I'm seeing more and more where people with even a slightly ambiguous gender identity have pronouns stripped entirely from their article. I would like to bring attention to the concept of 'de-gendering' and point out that this isn't some perfect solution. I mean, James Barry (surgeon) went to great lengths to hide his identity, used he/him pronouns until death, and referred to himself as a man. Why are we caving to transphobia to remove the pronouns he chose? Taking away pronouns only for genderqueer people isn't a permanent solution. Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

And more recently, Nex Benedict who's friends clearly use he/him and they/them has lost the privilege of being referred to with the pronouns he chose. I just don't understand how this is being seen as a neutral solution, and would like a more clear consensus. Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

From WP:GENDERID:

MOS:GENDERID states, in regard to terms relating to gender identity: Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources.

The MOS appears to agree with you. I would encourage reverting any further edits you find which remove self-designated pronouns. Doughbo (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I boldly created Category:Non-binary gay men (with help of WP:PetScan but I'm questioning if there's another way of naming this category. Category:Gay non-binary people or Category:Non-binary gay people? Is this vague? Sure there are non-binary men, but not everyone in the category would be directly a non-binary man I guess. And terms such as veldian/turian, vincian, or uranian imply WP:NEO. Any comment? --MikutoH ^talk! 00:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Giovanni 0331: tagging you since you created Category:Transgender gay men --MikutoH ^talk! 00:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to this category existing, but I believe a name like Category:Non-binary gay people would make more sense. I saw you added this category to two pages I watch (Alex Newell and Toby Marlow), both of whom I think would object to being classified as men. Aerin17 (t • c) 01:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing with Aerin, I am not sure Shea Couleé identifies as a non-binary man as they go by they/them and she/her pronouns out and in drag respectively. This category's value is in capturing people who specifically identify as non-binary men, it should be used more carefully Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the comments here. I think "Category:Non-binary gay people" would be a better name for the category. Historyday01 (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I have reviewed a couple more of the people categorised, a lot of this is just misgendering unfortunately. Even if it's in good faith this mostly needs to be reverted. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

For BLP safety at the very least, I am going to remove anyone without he/him pronouns. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for y'all's input. I fixed the category in the biographies. However, "gay people" includes lesbians, right? I categorized as such. I also noticed Category:Gay people was deleted. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Why even create something with the "non-binary men" or "non-binary women" strings? It feels disruptive, to say the least. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU, Antisymmetricnoise, Historyday01, and Aerin17: The categories were nominated/considered for dicussion (CfD), see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#Category:Non-binary lesbians. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, I just pushed The Abbey (bar) to mainspace. I am not great with categorization or formatting citations uniformly, so any help in those domains would be especially appreciated! Wracking ^talk! 22:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

"Charlie Morningstar" and "Vaggie" have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Morningstar and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaggie. Your comments on these AfDs would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

My draft is here, I’m particularly unsure if the lead, early life and death are done properly?

Thank you in advance! :) FortunateSons (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't read the sources, but the article seems to follow Wikipedia guidelines correctly. Draft looks nice. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much for your help! :) FortunateSons (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I already rearranged around your statement that she was "born male", which is not the current manner of discussing such things; current usage prefers that we treat the trans identity as always having been accurate, just misread. I raise my eyebrow a bit at the use of Confidentials as a source, as it's primarily a restaurant review site; were the subject a living person, I would object more strenuously. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the changes, they look great! I’m mostly using them for minor things and as backup, because I don’t have access to her aboutself writing FortunateSons (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Article surrounds topics such as gender-affirming care, circumcision, labiaplasty, and other matters.

Current debate here. Move discussion has been extended. KlayCax (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi all

I just finished writing TikTok-A-Thon for Trans Healthcare, I would really appreciate some help with it, also please add it to your watchlist, I know trans related pages get trolls, vandals etc.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a dispute over whether to include this content in the International Transgender Day of Visibility article (variations of it have been added and removed by several different editors, myself included). Discussion on the talk page would be welcome. Funcrunch (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I discussed the dispute with the experienced editor involved, who raised relevant WP policy considerations, and I think we came to an understanding: it's fine to add a section on "Reception" to TDOV that would include positive and negative responses and criticisms, including afaik the political controversy you sought to include. I also added some content on criticisms of TDOV's visibility focus by Black trans activists and scholars. Please let me know if you disagree or find this useful, etc. ProfGray (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The confluence of the two events was a notable event that got substantial press coverage, but the wording is terrible and not in the slightest neutral. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Gay and Lesbian Teachers and Students Association has had extensive work since being assessed as C-class a year or so ago, such that I believe it now belongs in B-class or better. Would someone with expertise in classifications please take a look and either move up to B-class or better, or provide feedback on what the article still needs? Chrisdevelop (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You've put incredible work into researching and writing this article. Rather than focus on assessment, I would think the priority would be to get feedback, as you say, and ideally the involvement of other uninvolved and experienced editors. I will comment on the Talk page. ProfGray (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

As an FYI, the user made some sweeping changes, some of which very erroneously implied that Intersex, Asexuality and Aromanticism were separate from LGBTQIA+ by creating new subcategories and moving things around. Part of this may stem from the confusion that we currently still have all pages be titled just LGBT, although we use it to mean the wider community. This may need a broad cleanup to correct. Raladic (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding to this, they have specifically created Category:LGBT intersex people and Category:LGBT asexual people and multiple subcategories in those two that may need to be nominated for deletion (probably with the exceptions of Category:Transgender asexual people, Category:Asexual non-binary people, and the corresponding intersex transgender and non-binary categories, which were preexisting) ForsythiaJo (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I've also noticed that in the Category for LGBT people, part of the description reads "Sexual or gender-related indetermination (e.g., asexuality, Klinefelter,...) is in itself not sufficient justification for inclusion in this category or its subcategories. Other subdivisions of Category:People by gender or Category:People by status might be more suitable in this case." This may have contributed to the decision to make multiple new categories. Perhaps this is something we should discuss clarifying? ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

An editor has raised these changes at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7. A tremendous amount of editor time has been consumed in recent months by editors making sweeping, undiscussed changes to the LGBT people categories that subsequently get undone at WP:CFD.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5 (ongoing)] This doesn't seem like an especially productive way of doing things.

This got me thinking again about the arguments for implementing a shift from LGBT to LGBTQ+ on the basis of improving clarity and accuracy. I've added my thoughts on that at Talk:LGBT § Revisiting WP:COMMONNAME.--Trystan (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Classification of transsexual and transgender people be moved to Classification of transgender people, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Presently there is a discussion here about whether Kino, the protagonist in Kino's Journey, should be included on the page listing non-binary characters (including all those which fall under the non-binary umbrella). I've responded to the original post, which asked in part, "Can someone familiar with this character please clear up the confusion? How is Kino's gender identity best described?", and challenged Kino's inclusion on the page, among other comments. However, your views would also be useful in this discussion. Thanks! Historyday01 (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Classification of transsexual and transgender people#Requested move 7 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a proposal to amend the GENSEX arbitration decision, to make it explicitly clear that admins can make any article or Talk: page in the GENSEX area be protected to require extended-confirmed (300/50) access to edit it.

People may wish to read and/or contribute to that discussion. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It may be relevant to this Wikipoject to know that this article has recently undergone a substantial pruning of content and reliable sources as well as changes in WP:STRUCTURE, from e.g. this on 6 April to this on 11 April.

Changes include e.g.

Beccaynr (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

In general the idea of a concision pass to make the article more encyclopedia and less like news article with details and anecdotes is a good one. This is a lot of material changed though so definitely needs a run through. The parasol patrol one is a good example of how this editor is getting sloppy. I can see how removing the line explaining what the parasol patrol is, would be good concision aka "Rainbow Youth Project and Parasol Patrol." The editor removed mention of the parasol patrol entirely while leaving in the source related to it. Sloppy. This needs to be slowed down and reviewed. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi all

A major review into trans healthcare, the Cass Review, has been published in the UK, I'd really appreciate if people with an understanding of medical research could read it, its currently a very edited article with quite high traffic. To put it mildly the report is being used by politicians and press to push for restrictions to healthcare provisions. The report has been criticised by academics and trans groups in the UK for issues with both its research methodology and its recommendations, but I don't have experience in writing about this kind of thing on Wikipedia.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think a problem we're gonna see in the article itself is that WP:MEDRS might be mis-applied to suppress criticism. We should, though, be aware that Cass is a primary source and MEDRS says Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, so we should be watchful of this widely-criticised hatchet-job being accepted uncritically in other articles about gender.

Commentary links that should meet RS:

• Michael Bachelard; Aisha Dow (10 April 2024). "Contentious UK gender medicine report prompts reflection, outrage in Australia". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 10 April 2024. — the quote from University of Melbourne associate professor Ada Cheung, at the end of the article, would probably meet WP:MEDRS, I would guess
• Tweet from long-time trans campaigner Roz Kaveney criticising Wes Streeting's endorsement of Cass: Roz Kaveney [@RozKaveney] (April 10, 2024). "This praise of a biased tendentious thoroughly meretricious report indicates how unfit for high office Wes Streeting is. Does he endorse the utterly unevidenced claim that people should be prevented from making life-changing decisions before the age of 25? #SackWesStreeting" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

Some opinion pieces providing analysis that might pass WP:RS:

• Journal article: Cal Horton (14 March 2024). "The Cass Review: Cis-supremacy in the UK's approach to healthcare for trans children". International Journal of Transgender Health. doi:10.1080/26895269.2024.2328249.
• Opinion piece from a trans barrister, but about growing up trans, so it's a legitimate criticism: Robin Moira White (10 April 2024). "What the Cass Review fails to tell us about growing up trans". The Independent. (See also paywall bypass link)
• Opinion piece from non-binary investigative journalist: Sasha Baker (11 April 2024). "The British government is throwing young trans people under the bus". Dazed.
• Opinion piece from trans journalist: Lee Hurley (10 April 2024). "The Cass Review: A government-sanctioned attack on trans lives". Trans Writes.
• Opinion piece from trans journalist (with a slightly misleading headline): Freddy McConnell (11 April 2024). "Hilary Cass's proposals are mostly common sense. She must reject anti-trans bias with the same clarity". The Guardian.
• Thread by assistant professor in nursing University College Dublin University College Dublin: John Gilmore [@GilmoreJNurse] (April 10, 2024). "The #CassReport has a number of significant methodological flaws in how it approaches evidence, and the ideological drive behind it. I cannot stress enough how much I want more research to be conducted in sexual & gender minority health - but this cannot be used to withhold care" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
• Interview with mother of trans teen: Robyn Vinter (10 April 2024). "Mother criticises 'agenda from above' after release of Cass report". The Guardian.
• Tweet from head of GIRES: Cat Burton [@CatBurton_UK] (April 10, 2024). "In my role as chair of @GIRESUK I was invited to consult with the Cass review. After three discussions it was obvious that the review had been written before we started. She totally discounted evidence from trans people from the basis of knowledge or lived experience. Useless" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

Press releases providing analysis:

• "UK: Cass review on gender identity is being 'weaponised' by anti-trans groups" (Press release). Amnesty International UK. 10 April 2024.
• "Press release: The Cass Review is bad science and should not be taken seriously by policymakers" (Press release). TransActual. 11 April 2024.
• "Cass Review out of step with high-quality care provided in Aotearoa" (Press release). Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa. 11 April 2024.
• "Our interim response to the Cass report" (Press release). Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia. 12 April 2024.
• "TSN statement on Cass Review Final Report" (Press release). Trans Safety Network. 12 April 2024.

— OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi OwenBlacker thanks very much, please could you post this on the talk page of the article as well? Thanks so much, John Cummings (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This article seems to flit back-and-forth between using modern terms for gender and sexual identities ("gay" and "transgender"), but in other parts it uses outdated language ("transvestite", "transsexual"). Obviously this is a historical article and I am aware that terminology changes, but I think this could do with a copyedit from members of this Wikiproject for consistency (and any other edits you would reccomend for this article). Thank you! GnocchiFan (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Does this project include asexuality and pansexuality? If not why not? If so why not call it WikiProject LGBTQ studies?

Thanks for reading. SigurdsSister (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

"LGBT" is just used as an umbrella term for the whole queer movement. "Queer studies" could be a reasonable alternative name. However, this discussion has been had a million times. Tons of move requests have been made to LGBT, our article about the initialism. It's just inconsistant, and in my experience, the alphabet soup is just a distraction from the actual goals of both this project, the wider community, and any LGBT-related movements. If there is a widely held belief that this WikiProject should change its name, I'm fine with it, but I really don't want another pages-long thread of people disagreeing with eachother about it. That's the inevitable result of proposals of LGBTQ, LGBTQIA, LGBT+, LGBTQ+, etc. It all means exactly the same in practice, but everyone has a slightly different preference. This is not an "LGB" exclusionary tactic we're doing here. I don't feel excluded as an enby ace myself, it's fine. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok that’s totally fine, just wondering.SigurdsSister (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I just published Wikipedia:No Queerphobes, an essay in the vein of WP:NONAZIS, WP:No Racists, WP:No Confederates, and WP:Hate is disruptive. I'd appreciate people's thoughts on it! Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this essay. Looks great as a central reference point. Raladic (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with a blanket reference to items of such concern as WP:FRINGE, as some of these views are sadly common. Some common beliefs are scientifically fringe, but some of what's being addressed is not a matter of science but of policy and belief. Not sure how best to address that.

I would suggest that "That marriage should only be available to heterosexual people." be edited to "...heterosexual couples", because for many of objectors to same-sex marriage, it's the gender of the participants and not the set of desires that is the problem with marriage; they are fine with a man and a woman who lack romantic attraction to each other getting married. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a useful essay. I've made these revisions, mostly focused on making the text flow (also elaborating somewhat on the various admin/arbitration noticeboards and enforcement mechanisms). I hope these are helpful.

I agree with Nat that some further clarification or specification may be required as to what is considered FRINGE, as opposed to constructive and neutral editing about highly flammable issues. Unfortunately transphobia (and all its related pseudomedicine and conspiracy theories) are popular in the same ways homophobia and racism were in the 50's, particularly with the British media, government, and medical establishment working to prop them up. Declaring them as unequivocally false/unverifiable will probably invite more controversy than Wikipedia:No racists. If nothing else, some citations might be in order. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for the advice and the help, particularly the article cleanup and arbitration expansion Roxy I love how it flows now!

I just tried to split the pseudoscientific narratives out and add some sources, ProveIt stopped working for me so the refs are a little messed up lol. I've got a busy day (but woke up early with time to kill) so won't be able to return to it until tonight. I'd appreciate thoughts on if the additions help clear things up wrt WP:FRINGE! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the capital Q is necessary in the title - it ought to be in sentence case, no? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:No queerphobes. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

As it stands, I think the above article reads as an anti-gay marriage POV fork (not sure about the reliability of the source used for the quote used within) with a lot of outdated sources. Possibly due a merge into the main Marriage article or maybe a rewrite, was wondering what members of this WikiProject think about it? GnocchiFan (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Currently it doesn't seem like a particularly useful article, and the article for marriage already has a more useful section on definitions. I think a merge would make sense, unless someone wants to substantially expand the article to detail definitions of marriage across time, culture, etc. ForsythiaJo (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Propose a merge to Marriage#Definitions. Probably most of it will be cut before/after that merge. Wracking ^talk! 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and deleted a big honking quote in the middle of the page, which was sourced to a page that was a mirror of a 2003 version of a page that was turned into a redirect in 2004. The use of a mirror made that WP:CIRCULAR; the 2003 article cited it to a a no-longer extant page of talking points for the Concerned Women of America, not a proper analytic source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Given that Definition of marriage is a POV fork that is entirely the one-day work of a single editor, I do not think restoring the redirect to Marriage#Definitions would be controversial, so it should not require an AFD discussion to just go ahead and do so. The target section is in much better shape than the fork, and I do not see any content that would be worth consideration for merging.--Trystan (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you folks for the suggestions and edits! I've WP:BOLDly gone ahead and restored the redirect to Marriage#Definitions. If anyone wants to flesh out a halfway decent article on different definitions of marriage around the world and in different cultures, I would not be opposed to re-creation. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for taking the initiative. Wracking ^talk! 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)