Revision as of 22:34, 17 December 2024 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Transgender rights in the United Kingdom/Archive 1) (bot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:08, 23 December 2024 edit undoSangdeboeuf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,231 edits →top: {{Refideas}} +1 | ||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user 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}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
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. |
|
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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
- C-Class Discrimination articles
- Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- C-Class Gender studies articles
- Mid-importance Gender studies articles
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- C-Class Human rights articles
- Mid-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- C-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- C-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- Mid-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- C-Class United Kingdom articles
- Mid-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles