Talk:Transgender personnel in the United States military

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaitlin.stewart.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transphobia under Trump[edit]

Should a ban on mental health grounds be considered transphobia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:F407:7852:A9C0:B0D2:E917:EE4C (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary split?[edit]

As I mentioned at Talk:Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, I'm sure this split by AHC300 was made in good faith, but I really don't think it was necessary. Funcrunch (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask don't tell has it's own page AHC300 (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Don't ask, don't tell page is about more than just a single memorandum, though. This page is already itself a split from Sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military; I don't see that there's enough material to justify a further split at this time. Funcrunch (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've pinged WikiProject LGBT Studies on this discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, assuming a (re-)merge is being discussed, I think the target article is the place, so I'm going to comment here. I don't think the memorandum has any import outside of the issue of transgender personnel in the United States military, so I don't think the split was necessary. I also worry about the split becoming a line in the sand as it were for editor's political ideologies; editors who support the memorandum will almost certainly be searching for it, and editors who support trans inclusion in the military will almost certainly be looking for this article. I think it's better to have editors working across the political divide than to set up sort of a semi-walled garden for each group. So as both an encyclopedic and as a meta-wikipedia concern, I think it's better to merge that article back into this one. Please ping me or (my alt) if you have any questions or comments directed at me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments at the split article, the split is also poorly titled and lacking proper attribution for copied content. Funcrunch (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose the merger, as I said on the talk page of the article I believe that both the nature of the announcement and the coverage of it it qualifies as independently notable. I do agree that the name should be changed.★Trekker (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say that it would be good if all the sections on lawsuits should be moved to the other article instead of kept here.★Trekker (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move rationale?[edit]

As I posted at Gender identity and military service, I disagree with today's moves made by AHC300, and think they should have been proposed for discussion first. "Gender identity" is not the topic at issue here as all people identify with a gender (unless they are agender); it is specifically transgender people who have been barred from military service. Funcrunch (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, AHC300's peremptory action is unwarranted and ought to be immediately reversed. Per Wikipedia, gender identity "can correlate with assigned sex at birth, or can differ from it completely." Obviously, this article is not about gender identity. It's about transgender people. KalHolmann (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was a mistake to move this. AHC300, please see WP:RM#CM for how to deal with such a move. It should be clear that this move could have been controversial; only the simplest, most obviously "wrong" page titles should be renamed without asking for community input first. This case, obviously, is not one of those. Please discuss first, next time. Mathglot (talk) 09:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No discussion. Not even an edit summary. This move was disruptive. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mathglot, at your convenience, please repeat the round-robin page move here that you performed at Transgender people and military service. This page's original name Transgender personnel in the United States military should be restored to match the article's contents. Thank you for your work today. I had no idea there are so many steps involved, but you seem to have pulled it off with ease. KalHolmann (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Mathglot (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overemphasis on individual personnel[edit]

I appreciate the good information that has been added for Sage Fox and Chelsea Manning. However, I feel the level of detail is more appropriate and should be moved to those individual articles, rather than this article, which (in my mind) is a more abstract discussion of policy. Where the information pertains to specific policies being discussed, it would be fine to leave those details in.

I have advocated for (and continue to support) the inclusion of specific names in the Veterans heading, as well as early mentions in the history, but since we already have individual articles for Fox and Manning, feel those are more appropriate places for some of the very detailed information instead of making this article ever-longer.

Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump: sexism & hate[edit]

Was Trump's sexism not true?--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:708E:2510:279C:4124 (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

The lead section is a mess. It should probably be rewritten in such a sequence:

  • Overview: Service of transgender individuals, both openly and in the closet
  • History of legal development surrounding transgender service in the military, in chronological order
    • First ban
    • Obama
    • Trump
    • Biden
  • Demographics: Transgender Americans 2x as likely to serve in military

I welcome any suggestions. feminist (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Feminist I'm working on it now. I came here to look something up, and was surprised at how poor a state the article is in. Bad grammer, repeated sentences, original research and more. And you're right about the lead. I notice the timeline doesn't extend any further back than the 60's. which isn't right, either. Happy (Slap me) 16:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit is partial[edit]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/johns-hopkins-doctor-army-doctor-spouse-charged-conspiring-give-us-sol-rcna50015 Xx236 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer 'her', do it, but censoring is not a solution. Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transgender_personnel_in_the_United_States_military&oldid=1210751696"