| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Transgender 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:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11Auto-archiving period: 30 days
 |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about transgender people. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about transgender people at the Reference desk. |
| This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
 | 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 Wikipedia, 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 
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 |
Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
@ Raladic: tell me how this edit is "non-constructive". Willbb234 14:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- The consensus is that it was a hate crime, which led to the day of remembrance to commemorate hate crimes committed against transgender people.
- The fact that police misgendered her and did not call for an ambulance for a hour showed they were not really interested in solving the crime
[1], so the consensus on the article and the linked
Transgender Day of Remembrance have established this as the consensus. You can also find more sources such as this one quoting the mayor of Boston that called it a anti-trans crime
“Rita Hester was a Black trans woman and beloved Allston community member who lost her life as a result of transphobia and anti-trans violence"
[2], which support the consensus on the article. Raladic ( talk) 14:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)- Please point me towards where this 'consensus' was reached. We also can't look at ambulance arrival times and police activity to determine a motive for this attack. In fact, the two are unrelated. Also, the mayor calling it an anti trans crime doesn't mean we can. Again, I ask you to tell me how my edit was "non-constructive" and why you reverted it instead of coming to the talk page. Willbb234 14:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- From this source:
Rita may have been killed because she was a man who lived as a woman.
emphasis mine.A few weeks before her death, Hester went on vacation to Greece. Right before she left, she punched someone in the face at the Model Cafe, another Allston bar she frequented, according to the friend from the neighborhood who spoke anonymously.
Evidence for another motive.Both the friend and Wynne have another suspicion: A man (or men) who couldn't face his attraction to a trans woman came home with Hester and killed her in a fit of shame.
Pure speculation.Diana Hester said that for the first several years, she called the Boston Police Department all the time for updates on the case. In 2006, it announced that it was reopening the case. She never heard much after that, she said.
appears there has been no progress in the case from at least 2006 to 2020.
- Clear pattern of evidence that suggests that we cannot determine a motive.
- From the boston.com source that you point towards [3]:
Her murder remains unsolved.
-
Willbb234 14:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think there's enough sourcing for an attributed ... which some believe was an anti-transgender hate crime, as that is the necessary context for why her murder inspired TDOR. Edge Network: Some in the trans community believe Hester's murder was a hate crime, evidenced by the brutality of the assault and the fact that the assailant did not appear to have stolen anything from her apartment.
[4] –
RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (
💬 •
📝) 18:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. I don't see that there is "enough sourcing" here; you've only provided one source. It is also unclear as to whether this is a view held by "some" people. As far as I'm aware
Some in the trans community
would mean that this is a small minority view (the trans community is relatively small and 'some' would mean that the group who hold this view is even smaller). I don't see how this is due. It appears that the TDOR was more inspired by the nature of the murder or the attention it received, which might be a better line of approach. Willbb234 19:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)- You are ignoring the other source in the mayor of Boston I have cited above, which also supports this. It is important context that was the reason for the inception of the TDOR.
- Again, multiple editors have given reason on why the current wording on the article is th established WP:CONSENSUS and have shown sources backing it.
- Why do you seem to have such a vested interest in trying to remove this context?
Raladic (
talk) 20:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Again, multiple editors have given reason on why the current wording on the article is th established WP:CONSENSUS and have shown sources backing it.
I'm really struggling to find out how you have come to this conclusion so links to other discussion would be appreciated. Please don't question my motives here. I have a right to oppose the content and tacit bad-faith accusations will get you nowhere. The boston.com source doesn't really support this as it only explains the view of the Mayor's Office as opposed to some general view by a group of people. Please explain how my edit was "non-constructive". Willbb234 20:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)- I think that RoxySaunders' suggestions using the word "some" are the very furthest we can go to accommodate these objections. In fact, while I don't object to it, I think that it is probably a greater compromise than is really justified. To just reject that out of hand makes me wonder whether there is anything other than total acquiescence to your demands that will placate you. I think that consensus is against you here and that this is in danger of becoming a WP:1AM situation.
- We can't let this discussion continue to repeat indefinitely so what I propose you do, if you really do not feel that there is a consensus yet, is to start an
RfC. That is a defined process, which ensures fairness, with an uninvolved arbiter determining the outcome. We can notify relevant WikiProjects to bring more people in to get more opinions. If you, or anybody else, chooses to do this then I'd recommend making it an RfC with three options: The status quo text, the text you want and the text that RoxySaunders suggested. --
DanielRigal (
talk) 21:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Is there a reason why we couldn’t use the wording from the Boston.com article? Something along the lines of “She was killed in an act of transphobia and anti-trans violence”
Hy Brasil (
talk) 15:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- That comment was made by the mayor's office and so can't be stated as fact. Willbb234 15:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- It would have to be attributed to the mayor (e.g. according to the mayor….), and not in wikivoice.
Sweet6970 (
talk) 15:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, but then it would be a question of whether this was due as it doesn't appear to be the reason presented in sources why the TDOR was established (the comments were made a full 24 years after the murder). Willbb234 15:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Is there a reason why we couldn’t use the wording from the Boston.com article? Something along the lines of “She was killed in an act of transphobia and anti-trans violence”
Hy Brasil (
talk) 15:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. I don't see that there is "enough sourcing" here; you've only provided one source. It is also unclear as to whether this is a view held by "some" people. As far as I'm aware
- I think there's enough sourcing for an attributed ... which some believe was an anti-transgender hate crime, as that is the necessary context for why her murder inspired TDOR. Edge Network: Some in the trans community believe Hester's murder was a hate crime, evidenced by the brutality of the assault and the fact that the assailant did not appear to have stolen anything from her apartment.
[4] –
RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (
💬 •
📝) 18:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the material under discussion as, per
WP:ONUS, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
The material should therefore be removed until some consensus on exact wording is reached, which I am more than happy to discuss further. I am going to comment here beforehand so that I'm not blocked for edit warring Thanks.
Willbb234 12:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please don't. That would be seen as deliberately restarting the edit war which you were blocked for. The fact that you commented your intentions here will not count in your favour. If anything, it might be seen as proof that you are aware that you are edit warring and thus make things worse.
- You need to understand that nobody has supported your position here, at least, not so far. An RfC, which would bring in new people, is the only way that you can possibly hope to get anywhere with this. My primary recommendation is that you accept that your position is not persuading anybody and just
drop the stick but, if you do not accept that, then you can legitimately put that to the test by starting an RfC. (Instructions are here:
WP:RfC.) Edit warring against the status quo version is not a legitimate way forward. --
DanielRigal (
talk) 13:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- WP:ONUS is quite clear on who is responsible for gaining this consensus. My intention is not to start some kind of edit war but instead to enforce the policy set out at WP:ONUS. Participation in this discussion has been low so far so I don't understand why you are trying to discount my views based on the fact that people disagree with me. Please assume good faith, something you have consistently failed to do. Willbb234 13:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- I would note that instead of using this talk page to talk about the content under scrutiny, all you have done is used it to make bad-faith accusations against me and demands that I should be doing certain things like starting an RfC and what not. Comment on the content, not on the editor, or leave the conversation. Your contributions here have been the least bit helpful. Willbb234 13:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@ Raladic: please don't add a source which appears to support the statement under discussion. It's quite clear that the source doesn't support the current wording. Willbb234 16:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have added the source, and the attribution as was suggested by editors here and the mention that the murder remains unsolved, but has been described as an anti-transgender hate crime, which is supported by the sources with attribution.
- I believe this both satisfies the fact that it is questioned, as well as maintaining the existence of the content, which is important context since it was the cause for the inception of TDOR to commemorate hate crimes committed against transgender people.
- If you are still unsatisfied and want to seek more input from editors, then please follow DanielRigal's guidance and raise an RfC.
Raladic (
talk) 16:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think it is fine as it is now. A single citation to an LGBT advocacy organization is not enough to describe something as a hate crime in
WP:WIKIVOICE when the murder is unsolved, no motive has been determined, and not all sources call it that.
Willbb234, I disagree with just about everything else you have done to the article this month.
Scorpions1325 (
talk) 00:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Having looked at a few of the sources, I agree with @
Scorpions1325 that the current wording is a fair reflection.
Waggers
TALK 09:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Office of the Mayor of Boston is for someone important. "some members of the Transgender community" are assuredly less important, and the sourcing on that is poorer also. I've removed the latter. The former is adequate.
starship
.paint (
RUN) 09:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's not the way I would phrase it; talking about whether someone is "important" or not is dangerous language to use. Every human being is important, but their opinions aren't necessarily notable or suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia.
- I agree with the sentiment though - "some" unquantified, unidentified, uncorroborated outside of this one source "members of the transgender community" doesn't really cut the mustard. If it was an official statement from a notable campaign group or something similar, then there would be a more clear cut case for including it.
- So I think your edit is fine but, given the controversy this section has stoked up, I think it would have been wiser to discuss the change here before you made it on the article. Waggers TALK 10:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Office of the Mayor of Boston is for someone important. "some members of the Transgender community" are assuredly less important, and the sourcing on that is poorer also. I've removed the latter. The former is adequate.
starship
.paint (
RUN) 09:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Having looked at a few of the sources, I agree with @
Scorpions1325 that the current wording is a fair reflection.
Waggers
TALK 09:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think it is fine as it is now. A single citation to an LGBT advocacy organization is not enough to describe something as a hate crime in
WP:WIKIVOICE when the murder is unsolved, no motive has been determined, and not all sources call it that.
Willbb234, I disagree with just about everything else you have done to the article this month.
Scorpions1325 (
talk) 00:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- The Trans Day of Remembrance was created to honor those lost to anti-trans violence. This is a fact stated in reliable sources (here are a few: NBC News, USA Today, American Psychological Association, U.S. Department of State). This is a fact regardless of whether the killing of Rita Hester or any other specific trans person has been proven in a court of law to be motivated by transphobia. I am concerned that edits focusing on what has been specifically said or proven about Hester's death are minimizing and distracting from the main point of the section under discussion.
- I suggest rephrasing the relevant section to more closely match what is written on the
Trans Day of Remembrance page, and leaving out the quoted statement from the mayor of Boston entirely.
Funcrunch (
talk) 18:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
leaving out the quoted statement from the mayor of Boston entirely.
there were some editors who were very, very keen on including this, so there may be objections to this. I agree with the rest of what you say, although I would note that the section should be kept small seeing as this isn't the subject of the article and there already exists a dedicated article on the topic. Willbb234 22:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Willbb234, please remember that the WP:1RR you earned at ANI earlier this year does not give you permission to remove the information you disagree with once a day. Your block log is already long, and escalating block lengths are standard. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Rather than re-visit an older discussion that hasn't seen activity in a month, I'm opening a new topic to suggest re-adding a phrase similar to what was removed. "Some two-spirit people may also identify as transgender." The source originally used can still be discarded; better sources appear to exist, including a source cited in, and obtained from, the Two-Spirit page, a document from the Tribal Law and Policy Institute, and the Indian Health Service. An additional source can also be found the National Domestic Violence Hotline website.
Input is welcome. King keudo ( talk) 22:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
> Dated October 31, 2024
is this supposed to be 2023? 86.127.80.188 ( talk) 13:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Exactly that. I've fixed it. --
DanielRigal (
talk) 14:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ga 174.103.242.116 ( talk) 09:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
" Transgenderism" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect
Transgenderism has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 9 § Transgenderism until a consensus is reached.
Raladic (
talk) 03:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
| This falls foul of WP:NOTFORUM as it has nothing to do with improving the article. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Okay... this bothers me so much that I just have to have to make a thread about it. I wrote the article ICD-11, which includes a section about Gender incongruence. In it, I used the term transgenderism. It was removed by User:Raladic, because it was supposedly an insult!! They even nominated the transgenderism redirect (see above), pointing out that some idiots used that word to claim that transgenderism is an ideology, instead of an inborn condition. And that's why no one should use that word. What kind of nonsense is this?! So just because a few alt-right bozos are unable to understand gender, we should not use this word, because *they* said so?? Transgenderism is an -ism. Isms don't just refer to ideologies, but to phenomena in general ( journalism, realism, recidivism), including scientific phenomena ( magnetism, Darwinism, atavism). From an etymological viewpoint, there is nothing inherently insulting about the word transgenderism. In itself, it is a neutral, general-purpose term for all things related to being transgender. You can throw in all the sources that say otherwise, but those people are WRONG! Thus, User:Raladic is also wrong for calling it a slur, because it's not. Thanks for reading. - Manifestation ( talk) 10:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
|
Categories:
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Everyday life
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Everyday life
- B-Class vital articles in Everyday life
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- B-Class LGBT articles
- Old requests for LGBT studies peer review
- WikiProject LGBT studies articles
- B-Class Gender studies articles
- Top-importance Gender studies articles
- Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- B-Class Human rights articles
- Unknown-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles