Talk:Transgender genocide/Archive 1

Archive 1

Popular culture references to trans genocide

The following popular culture references were deleted by an editor. I'm wondering if it's worth discussing these as potentially suitable for the encyclopedia article:

As shown on ESPN, Alana McLaughlin, a veteran of the U.S. Army Special Forces, debuted in a 2021 mixed martial arts competition and wore a top with the text, "End Trans Genocide." The use of "genocide" for transgender violence has also been mocked by right-wing commentators.

In 2021, comedian Dave Chappelle said, after being accused of fostering transphobic violence: “I started transgender genocide, that’s what they are saying. I hope that’s not true, that clearly wasn’t the point of the act. If you’re going to kill somebody, then you should watch it again and really rethink the way you saw it the first time.”

The removal seems consistent with the WP Manual of Style here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material. However, I'd also like to make this available for discussion and possible supplementation, in case anyone finds more in-depth references to these two incidents. ProfGray (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal

 Note: a proposal to merge this article to Violence against LGBT people has been opened here. Please feel free to comment in that discussion. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
No response from nominator despite multiple pings.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Adam Jones has described violence against transgender people in Brazil as "unquestionably gendercidal"? Source: Jones, Adam (2016). Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. pp. 745–746. ISBN 9781138823846.
  • ALT1: ... that Fritz Kitzing was sent to the Lichtenburg and Sachsenhausen concentration camps because of their transgender identity? Source: LGBTQ+ Stories from the Holocaust: Fritz Kitzing
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Noting that this is my first DYK nomination.

Created by ProfGray (talk) and ThadeusOfNazereth (talk). Nominated by ThadeusOfNazereth (talk) at 10:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC).

• @ProfGray and ThadeusOfNazereth: Welcome to DYK! (I've reviewed 500+ articles at DYK, but this one is like a gut punch to review.) The article is new enough, long enough, sufficiently cited, has no copyvio concerns and no formatting issues. ALT0 would be AGF. ALT1 seems fine. However, I note that the merge discussion (which seems like it's being opposed) and orange dispute tags must be resolved before this nomination progresses. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Repinging ProfGray and ThadeusOfNazereth due to spelling error. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Understood, thanks Sammi Brie. For some reason I thought I had already put the nomination on hold when that happened. Hopefully we'll be able to reopen soon. Can you clarify one thing? When you say "ALT0 would be AGF", are you saying you're assuming good faith that it's an accurate representation since you can't access, or is that a different abbreviation unique to DYK? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 19:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• The nomination remains active, and we can reevaluate in a week or two depending on the progress of talk page discussions. Yes, ThadeusOfNazereth, that is the correct meaning of AGF here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have accessed a pdf version of the book, and I can confirm that this is what Adam Jones wrote. The relevant quote is this: In recent years, as gay rights have become gradually more accepted and respected, the burden of atrocity has increasingly targeted transgender women and male transvestites. The country with by far the highest—unquestionably gendercidal—levels of such violence is Brazil, where “an estimated 326 trans people were reported killed” in 2014, or “one person every 27 hours.”, cited to this source, which itself relies on a report in Prensa Latina, a Cuban state newswire agency, and Prensa Latina cites official Brazil govt statistics. IMHO that isn't exactly showing best citation practices, but the hook is indeed verified and the author is a subject-matter expert, so yeah, that's fine. That said, I don't feel like reviewing topics I have little idea about. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• Also, ALT1 might not be very interesting because, even though Fritz Kitzing seems to be often used as a case to show that the Nazis were oppressive towards transgender people, he is not otherwise known for anything else. I'd prefer either a quantifier (e.g. 90% of trans people who went to Dr. Hirschfeld's consultancy in Berlin went to concentration camps) or showing a better known transgender person, if there is any. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• I see it's been a while since the last talk page comment. Last call to @ThadeusOfNazereth, ProfGray, and Szmenderowiecki:: can the issues be addressed or is it time to close this? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Marking for closure as no comment was elicited from any other commenters or the nominators. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It's been so long, I'd forgotten about DYK. Thanks for submitting. I found it at this link, but maybe that will shift. ProfGray (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

ALT1 seems like an easter egg to me, but perhaps not too much so for DYK. (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, while I don't have any experience at DYK it seems like there's a bit of leeway as to what exactly the "hook" is, and I wanted to provide a slightly less provocative option given that anything in this area is going to be controversial. If anybody has suggestions for alternatives definitely let me know! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 10:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@ProfGray, Buidhe, and ThadeusOfNazereth: did you mean to leave these comments in the DYK template? They're currently not transcluding there. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: AFAIK we did not, since it’s just a general commentary on the hook and not really relevant to the actual nomination. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 22:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Bernie Farber description

Regarding Bernie Farber, I relied upon the cited CTV source that states: "Bernie Farber is an expert in genocide. He is the CEO of Paloma Foundation and is the former CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress." (emphasis added) It seems to me that this is a reliable source for WP to refer to him as an expert in genocide as well.

I'm posting this in response to @Buidhe who asked about his expertise in a recent revision. ProfGray (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you could defend that, but it seems rather dodgy to me. Hinton for example could legitimately be called an expert on genocide , because he has several scholarly publications on the topic. Farber it seems has done his career in advocacy rather than research, and most of his work is not focused on genocide. Thus, I'm concerned that calling him an expert might imply something to the reader that's not there. (the link is dead which does not speak to the importance of the foundation). (t · c) buidhe 04:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

my point is not for us to argue what seems legitimate to us, or our investigation of Farber's expertise on hate and genocide, but that we rely on reliable sources and this was an explicit characterization of the speaker by the news source. ProfGray (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that it's correct to blindly repeat exactly what the source says regardless of its accuracy and without even knowing if other sources have used this characterization. (t · c) buidhe 18:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, well what other sources do we have that affirm or contradict this characterization?

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1997828675918

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/CHPC/meeting-17/notice

These two put him in the company of Holocaust experts, so the genocide (expert) label seems to correlate.

Let me know what you find. ProfGray (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Here the Ottawa Citizen gave him an opportunity to write about genocide. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/holocaust-lesson-of-history

Here the Canadian Jewish News gave him an opportunity to write about genocide: https://thecjn.ca/perspectives/opinions/farber-struggling-to-come-to-grips-with-our-history-of-genocide/

Here the Toronto Sun turns to him for a view about genocide: https://torontosun.com/2013/08/02/indian-genocide-thats-what-former-cjc-boss-bernie-farber-says-canada-is-guilty-of--a-bizarre-and-embarrassing-for-him-allegation

Here co-authored with an indigenous nations leader: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/07/19/a_canadian_genocide_in_search_of_a_name.html

Here the National Post: https://nationalpost.com/news/national/bernie-farber-canada-must-stop-denying-its-genocide

I hope this is sufficient. And it should go without saying (Wikipedia:AGF) -- I don't know the guy and I'm not supporting him or his views, but now I've spent time trying to find additional sources because you are doubting one source. ProfGray (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, he is an activist who writes opinion pieces. (t · c) buidhe 23:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Though it is more appropriate to use "expert on genocide" for this article, since @Buidhe is not accepting the sources given above, a suitable alternative would be "expert on hate crimes." Here are four reliable sources for this description:

"a court qualified expert on hate crimes" Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

"hate crime expert" BarrieToday https://www.barrietoday.com/around-ontario/beyond-local-hate-groups-targeting-high-school-students-experts-say-1365977

"hate crime expert" Toronto Star. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/02/27/why-hate-crimes-are-hard-to-prosecute.html

"hate crime expert" in Canada Jewish News

In addition, he is the chair of Anti-Hate Canada. ProfGray (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

it would seem, from a reading of WP:SELFPUBLISHED, that we don't consider SMEs to be true SMEs unless they have both the recognition and the history of peer-reviewed publications: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. I would say that you're both hitting at one side of a two-sided coin, and without the publication history buidhe is looking for, we probably shouldn't be calling him an "expert". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. He's not self-published, he's recognized by a court and by solid, major news media. These are reliable, independent publications. As far as I know, there's no WP principle about reserving "expert" for those published in peer-reviewed publications. In this case, there are verifiable sources for using "expert," right? ProfGray (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Genetic and biomedical research ethics

