| Revision as of 22:43, 22 January 2024 editCannolis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers40,003 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2024: Responded to edit requestTag: editProtectedHelper← Previous edit |
Revision as of 12:42, 23 January 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,219 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:List of transgender people/Archive 2) (botNext edit → |
| Line 18: |
Line 18: |
|
|archive = Talk:List of transgender people/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:List of transgender people/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== Non-binary = Transgender? == |
|
|
|
|
|
? As far as I know, transgender is not the same as Non-binary, and the name of the article is LIst of transgender people, not list of transgender or non-binary people. ] (]) 23:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Please allow me to quote the very first paragraph of the article ]: |
|
|
:{{tq|"Non-binary and genderqueer are umbrella terms for gender identities that are not solely male or female (identities outside the gender binary). '''Non-binary identities fall under the transgender umbrella''', since non-binary people typically identify with a gender that is different from their assigned sex, though some non-binary people do not consider themselves transgender."}} (Emphasis mine) |
|
|
:Multiple non-binary people are already listed in the article and your insistence on removing one specific person is inexplicable to me. As I see it, including non-binary people here is completely uncontroversial. The only reason to avoid it would be in the specific cases of individual non-binary people who do not consider themselves to be trans. We do not want to apply a label that the subject explicitly rejects. |
|
|
:So... What is the problem here? Why is that one entry different from the others? ] (]) 15:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::It was one entry that I saw. I did . As far as I can tell from the quote, non-binary is not the same as transgender, not withstanding the fact that the line separating the two is somewhat blurred. In my opinion, unless someone unambiguiously identifies as transgendender, they should not be listed in an article called "list of transgender people". That is, unless, we rename the article to list of transgender and non-binary people. --] (]) 20:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think that both the article I quoted and simple logic make it clear that a non-binary person is generally considered transgender by default. They were assigned one gender at birth and now they live as a different gender. They have made a transition. As such, being non-binary people is considered to be a type of transgender. It's not the same as being a trans man or a trans woman but they are still trans. Of course, nobody is obliged to embrace that label, and we should not include people here if they have said that they do not, but ''by default'' a non-binary person is eligible for inclusion here assuming that they meet the other inclusion criteria. ] (]) 21:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::As expressed in the part of the quote you chose not to put in bold, there are a substantial number of people who identify as non-binary but who would not identify as transgender, if asked: they have rejected gender as a category, rather than adopting a different one. In other words, rather than being a "third" gender, they don't accept the premise of the question. The question at hand is whether we assume non-binary people are transgender ''unless they object'', or only include non-binary people who also ''affirmatively identify'' as transgender. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
:Unless we want to merge this article with ] and rename it, per ] I think we have to only include people for which there is sourcing where the person explicitly identifies themselves as transgender. I understand the argument that non-binary identities falls under the trans category, and there's a lot of overlap, but since the terms aren't synonymous, and a lot of non-binary people don't identify as transgender, I don't we can use sources that say the person is non-binary to say they are trans. ] (]) 02:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Good point for exclusion. I was not aware of the existence of ]. |
|
|
::We need to scrub this list of all non-transgender people whose inclusion is based solely on their gender non-binary. ] (]) 05:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I very strongly disagree. This is beginning to sound like a grudge against non-binary people and I am this close to handing out warning templates for blanking. This needs to stop now! We are not getting into some weird hierarchical bullshit where binary trans people are treated as more "real" than non-binary ones. This is a list of transgender people not a list of only binary transgender people. That is made clear in the introduction. ] (]) 03:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Let's not make bad faith assumptions, please - there's no need to inflame this discussion. The issue here is just making sure everyone on this list, especially ]s, would explicitly identify with the label transgender in terms of being included in this list. There's no suggestion that "trans non-binary" is less valid than "trans binary". |
|
|
::::{{u|A girl in Latvia}} I do think you should stop removing non-binary people from the list until there's a consensus to do so here. ] (]) 06:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
''Note: I have notified ] about this dispute and invited people there to give their opinions. ] (]) 03:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm. This list is always going to include some nonbinary people (since, even if interpreted narrowly, the list covers nonbinary people who explicitly identify as transgender). And in general, our biggest articles on "transgender" this or that, e.g. transgender history, scope themselves as using the broad sense of the word (including nonbinary people), so from the perspective of "what is the scope of the word", it's reasonable for this list to in-general include nonbinary people. That's independent/regardless of there also being a list of nonbinary people (or, as it is currently awkwardly titled, "List of people with non-binary gender identities") : we also have both both "List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people" and "List of bisexual people", and both timelines of trans history and timelines and LGBT history, etc etc, despite the one-way overlap. That said, I could also see there being people on the nonbinary list who wouldn't be included here, like there are people in the "nonbinary people" category who are not in the "transgender nonbinary people" subcategory for a variety of reasons, from not identifying as transgender to having a third-gender identity in a society with 3+ genders (which is obviously ''not binary'', but not so obviously "transgender"). I will also note that this article is very large, already over 190,000 bytes (and if it's missing anyone who's in the nonbinary list, that list is another 90,000 bytes), so we could consider splitting it by letter the way the bisexual list and others are split (e.g. A-M, N-Z)... ] (]) 04:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thinking about this more, since the term transgender as you mention is generally scoped to include non-binary people, including them is reasonable. But we should definitely be careful in terms of BLPs to make sure when adding non-binary people that they don't object to the trans label. ] is interesting to look at - I find it curious that there's a separate list for bisexual people but not for gay/lesbian people. ] (]) 06:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hmm, that is odd, considering that ] is a page, and there SHOULD be equivalent pages such as ] and ] instead of cobbling together gay, lesbian, and bisexual people ]. Not sure why that was ever decided as "good". I say this as a person who created pages like ], ], and ]. There should be separate pages for each sexual identity, and if you proposed a split of gay and lesbian people off ] into various pages (] and ]), I'd support that ] (]) 12:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm not sure that this helps with the issue at hand but I can see why it might be a good idea. Certainly ] is a bit weird. It leads to so many articles about so many people that I wonder if it is all just an overcomplicated and unnecessary way of reimplementing the equivalent categories. I feel that all these list articles should only include highly notable people with the categories handling the rest. LGBT people are something like 8% of the world's population. We don't want 8% (or whatever) of all our biographies on a handful of list articles. ] (]) 13:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Oh, I can completely agree that those list articles should only include highly notable people. I think people sometimes think the lists should include EVERYONE, when that wouldn't be realistic. ] (]) 13:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::How do we decide who is "highly notable"? I agree with this idea in principle but deciding on criteria for inclusion would be a lengthy project, and I can see it ending with no consensus. "No stubs" could be the beginning, but those are either deleted or expanded and such a rule would be completely unnecessary. If a ] ain't broke, why fix it? <span style="background-color: indigo;">(''']''' ]])</span> 20:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Hmm, that's true. Deciding on criteria can be a challenge, for sure. ] (]) 01:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023 == |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023 == |
.svg){kind=small}
Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 00:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pinchme123 (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)