Misplaced Pages

Talk:Transgender rights in the United Kingdom: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:38, 31 May 2024 editRoxySaunders (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions2,998 edits →Trans women prisoners: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:08, 23 December 2024 edit undoSangdeboeuf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,236 edits →top: {{Refideas}} +1 
(37 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
__FORCETOC__
{{talk header}} {{talk header}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}} {{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}}
Line 18: Line 19:
|algo = old(60d) |algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Transgender rights in the United Kingdom/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Transgender rights in the United Kingdom/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Refideas
| {{cite book |last1=Colliver |first1=Ben |title=Re-imagining Hate Crime: Transphobia, Visibility and Victimisation |date=2021 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=Cham |isbn=978-3-030-65714-7 |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-65714-7 |url=https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/book/10.1007/978-3-030-65714-7 |format=PDF |url-access=registration |via=]}}
| {{cite journal |last1=Kettell |first1=Steven |title=Navigating the Secular Landscape: Religious Discourse on Transgender Rights in the United Kingdom |journal=Political Studies |date=15 October 2024 |doi=10.1177/00323217241273630 |doi-access=free |issn=1467-9248}}
}} }}


== Is this section worth deleting, as now superceded by time? -Proposed reforms in 2022 ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2024 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Transgender rights in the United Kingdom|answered=yes}}
Under the first paragraph of "Legal recognition of non-binary identities", remove the word "only" in the sentence "In 2016, a formal petition through the Parliamentary Petitions Service calling for EDM660 to be passed into law gained only 2,500 signatures before closing" per ] ] (]) 14:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Makes sense in the section; 3rd paragraph mentions the 100,000 signature threshold for a petition to be considered for a debate. <code><nowiki>''']'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> (]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]) 14:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

== Receded vs Varied ==

@]

Lede follows body, the body clearly shows a recession of trans rights over the last several years. It doesn't need to be directly sourced in the lede if the body supports it, as you well know. ] (]) 13:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
:I cannot make sense of your comment. The lead, and the article, plainly show that trans rights in the UK have been expanding over recent years. Your edit which I reverted is contrary to the content of the article. ] (]) 15:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)



== Lede changes: and Gender recognition / In June 2020, a report published by the European Commission... ==

Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Raladic for your edits. And comments on my talk page.
I've shortened my changes to Gender recognition as requested and left in the main sentences you wanted. (The report grouped cluster 1 and 2 as "least accessible", so saying anything than that is pushing a WP:POV)

I have added the list of countries in the same Cluster as the UK: as that helps the reader to get context. As does including a half-sentence more from the CoE's definition of Cluster 2.

Regards the lede you wrote: "the lead should summarize, briefly what the article is about, but not have more details than the article itself. "

My change was to correct a misleading quotation: the fuller sentence makes it clearer for the reader:
* The Council of Europe reported of the UK that "anti-trans rhetoric, arguing that sex is immutable and gender identities not valid, has also been gaining baseless and concerning credibility, at the expense of both trans people’s civil liberties and women’s and children’s rights."
Rather than
* The Council of Europe criticised what it described as a "baseless and concerning" level of transphobia gaining traction in British society.

⚫ But you are right - the main body would also benefit from that full quotation.] (]) 23:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

:Yes, thanks for the inclusion of the other cluster 2 countries, which I left in the edit.
:As for the lead summary - anti-trans rhetoric is akin to transphobia and the summarized sentence does accurately summarize what the report summarized, so the expanded full quote doesn't add anything (other than more words than are necessary for the lead) that isn't already appropriatly summarized in the lead. If you want to expand further on it, that should go into the body of the article at the section on ], which has more details on the report (and some others).
:In general, the lead follows what the article says as a brief summary, typically in our own wikivoice. ] (]) 23:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

== Terms can mean more than one thing ==

Imagine if someone went to the article on Manchester United and insisted that they were a "soccer team" because football was the thing the Steelers played. Anyone aware that a term sometimes meant more than one thing would be incredulous at such an insistence. ] (]) 14:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


Certainly a good case can be made that the Reuters 'leaked document' can be deleted, as the actual NHS docs were published.
:You're talking about the HRT thing, right? If so, I've just fixed the red link and changed the text to just "hormone therapy". I agree that "replacement" is in no way incorrect in this context, and it is one of the synonyms in the liked article, but it might confuse some readers who are used to seeing HRT used in a different context so it is probably better to let them click through if they want to know more. --] (]) 14:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
::I was actually thinking of adding it back myself but I noticed the page was already linked in the same section a few paragraphs earlier. (No strong feelings either way though, not going to remove it now it's there again) ] (] • ]) 16:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


Regards the 2022 NHS documents and the comments on them and WPATH response the current situation has changed since the CASS review and responses to that this year: so what do people think about the 2022 content? Leave in as historic facts? Or delete?] (]) 14:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2024 ==
:I would support the deletion of the whole of the section '''‘Proposed reforms in 2022’''', as this has been overtaken by events. ] (]) 14:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
::I would agree with the deletion, it's redundant and incomplete, and any attempt to try and give a complete, balanced rendering of this policy development would be pointless trivia and overlong. ] (]) 08:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:I’d leave it in, but heavily shorten it to only a couple of sentences. Say,
:“Previous reforms considered included banning the provision of gender affirming care outside of the NHS, banning those who receive such care from later receiving it from the NHS, and recommending the initiation of ‘safeguarding protocols’ against said patients.” ] (]) 14:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
::I think this proposed summary is too sweeping, and I would rather keep the existing wording than use it. But I would still prefer to delete the whole section. ] (]) 20:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed, it helps contextualize things, so shortening and summarizing it will be helpful, rather than outright deletion of historic information. ] (]) 14:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)


There is currently a majority for deletion, so if there are no other responses, I shall delete the entire section. ] (]) 13:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|Transgender rights in the United Kingdom|answered=yes}}
"social" challenges in the lede then goes on to describe legal challenges (and trans people certainly face medical challenges that cis people do not). Change this to just "challenges"? ] (]) 23:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
: This page is not protected. You can edit it yourself. ] ] 00:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
::Weird! I could've sworn there was a little lock blocking the edit button. Thanks for letting me know! ] (]) 04:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


:I'd prefer @] & @]'s general proposal, it's better to shorten information then to outright delete it. ] (]) 17:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
== Trans women prisoners ==
::I disagree - I advocate deletion of it all.
⚫ ::@] has stated very succinctly IMHO the basis for deleting all. ] (]) 21:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)


== Generation titles ==
{{yo|Useful1}} Please stop changing the wording on trans women prisoners. Your changes make the text incomprehensible. A ‘female trans prisoner’ would be a trans man. It is trans women we are talking about here. Also, please note that your changes are not minor; in the Misplaced Pages sense of the term, a ‘minor’ edit is one which would not reasonably be disputed, e.g. correcting a typo. ] (]) 11:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


Gen Z and Baby boomers are described by the ages of the group members. This should be the birth years of each group. ] (]) 16:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:While you are correct to request that Useful1 leave the original wording alone, this is an inappropriate, inflammatory and counterproductive way to make that request. Please strike your claim that {{tq|"A ‘female trans prisoner’ would be a trans man."}}. Not only is this incorrect, it is needlessly offensive to a point where it is as likely to make Useful1 believe that your request can safely be ignored as to actually achieve what you want.
:{{ping|useful1}} The best way to make sure that all readers understand the article correctly is to use the phrase "trans women prisoners" (or maybe "transgender women prisoners"). This is correct, unambiguous and universally accepted terminology. It avoids opening the door to pointless arguments torturing the words "male" and "female" in weird, confusing and unhelpful ways. Also, please read ] to see when to use the minor edit tickbox. Our definition of a "minor edit" is far tighter than you might have expected. (Don't worry. It catches a lot of people out.) The best approach is to ''not'' tick it if you are in any doubt at all whether you should. Nobody gets told off for ''not'' ticking it. There is an option in the settings to make all edits minor by default. Please make sure that this is turned off. It is a bad option that is basically just a rake for unsuspecting people to step on. ] (]) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
::My 2 cents is that both options have issues.
::* I actually agree with Sweet6970 that "female trans prisoners" sounds like it refers to trans men (it comes off as a really weird and derogatory way to refer to them, but it does come off as referring to them). The use of male/female is to refer to sex in the common parlance, and trans-female/trans-male for trans women and men respectively were advocated for a few decades ago but never got widespread acceptance.
::* "trans women prisoners" just sounds clunky and would for any demographic - you'd never see "asian women prisoners" or etc because "prisoner" is a noun but so is "woman" and "adjective-noun noun" is "noun noun" when we're trying to convey "adjective-adjective-noun".
::As such, I think the text should be {{tq|imprisoned transgender women}} as a clear and readable alternative. Alternatively {{tq|] prisoners}} could work, but is likely to confuse our readers (and is likely too much a stress from the sourcing) so I think the former is preferable. ] (]) 16:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I think your suggestion of {{tq|imprisoned transgender women}} works the best grammatically and is clear. ] (]) 20:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
::::I made a similar change just now in ], although I didn't end up using {{xt|imprisoned trans women}} exactly. –] (] • ]) 03:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::I like {{u|RoxySaunders}}’ elegant solution to the wording problem. I have added back the qualification in the Scottish policy, that the prisoners would have to be considered a risk to women and girls, as well as having a relevant conviction. ] (]) 11:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
:Since ] is a ], why not keep it simple, clear and understandable and say transgender-identifying (or even trans-identifying for brevity)? ] (]) 18:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
::For the same reason we don't say asian-identifying, black-identifiying, cisgender-identifying, heterosexual-identifying or weird phrases like that - we don't need to strap the word "identifying" on when speaking about identity. Additionally, it raises confusion, as "trans-identifying" doesn't specify mtf or ftm, and it is additionally generally used as a dogwhistle to misgender (ie, "trans identified males" to refer to trans women).. ] (]) 18:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Yeah. This is definitely terminology to very strongly avoid using, even on a Talk page. It may be that some people might have picked it up in good faith without realising what is going on, so I don't want to bite anybody's head off here, but it is intentionally obfuscatory language designed to confuse those who are not in the know and to act as a dog-whistle to those who are. ] (]) 18:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
:This site is a complete joke. Don't use wikipedia for researh. Anyone can take/put anything on here. If you want to get relialbe information cross reference actual sources. ] (]) 03:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
::Or just vist less visted pages. But you've been warned. ] (]) 03:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
:::{{re|Useful1}} On the contrary to "anyone can put anything", this discussion is a textbook example of the ] editing process. The article now says {{xt|trans women imprisoned}} instead of {{xt|trans women prisoners}}. Does this satisfy your original goal?
:::If you have other compelling points for why the exact phrase {{xt|trans female prisoners}} is necessary here (preferably not based on wild accusations of sexism or transmisogyny), you can still argue them, but ] here seems to be that {{xt|trans female}} is a potentially confusing term which should be avoided.
:::I'm sorry you had a frustrating experience editing Misplaced Pages. I hope you try again later. Consider brushing up on ] or try ], and give it another shot. –] (] • ]) 15:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
::::On the whole I think it's still perfectly fine and grammatical for articles and categories to use {{xt|women X}} and {{xt|trans women X}} as adjectives (e.g. ], ]) when the only alternative is something pathologizing like {{xt|MTF transgender}} or a less exact term like {{wt|en|transfeminine}}. –] (] • ]) 15:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:08, 23 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transgender rights in the United Kingdom article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconDiscrimination
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconGender studies Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconHuman rights Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconLaw Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited Kingdom Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Is this section worth deleting, as now superceded by time? -Proposed reforms in 2022

Certainly a good case can be made that the Reuters 'leaked document' can be deleted, as the actual NHS docs were published.

Regards the 2022 NHS documents and the comments on them and WPATH response the current situation has changed since the CASS review and responses to that this year: so what do people think about the 2022 content? Leave in as historic facts? Or delete?Peckedagain (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I would support the deletion of the whole of the section ‘Proposed reforms in 2022’, as this has been overtaken by events. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I would agree with the deletion, it's redundant and incomplete, and any attempt to try and give a complete, balanced rendering of this policy development would be pointless trivia and overlong. Void if removed (talk) 08:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I’d leave it in, but heavily shorten it to only a couple of sentences. Say,
“Previous reforms considered included banning the provision of gender affirming care outside of the NHS, banning those who receive such care from later receiving it from the NHS, and recommending the initiation of ‘safeguarding protocols’ against said patients.” Snokalok (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I think this proposed summary is too sweeping, and I would rather keep the existing wording than use it. But I would still prefer to delete the whole section. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, it helps contextualize things, so shortening and summarizing it will be helpful, rather than outright deletion of historic information. Raladic (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a majority for deletion, so if there are no other responses, I shall delete the entire section. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer @Snokalok & @Raladic's general proposal, it's better to shorten information then to outright delete it. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I disagree - I advocate deletion of it all.
@Void if removed has stated very succinctly IMHO the basis for deleting all. Peckedagain (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Generation titles

Gen Z and Baby boomers are described by the ages of the group members. This should be the birth years of each group. 185.13.50.217 (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: