Talk:Transgender rights in the United Kingdom

Transphobia and TERF ideology in the UK

This article doesn't once mention transphobia or trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF ideology) or the so-called TERF War[1]. I think we should have something about the (very unusual, in a Western context) extent of transphobia/transphobic discourse in the UK given how much attention it has received, and why the UK has sometimes become known as "TERF Island." --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Amanda A. Brant: - it ought to mention it, and if you have the time to add it in, I and many other editors would be grateful and supportive.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree it should be discussed but in a balanced way - I do not believe for example its transphobic - and theres no discussion of how trans rights affect womens rights either. It is a complex nuanced issue involving womens rights and womens spaces which cannot simply be dismissed with such simplistic language. This is a complex topic with valid concerns on all sides of the debate. Dismissing womens views as transphobic without discussing them is in itself mysogynistic. Such an approach stifles debate and does not help women or the trans community. For example there is no discussion of how some trans women, with male genetalia are preesuring lesbians into relationships and calling them transphobic for not wanting to engage - even though this is now well documented and is not a rare occurance . Sweeping valid concerns such as this under the carpet as "transphobia" or "TERF" is leading to worse outcomes for the entire LGBTQ+ community. Deleting this comment rather than discussing it maturely is censorship and is not a mature way to deal with these issues. If you disagree say why - thats what the talk is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.181.195 (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2024

Under the first paragraph of "Legal recognition of non-binary identities", remove the word "only" in the sentence "In 2016, a formal petition through the Parliamentary Petitions Service calling for EDM660 to be passed into law gained only 2,500 signatures before closing" per MOS:ONLY 118.99.2.37 (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Makes sense in the section; 3rd paragraph mentions the 100,000 signature threshold for a petition to be considered for a debate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Receded vs Varied

@Sweet6970

Lede follows body, the body clearly shows a recession of trans rights over the last several years. It doesn't need to be directly sourced in the lede if the body supports it, as you well know. Snokalok (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I cannot make sense of your comment. The lead, and the article, plainly show that trans rights in the UK have been expanding over recent years. Your edit which I reverted is contrary to the content of the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Lede changes: and Gender recognition / In June 2020, a report published by the European Commission...

Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raladic for your edits. And comments on my talk page. I've shortened my changes to Gender recognition as requested and left in the main sentences you wanted. (The report grouped cluster 1 and 2 as "least accessible", so saying anything than that is pushing a WP:POV)

I have added the list of countries in the same Cluster as the UK: as that helps the reader to get context. As does including a half-sentence more from the CoE's definition of Cluster 2.

Regards the lede you wrote: "the lead should summarize, briefly what the article is about, but not have more details than the article itself. "

My change was to correct a misleading quotation: the fuller sentence makes it clearer for the reader:

• The Council of Europe reported of the UK that "anti-trans rhetoric, arguing that sex is immutable and gender identities not valid, has also been gaining baseless and concerning credibility, at the expense of both trans people’s civil liberties and women’s and children’s rights."

Rather than

• The Council of Europe criticised what it described as a "baseless and concerning" level of transphobia gaining traction in British society.

But you are right - the main body would also benefit from that full quotation.Peckedagain (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the inclusion of the other cluster 2 countries, which I left in the edit.

As for the lead summary - anti-trans rhetoric is akin to transphobia and the summarized sentence does accurately summarize what the report summarized, so the expanded full quote doesn't add anything (other than more words than are necessary for the lead) that isn't already appropriatly summarized in the lead. If you want to expand further on it, that should go into the body of the article at the section on Transgender rights in the United Kingdom#Transphobia and "TERF Island" debate, which has more details on the report (and some others).

In general, the lead follows what the article says as a brief summary, typically in our own wikivoice. Raladic (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Terms can mean more than one thing

Imagine if someone went to the article on Manchester United and insisted that they were a "soccer team" because football was the thing the Steelers played. Anyone aware that a term sometimes meant more than one thing would be incredulous at such an insistence. 2600:1002:B166:6EC:0:3B:BD7A:6401 (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You're talking about the HRT thing, right? If so, I've just fixed the red link and changed the text to just "hormone therapy". I agree that "replacement" is in no way incorrect in this context, and it is one of the synonyms in the liked article, but it might confuse some readers who are used to seeing HRT used in a different context so it is probably better to let them click through if they want to know more. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of adding it back myself but I noticed the page was already linked in the same section a few paragraphs earlier. (No strong feelings either way though, not going to remove it now it's there again) Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2024

"social" challenges in the lede then goes on to describe legal challenges (and trans people certainly face medical challenges that cis people do not). Change this to just "challenges"? Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This page is not protected. You can edit it yourself. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Weird! I could've sworn there was a little lock blocking the edit button. Thanks for letting me know! Sock-the-guy (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Trans women prisoners

@Useful1: Please stop changing the wording on trans women prisoners. Your changes make the text incomprehensible. A ‘female trans prisoner’ would be a trans man. It is trans women we are talking about here. Also, please note that your changes are not minor; in the Wikipedia sense of the term, a ‘minor’ edit is one which would not reasonably be disputed, e.g. correcting a typo. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

While you are correct to request that Useful1 leave the original wording alone, this is an inappropriate, inflammatory and counterproductive way to make that request. Please strike your claim that "A ‘female trans prisoner’ would be a trans man.". Not only is this incorrect, it is needlessly offensive to a point where it is as likely to make Useful1 believe that your request can safely be ignored as to actually achieve what you want.

@Useful1: The best way to make sure that all readers understand the article correctly is to use the phrase "trans women prisoners" (or maybe "transgender women prisoners"). This is correct, unambiguous and universally accepted terminology. It avoids opening the door to pointless arguments torturing the words "male" and "female" in weird, confusing and unhelpful ways. Also, please read Help:Minor edit to see when to use the minor edit tickbox. Our definition of a "minor edit" is far tighter than you might have expected. (Don't worry. It catches a lot of people out.) The best approach is to not tick it if you are in any doubt at all whether you should. Nobody gets told off for not ticking it. There is an option in the settings to make all edits minor by default. Please make sure that this is turned off. It is a bad option that is basically just a rake for unsuspecting people to step on. DanielRigal (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that both options have issues.

• I actually agree with Sweet6970 that "female trans prisoners" sounds like it refers to trans men (it comes off as a really weird and derogatory way to refer to them, but it does come off as referring to them). The use of male/female is to refer to sex in the common parlance, and trans-female/trans-male for trans women and men respectively were advocated for a few decades ago but never got widespread acceptance.
• "trans women prisoners" just sounds clunky and would for any demographic - you'd never see "asian women prisoners" or etc because "prisoner" is a noun but so is "woman" and "adjective-noun noun" is "noun noun" when we're trying to convey "adjective-adjective-noun".

As such, I think the text should be imprisoned transgender women as a clear and readable alternative. Alternatively transfeminine prisoners could work, but is likely to confuse our readers (and is likely too much a stress from the sourcing) so I think the former is preferable. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)