the first quote there, uses this word, in his world a trap is not a fictional character. “A male who has extremely feminine appearance and mannerisms” as defined in otokonoko which that anime definition refers to comprises the concept of a trans woman (since it is correct that a trans woman is a feminine-appearing man unless the XY system got swapped).
Just removing the glossing line with the comment “3 sources required as per WT:CFI” was extremely misleading. Your procedure against this gloss went thus not about the extent of the definition, though the question be exactly about the definition of one sense. You should refer to that other sense—had you commented “already covered by …”, it would have got you not treated like this.
And now that is a point: That that aforementioned glossing line is more pertinent to the actual meaning of the word—but it has escaped the world of anime, otherwise it could not be included because of WT:FICTION. Fay Freak (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed all related glossing now due to this demand of WT:FICTION. Much more straightforward, isn’t it? Fay Freak (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't fix anything you just made it offensive and inaccurate. I reverted your "fix." Leave the definition alone. I have gave my reasoning you can give yours if you want. The anime/otokonoko definition is the one I view as correct or at least mostly correct. I cannot changed it into an already existing definition. And you are incorrect an otokonoko is not the same concept as a trans woman in the same way a feminine men is not a trans woman. A man with a feminine gender expression still identifies as a man. Gender expression isn't the same as gender identity. It was not misleading. I believe it was quiet clear. It didn't have 3 sources and 3 sources are needed. The only misleading thing was your explanation for your "fix." Awhiteduck (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But a trans woman is a feminine man, since the category “man” still applies (apparently there is an intersection). Your sentence “gender expression isn't the same as gender identity” is meaningless. There is no such thing as identity, only behaviour, and this term is generally not used as a self-description so it’s meaningless doubly. The anime definition is invalid according to WT:FICTION and contradictory, again. That you cannot change already existing definitions is nonsense. 3 sources aren’t needed since it is already cited, under that sense, which is the same sense – its cites did not support its definition, cannot because one cannot cite contradictions. You cannot distinguish a fictional tranny sense and a real tranny sense, this would be as nonsensical as defining cross-dresser “a fictional cross-dresser presented by mainstream media”, or Eiffel Tower “a key fob of the Eiffel Tower”, which is also forbidden.
So who thinks it isn’t just what I defined “A person who appears to be female but turns out to be endowed with a penis”? Anime connection is just contextual information, and “qualities typically associated with a gender other than the character's ostensible gender” is merely a lot of hedging for the same thing, that someone looks female but is male (not “identifies himself” as a male; sex or gender is either observable; but if the issue is that is about gender also or only and not or not only about sex I can try the definition again to incorporate the idea of gender). Fay Freak (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So “a person who appears to be female but turns out to be male.” This covers all, or no? If you think a trans person is defined by “gender identity”, meaning self understanding, all would depend on how much people self-describe as trap – but even then it would not mean this. So the way you define “trap” it is wrong and impossible that the word is genuinely used for “trans woman” or “transfeminine person”, quotes being unthinkable. You will always see “aaaactually this means [above]”. So we are back to observe that seeking three quotes is an abuse of process since you are decided in the first placed that this sense cannot be. Fay Freak (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not meaningless it is the difference between a feminine men and a trans woman because there is a difference. 3 citations are required by WT:ATTEST. It is not cited 3 times. It's not invalid by WT:FICTION because it didn't originate in a fictional universes. Citations aren't origins. I didn't say you can't change existing definitions. My reply was to your "why haven’t you changed it’s definition to one that is in your view more correct" I'm not going to change a definition entry to the same thing as another entry. While I agree fictional isn't required this isn't directly about that entry. If I were to change it it would be along the lines of "An archetype, usually in anime/manga about characters, usually men who appear very convincingly as the opposite gender." This is about the entry that claims the definition is "A trans woman or transfeminine person" without 3 sources. I believe it is incorrect because people do not mean a trans woman or transfeminine person but I can't explain that to you since you believe a trans women is the same as a feminine man. Awhiteduck (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why the label "Internet slang" (or even "slang"*) was missing and instead replaced with "offensive" and "derogatory". I am not aware how often the word occurs outside the Internet, but on the Internet, it seems to me to be very comparable to simp, which is arguably also "derogatory" and "offensive", at least on Twitch. Besides, even if it is widespread offline, its global spread is probably attributable to the Internet or, more specifically, memes (considering that the word has been adopted in the (Anglo-)Arabic Internet slang, either as a calque فَخّ(faḵḵ) or as a transliteration of the English word).
Regardless, I feel that the definition probably relates to "androgynousness", "sexual intercourse", and "expectations" much more than "gender" or "identity".
*: "Slang" was there, but that makes the other two labels completely superfluous. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. Only one citation (which I moved to the citations page) Kiwima (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

RFV discussion: December 2021–January 2022[edit]

Green check.svg

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

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

Sense 20 "(slang, informal, chiefly derogatory and offensive) A (male-to-female) crossdresser or a trans woman or other transfeminine person." Here's the tea party page for the small past discussion.First off the definition is 3 different definitions with an "or" in between them and not one definition. Such a definition should be split up or changed. Also, it's derogatory/offensive is only clear widespread enough to be on a trans person not a crossdresser. But the main reason for the request is because the citations. 1st citation is not durably archived as doesn't count WT:SEA. 2nd citation isn't a use mention but a lone definition. 4th citation clearly goes against the definition by ruling out trans people aka please answer my question of how "“My son is a tranny.” “No, mother dear, I'm a Trap..."" doesn't rule that out. 5th citation also goes against the definition by differentiating between trans people albeit less clearly by following a "1 and 2, 1 and 2" format. At the very least it doesn't convey meaning enough to be a citation WT:ATTEST. Awhiteduck (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second quote starts with a mention, but moves on to a use. 4th and 5th do not negate that it can apply to trans women, just that it is not a trans woman in those cases. However, you are right that the definition could use improving. The essence of this meaning is that someone who is biologically male has fooled people into thinking they are a woman. This still passes. Kiwima (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Feel free to edit this entry as normal, but do not remove {‎{rfv}‎} until the request has been resolved." It literally says this. The new definition fixes the "or"'s. But I only see it as clearly derogatory or offensive when used on a trans person so I still disagree on that. So you agree on the removal on the first quote? Remove the lone definition part and you'll see how much of a citation is left on the 2nd one. 4th and 5th do negate that the definition is about a trans person, though. Awhiteduck (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It also says once it has passed, do not renominate it without a good reason. I don't see a good reason. This just feels like a waste of time. But very well, let's waste our time. You can delete the first quote if you must. There is a growing controversy about our criteria being too strict, but we have not officially agreed on any changes. The second quote is left with "It's easy to see why the whole culture surrounding traps is harmful to trans women.", which is clearly a use. 4th and 5th deny that trap means exactly the same thing as a trans woman, but do not negate the possibility that a trans woman can be a trap. Kiwima (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being “cited”, or after a discussion has been “cited” for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:" You can scroll up to read the rest. You don't get to cross out the title and remove my rfv ~4 and a half hours after because you personally are done with it.
So lets start with the most simplest one. Do you agree the 1st citation is not durably archived with Also, if you lower "chiefly derogatory and offensive" to something we both can settle on I'll agree the definition is clearly widespread enough. The citations I'll still disagree on, though. Awhiteduck (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you're just nitpicking for agenda reasons. If you think the quotes aren't great, you can replace them with better ones. If you think the definition is phrased wrong you can edit it. But this has been a fairly common term for a decade and clearly merits inclusion in Wiktionary.--Simplificationalizer (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the citations I listed are bad and should be removed, don't see why I have to replace them specifically. I don't think any of those are nitpicks they're really/obviously bad. I do want to edit it to something both of us can compromise on hence me asking about the "chiefly..." I don't see a point in editing then asking when I can just ask here first. Awhiteduck (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the first cite is from Usenet, that's durably archived (per WT:CFI). Williams uses the word in addition to providing helpful info on the definition and context, though this does make the cite so long that I had initially left it on the citations page. If there were more cites, so we could feel more confident that Writers and Nightwriter weren't just engaging in a connotation-not-denotation-based distinction (like Chris Rock's "There's black people, and there's niggers" skit or Louis CK's gay vs faggot skit) and/or putting bogus distinctions in fictional characters' mouths (like the cite at it where a character is made to claim to want to be called it even though actual people who get called it generally view it differently), it might make sense to put one or both as a subsense of the general sense, but for now they seem to be adequately covered by the general sense.
Probably the anime sense could also be made a subsense under the general sense, although I suppose it hinges on whether the anime sense can actually, as the first half of the definition suggests, apply to a character who seems to be a man but is a woman (which would make it broader than the "general sense"), or only to an "otokonoko", as the second half of the definition says. - -sche (discuss) 11:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"If?" You can see where it's from. The first cite is not from Usernet it's from and from WT:SEA "Sites such as and WebCite attempt to archive the Internet where possible, but at present cannot be considered durable."
Only the last sentence can be considered a use-mention the entire rest is a lone definition. It's literally commentary on the form of the word. Remove that and the last sentence doesn't convey meaning. Awhiteduck (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to understand the concern being expressed here. The verification of the sense is not in question: the sense clearly meets CFI and will be kept in the entry. You might find it worthwhile to read the "Attestation" section of WT:CFI, which explicitly allows Usenet cites (here is alt.2600 in an old directory of Usenet groups) and instances where the quotation "happens to contain a definition, but the word is also used for its meaning."
I see that the definition has been updated since the RFV began; do you have a problem with that? Or with the usage label? Or something else? This, that and the other (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] isn't considered durably archived as stated by WT:SEA therefore it should be removed. I don't know how to explain it simpler. The second citation doesn't just "happen" to contain it it directly goes to defines it. It doesn't meet attestation because the citations are bad.
With the updated definition. As I said above, lower the "chiefly derogatory and offensive" to something we both can settle on and I'll consider the entire definition close enough to "clearly widespread use." Awhiteduck (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you feel the need for someone else to edit the context information. You are perfectly capable of doing that yourself, and that has nothing to do with this RFV. There are clearly sufficient cites. Kiwima (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I need someone else to do it. It's that I would rather avoid back and forth editing. What do you think about the current edit. To me most are clearly insufficient cites. Awhiteduck (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche Fine I looked up alt.2600 myself. It was not my intention to word it as less offensive but more. Keeping them the same is fine by me. If there's no disagreements with the current version the rfv can pass. I consider it clearly widespread enough. Awhiteduck (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Awhiteduck (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]