Jump to content

Talk:Legal status of transgender people

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vladimir Luxuria

[edit]

I'm pretty sure the italian Vladimir Luxuria was the first transgender mp in Europe, and that's what her wikipedia page says, am I wrong? Kevinlokomotiv (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

I added the cleanup tag since the South Africa text needs to be rewritten; possibly other sections as well. 83.177.66.212 13:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the South African stuff does need a re-write. The position IIRC is that the Apartheid Government actually passed a law granting rights to transsexuals and post apartheid these rights are now enshrined in the constitution. But I don't have references. Additionally the Australia, New Zealand and Canada are not in Africa!!:-) Wilmot1 23:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This needs major work, seperating out into country-specific parts. Morwen - Talk 13:04, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That too, but what's with the mess under Corbett vs Corbett? It looks like someone's put half the information about Australia's "Kevin" case under that - but it starts talking about the English decision, and then goes straight into talking about "Chisholm", without mentioning who the heck he is. Ambivalenthysteria 13:17, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've taken a hacksaw to the UK bit, basically rewriting it entirely. The bit about medical treatment is rather anecdotal, I shall try to find references. Morwen - Talk 15:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looks much better. Nice work! :) Ambivalenthysteria 15:45, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The UK section is very lucid. It certainly makes plain how deficient the United States section is, though admittedly conveying a correct and itemized understanding of rights, procedures, etc., in the 50 states is a much more difficult job. Wareh 18:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Enough Mention of Opposed Countries

[edit]

Reading this slough, there is hardly any mention of countries that ban or have no tolerance for these actions. Surely the summary at the start shoould note that a good chunk of countries are opposed and do not allow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.147.67 (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Historically in the United Kingdom, transsexual people had succeeded in getting their birth certificates changed and marriages conducted. However, this was not legally tested until the case of Corbett v Corbett in 1970, where Arthur Corbett attempted to annul his marriage to April Ashley on the grounds that transsexuals were not recognised in English law. It was decided that, for the purposes of marriage, a post-operative transsexual was considered to be of the sex they had at birth.

Hum. Where does the case of Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet come into this? Born female, changed gender in 1952, ruled legitimate heir to a baronetcy in 1968. Shimgray | talk | 21:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be part of the "historically recognised until Corbett vs. Corbett". Reference and add it :)
As a side note, I think the Corbett vs. Corbett case said that transsexuals changes sex for all purposes bar marriage, but also stated that the birth certificate shouldn't be changed. Thankfully the EU court finally overruled this recently (despite several prior attempts).
Cheers! Lauren♫/∆ 00:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passports and Australia

[edit]

Just added in a new section, please feel free to keep an eye on it as new news comes in. I'm pretty sure that good ol' Downer will launch an appeal, just as the federal government appealed Kevin's case.

Lwollert 03:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Transsexualism” → “gender transition”

[edit]

At the risk of trying to paint a bike shed: I propose the title be changed from “Legal aspects of transsexualism” to “Legal aspects of gender transition”.

Strictly, the legal issues arise from changing the gender with which one is publicly and legally associated, rather than from being associated with an incorrect gender.

(Also, “transsexualism” sounds more like a medical complaint than a run-in with society's preconceptions.)—Greg K Nicholson (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - At first glance, I was going to oppose this idea, but upon thinking about it for a bit longer, it is actually a very sensible idea, with a more appropriate name. (I've "!voted" so when the discussion dies down, it is easier to see what the consensus is, I encourage others commenting to do the same) Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is an old section, but I would like to revive this discussion as I also find the current tittle "Legal aspects of transsexualism" not to be the best fit for this article. I like the suggestion made above by User:Gregknicholson to rename the article to "Legal aspects of gender transition" as not all folks wishing to undertake a gender transition wish to do so medically or identify as a transsexual. --Devin Murphy (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not all people who are born with transsexual body-parts (e.g. girls who are born with masculinized body-parts) like the idea that this condition has to do with a gender-identification. A body is a body. --5.56.219.54 (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit made to Japan section

[edit]

I edited out a section in the legal statis of transsexualism in Japan. Originally the section claimed that transexuals are constantly laughed at through TV show and commercials yet there is no source or referance to back this up. The same can be said with several other aspects that I removed such as transexuals that are offered jobs that lead them to suicide or slavery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.145.209 (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New resource

[edit]

This may be of use for this article: http://www.transrespect-transphobia.org/en_US/mapping.htm --Alynna (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Legal aspects of transsexualism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 August 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. I'm not sure how well this matches our treatment of Transsexualism and Transgenderism elsewhere, but there's certainly consensus here, and it's probably other pages that should follow this lead. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legal aspects of transsexualism → Legal aspects of transgenderism – Transsexual is a term that is no longer used popularly and actually represents a smaller portion of the transgender community than transgenders themselves. A similar discussion is happened here. -Euphoria42 (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Legal aspects of transsexualism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt & Lebanon

[edit]

according to these two articles, gender change has been legal in Egypt since 10 years ago, and in lebanon few days gao http://www.madamasr.com/sections/politics/being-transgender-egypt http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/lebanon-grants-trans-people-right-to-legally-change-their-gender/#gs.ddba47202e6a49cea9fc63ef236529b9

we need someone to change the map and update the article etc...

--208.118.170.2 (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section and large block quotes

[edit]

I think the lead section here is too bulky. There is some information with weasel words that could be cut or use citation. "There is now greater understanding..." with no citation demonstrating this. Under the Philippines section there is use of a large block quote and some paraphrasing.VeygonKeesh (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 March 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. No objections after 7 days. Cúchullain t/c 14:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Legal aspects of transgenderism → Transgender rights – I propose that the page be renamed, in line with various "Transgender rights in country" articles, such as Transgender rights in the United States. This removes an unnecessary "-ism" from the page name, increases consistency across articles, and may help make it easier to find.

The page Transgender rights currently redirects to LGBT rights by country or territory. The page Legal aspects of transsexualism in the United States redirects to Transgender rights in the United States. Trankuility (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The UN Human Rights Committee, Australia, and transitioning while married

[edit]

The UN Human Rights Committee ruled in favor of a transgender woman who is seeking to remain married while transitioning. Current Australian law states that if a person seeks to change their birth certificate, they must get divorced first. I know this is non-binding (I think), but I think this is significant enough to earn a mention somewhere in the article.[1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenorTwelve (talk • contribs) 01:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty/trans-woman-behind-landmark-un-decision-speaks?utm_term=.sdrjm14qQr#.qcxmayNLr6
  2. ^ https://www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty/un-backs-married-trans-woman-fighting-for-birth-certificate?utm_term=.rpjYOZpkmJ#.ttE06A3pqe

Lead sentence needs definition

[edit]

The lead sentence needs to have a definition of the title topic. This can either be bolded, or not bolded if it doesn't make sense to include the title string in the first sentence (but in the case of this topic, it should be included and bolded). In either case, the definition needs to occur in sentence #1. Mathglot (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed uniform table of rights

[edit]
Right to change legal name Right to change legal gender Right to access medical treatment Right to marry Anti-discrimination laws Hate speech/hate crime laws

Please can any thoughts on this be made, here. I hope to be able to begin implementing this soon. Intersex rights and Sexual orientation rights are a lot fuller than the equivalent for Transgender rights, including a lack of simple table. Sport and politics (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of issues in transgender rights: Right to have gender affirmative parental status , Right to change legal gender without genital surgery, Right to sustain former heterosexual marriage(Right to change legal gender without divorce). Right to change legal gender of who have children and etc. --Sharouser (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The table currently in the article doesn't provide useful information — it provides a good/bad distinction, whereas there are many different aspects to consider. I'd definitely support any improvement to the table. It would be useful also to consider that some of these rights in some jurisdictions are subject to medical approval, to providing evidence of having lived as the person's preferred gender identity for an amount of time, to have had surgery, or to be sterilised. While the table you're proposing, @Sport and politics: would definitely be an improvement, can you also please ensure you don't simplify countries down to a simple yes/no? Thanks! — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iran is terrible on trans rights

[edit]

The claim "As of 2008, Iran carries out more sex change operations than any other nation in the world except for Thailand." which is based on several inaccurate and spin-doctored articles published by The Guardian. Even Maryam Khatoon Molkara had to go outside of Iran for her vaginoplasty. Surgeons in Iran don't have the requisite urological training. As of 2018, one directory of surgeons has no surgeon in Iran who performs male-to-female SRS.[1] On the other hands, you'll find the names of more than 30 surgeons in Thailand easily.

Additionally, in Iran, trans people only have a right to exist--nothing else. No right to serve as military officers or serve in any government positions. No government protections either.--58.142.9.141 (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to contribute to an edit war on this page, but I did a search and found a more recent news story in a reliable source (AP) that you might add for additional perspective on current attitudes toward trans people in Iran. Funcrunch (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks very useful, if no one else adds, I will read again and maybe try to add when I am awake. The very concerning forced gender reassignment of LGB people also deserves a mention (though maybe slightly off topic) ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Transgenders people are "officially recognized" means they can exist. That's all. What about getting a job? "When you apply for a job in Iran, you have to prove that you completed your mandatory military service or provide official documents showing that you were exempted. Transgender people are exempted from military service but, often, the army doesn’t know what to write on the forms. So some transgender people end up with things like “mental health issues” or “hormone imbalance” written on their files, which can cause them problems when they are seeking employment." [2] --58.142.9.141 (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about protection against police harassment of trans people? "Hasti, a 30-year-old trans woman was detained and harassed by the Iranian police for wearing makeup and presenting as a woman at a private function." [3] In fact, police harassment is much worse than 99% of other countries because Iran has a Patrol for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (Iran) https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-transgender/28931543.html--58.142.9.141 (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The "forced gender reassignment" claims are fictitious. "Iran grants transgender people loans worth nearly $1,200, though that’s still well below the $7,000-$12,000 cost of the surgery." according to an article published in 2018.--58.142.9.141 (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iran claims

[edit]

Please provide the website in English or Farsi of one (1) SRS surgeon in Iran who performs vaginoplasty before inserting false claims of 1000's of vaginoplasty being performed in Iran annually!??!--58.142.9.141 (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully ask ~ please do not direct insulting language at other editors in your edits or edit summaries. Just because surgeons are not listed at transheathcare, is not necessary proof that the surgeries have not taken place. As someone deeply concerned about trans rights I would welcome and accept being corrected. ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I got emotional.--58.142.9.141 (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peace and I fully understand, because human rights are very important. Also I am not actually against your argument regards the injustice of trans people in Iran. ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article lead

[edit]

The article lead doesn't explain what transgender rights are, it only lists legal issues relating to transgender people. It doesn't even mention the word "right/s". Perhaps the title should be changed to "Transgender people and the law" or "Legal status of transgender people", as that appears to be the current article scope. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible lead

[edit]

The article's WP:LEAD never directly says what transgender rights are. It vaguely refers to a few, but omits many others, like self-identification of gender and access to single-sex/gender spaces. Crossroads -talk- 03:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical Error

[edit]

My edit was recently reverted on the grounds of “no deadnaming.” However, in the context on grammar, I believe my edit would be correct. When referring to a person having a sex reassignment surgery and changing their name, the male Jeff did not exist before the female Jennifer had the surgery. If Jeff the male was already a male, why would he become a male through sex reassignment surgery? It is a grammatically paradox. DukeOfGrammar (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:GENDERID should help you understand why your edit was reverted. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I am fine with referencing people by their gender identity, but this is a grammatical error and should be fixed. If there is a way to fix this sentence and others like it without violating this rule, please tell me. DukeOfGrammar (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sport

[edit]

Very odd not to mention or even cross-reference the topic of transwomen's right to compete in women's sport.

August 2021 move

[edit]

In line with my previous comments above, I've been WP:BOLD and moved the article to a title that more accurately reflects the current scope of the article. Currently the article does not address or even define 'transgender rights' as a topic, it is merely a list of legal protections by country. The new title is in line with a naming convention used on a number of other articles. I would note that the article was originally titled "Legal aspects of transsexualism", which was changed to "Legal aspects of transgenderism" in August 2015, which was changed to "Transgender rights" in March 2017. The previous changes had limited discussion so I don't believe I am going against a strong consensus otherwise in moving the article, however I am happy to be reverted. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a reasonable move, especially given the lack of definition of transgender rights. One thing to keep in mind is that some articles use the phrase "transgender rights" without explanation and link here. Those should probably be written more clearly, since many people are not clear on what those rights are and this article doesn't explain it. Crossroads -talk- 22:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The same arguments would apply to LGBT rights articles which have not been moved. Personally, I believe that both sets of articles (i.e. "LGBT rights..." and "transgender rights..." or whatever alternative titles should be devised) should be consistent with each other although there are arguments to be made both for and against the "rights" titles. (t · c) buidhe 22:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Trans rights" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Trans rights and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 13#Trans rights until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. feminist (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The title should be "Legal rights of trans people," not status as if people are talking about cocaine as opposed to civil rights.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfectly normal phrase used in all sorts of contexts; e.g. Legal status of Germany. Crossroads -talk- 04:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Germany is not a human with civil rights.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like the category of transgender people, Germany is in fact made up of humans with civil rights. Crossroads -talk- 05:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Status" has a connection with "something" as opposed to "someone." Germany itself is a country and not a sentient breathing person.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the table about?

[edit]

I find the first table about Legislative efforts to recognise gender identity very confusing. If it is about when a certain country got a gender identity law and accepted that trans people changed their legal sex, the years are completely wrong. The year number seems to be more in line with when some countries got self-identification as a requirement for changing legal gender. But that is not what the table indicates it is about. I'm not sure the years are completely correct then either. Godfellow (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding status map

[edit]

@Sideswipe9th, you reverted my removal of the 12 October 2023 map and restoration of the pre-October map with the edit summary The removed map seems way more up to date, as the older one was created in October 2015. "Legal after surgery" means legal recognition is only granted after surgery. (20:04, 3 December 2023). Let's discuss.

  • The pre-October map is used in various languages and is translatable because it is an .svg. The new map is used only on this page on enwiki. Any updates should be made to the old map and uploaded as a new version. This has been done many times before since its original creation in 2015. If you go to the file's page on Commons, you will see that it was updated in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and on 1/7/2023, 2/9/2023, 2/9/2023, 3/3/2023, and 8/17/2023. I don't know what changes MaliMail is trying to reflect with their new .png map, but those should be made to the .svg.
  • The new map is awful because the legend says "Legal Status of Transgender People" and has the options of "Legal", "Legal after surgery", "Illegal", and "Legal in theory, defacto illegal" Because this legend is hardcoded into the png image, it cannot be modified easily. For example, the "defacto illegal" misspelling cannot be corrected. The fourth category nowhere is used in the actual map, as far as I can see, and there are colors used in the map but not defined in the legend. For example, China is brown, and that color does not appear in the legend. Same for Jordan.
  • You say in your edit summary that "Legal after surgery" means legal recognition is only granted after surgery. I assume you mean that the person's gender identity is legally recognized after gender-affirming surgery. Assuming that it is the case, "Legal status of transgender people" is not an accurate description of what is meant to be conveyed.

All that said, I assert that any updates since 8/17/2023 need to be made to the pre-October map and the new map should not be used. What are your arguments against my assertion? --Orgullomoore (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I restored the October 2023 map that was added by MaliMail. Your initial reason for removal was that it was an illogical map. What does "legal after surgery" even mean? The person's existence is illegal before that?. The "legal after surgery" meaning is explained throughout the article, primarily referring to legal recognition only being granted after gender-affirming surgery, though in some cases it's also referring to a lack of any legal recognition of transgender people.
The primary reason I restored it was that when I reviewed it, the older map looked as though it had not been updated since it was created in October 2015. Though upon refreshing the page I can now see that it was last updated in August 2023. Not sure why the previewer glitched out like that, but it did.
Upon reviewing this further, as it is clear that the pre-October map is still relatively up to date, I'll self-revert and restore this revision. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Self-revert complete. Next time though, could you please use a slightly more descriptive edit summary than simply describing the map as illogical? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll try to do that. Thank you. --Orgullomoore (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the old map needs updating and despite me trying to tell people to do it. nobody did.
-- MaliMail (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What needs updating and where did you raise it? --Orgullomoore (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
discussion page for the image MaliMail (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Why not upload a new version of the svg instead of creating a new png? --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that "Spartacus Gay Travel Blog" was not considered a reliable source (travel blogs generally are not). Also the link doesn't work for me. Either way, as the file page itself says, the image can be updated by uploading new versions. It does not make sense for us to reinvent the wheel every time there is a change, especially given the issues with the October map outlined above. --Orgullomoore (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've (mainly) been maintaining the map File:Gender self-identification around the world.svg and its subsets (though it looks like I need to check them over again; there have been some edits since my last) and it might be worth using those to update these some? Certainly the colour scheme for File:Laws concerning gender identity-expression by country or territory.svg is pretty hard to parse in small size, so varying the range of colours might be useful.
  • File:Laws concerning gender identity-expression by country or territory.svg
    File:Laws concerning gender identity-expression by country or territory.svg
  • File:Gender self-identification around the world.svg
    File:Gender self-identification around the world.svg
  • File:Gender self-identification in Europe.svg
    File:Gender self-identification in Europe.svg
  • File:Gender self-identification in Mexico.svg
    File:Gender self-identification in Mexico.svg
  • File:Gender self-identification in the Americas.svg
    File:Gender self-identification in the Americas.svg
    • Maybe it's worth us consolidating some of this information (and the less in-your-face colour scheme) into File:Laws concerning gender identity-expression by country or territory.svg perhaps? —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge proposal

    [edit]

    {{merge|Legal status of gender-affirming healthcare}} Basically both articles are lists on the same topic. Maybe the creators of these articles initially intended for each article to tackle different topic but the difference is very trivial that is unnoticeable to the readers and editors that led both articles to end up with the same content. And because both articles are lists and lists rely heavily on readers to complete them and update them constantly, even if they were to be fixed for now, they will end up with the same content later on due to readers' edits. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 20:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - The other article of Legal status of gender-affirming healthcare was split from Gender-affirming surgery by @Tamzin (refer to the split). Conceptually the rights for gender-affirming healthcare and the basic human rights of transgender people are related, but not the same and this current article talks about much more than just gender-affirming healthcare, so I don't think a merge is warranted, especially given that the current article is already almost 180kb and almost 8000 words, which per WP:SIZESPLIT means instead of merging in more content, we are actually nearing the point of trimming or splitting content from this current article into new sub-articles. Raladic (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At a glance, I'm not seeing a lot of redundant material in this list, but if there is any, it should be removed or summarized as appropriate. A sentence here and there about healthcare access may still be appropriate if relevant to legal status. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell that to the readers who keep adding new stuff. At this rate we will need someone to patroll the pages and keep explaining the difference between the two pages and correcting their edits. If we don't have one, then let's merge them. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 18:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, which content in this page do you think needs to be removed/moved? And is there some reason you cannot remove it yourself or at least list it on talk and ask others to remove it? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 05:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Upon reading the materials I can see how there is enough material that these are two separate topics where a jurisdiction might offer differentiated legal treatment to each one in no discernible pattern. There is a WP:SIZESPLIT argument here too and even if editors were able to be more concise with their words the best we could do is probably cross linking certain sections to whatever extent that the two articles are redundant. Jorahm (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Para added 28 November 2024

    [edit]

    @Xybcaa: added a para on 28 November 2024. This does not have references in the proper format – see Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/3 - Wikipedia

    Also, I am not convinced that the text in our article accurately reflects the sources. For instance, there is nothing about ‘life saving care’ in the ACLU source. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Feel free to WP:SOFIXIT when you see a ref format that can be fixed.
    As for the sentence about life saving care, I added refs for that now. A multi-year study has shown that these bills restriction have led to a statistically significant and observable increase in suicide rates, thus the restricting bills cause loss of life. Raladic (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legal_status_of_transgender_people&oldid=1260786858"