I just added a section that includes two academic sources on concerns about genetic ethics. These sources reinforce the point made by Rachel Anne Williams, in a 2019 book, which on its own may appear to be WP:UNDUE weight, a concern raised by @Mhawk10. On trans-associated genetics leading to a concern about eugenics to eliminate trans ppl, see:

• Rajkovic, Antoine, Allison L. Cirino, Tala Berro, Diane R. Koeller, and Kimberly Zayhowski. "Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals’ perspectives on research seeking genetic variants associated with TGD identities: a qualitative study." Journal of community genetics 13, no. 1 (2022): 31-48. ""A few participants went to further lengths, citing that the pathologization and medical genocide that may result from TAGR could potentially be even worse in places less tolerant of TGD people. ... Many participants brought up the role of genetics in eugenics against TGD people with the goal of eliminating TGD people." (41)
• Hammack-Aviran, Catherine, Ayden Eilmus, Carolyn Diehl, Keanan Gabriel Gottlieb, Gilbert Gonzales, Lea K. Davis, and Ellen Wright Clayton. "LGBTQ+ Perspectives on Conducting Genomic Research on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity." Behavior Genetics (2022): 1-22. -- cites Rajkovic et al. and similar findings

ProfGray (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense to include. My concern was that the narrative book itself isn't really a great source for anything but the author's opinions, but these sources are high-quality and can support similar information. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe we are working collaboratively and make a useful team.

Sideswipe9th please explain the copyright violation from your recent edit. I'm open to learning and will try to revise within the policies. I don't understand the tag template. </nowiki> ProfGray (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Copyright violations, Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources, and WP:NFCCEG. The removed content contained text from the Rajkovic source that was longer than a brief quotation. The {{copyvio-revdel}} template asks for an admin familiar with copyright issues to check, and if necessary hide the revisions that contained the copyright violating text. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It was a... two-sentence quotation with a total of 55 words. There are featured articles with substantially longer quotations. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Bad example, UK court judgements and Hansard are normally considered free for use under the Open Government Licence. Text from recently published academic journals less so. Two sentences and 55 words goes beyond a brief quotation I feel, especially for content that could be easily paraphrased.

As I said below, I may be mistaken, and if I am I'll apologise in advance for that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Note I've removed a copy-vio portion of text from the "Biomedical and genetic ethics" subsection, and requested a RD1 removal of those revisions. Please do not re-add this in this form, and paraphrase from the source in the future. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk without seeing the note here, so I apologize for asking this in two places. But it was an attributed quote in quotation marks. Why is that a copyright violation? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The issue was detected by User:EranBot and was marked in the Potential copyright violation log. When I ran Earwig's detector on the text and source, it highlighted a somewhat longer than brief quotation, taken from two sentences in the original source. Based on the policies and essays I linked above in my other reply, I felt as though it met the requirements to be removed and tagged.

I might be mistaken, in which case I suspect I'll be trouted by an admin patrolling these issues. And if it is, I'll apologise in advance for that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Endowed professorships

@The Impartial Truth: I'm extremely confused by this edit summary. In general, an endowed professor is just a professor whose salary is paid for by an endowment. At major universities, the Chairs of most departments are endowed professorship roles; it's typically seen as a significant accomplishment to earn a job as an endowed professor. Are you confusing an endowed professorship with an honorary degree? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Notability and sources

Adding this article because notability is pretty clear from law journal articles and other scholarly works directly on the subject, at least two tertiary works (encyclopedias), and various news sources and other reliable sources that address or mention the topic, as cited. My work on this article does not constitute an opinion regarding changes to international law or any other matter. ProfGray (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

How convenient you were also able to contribute a picture of an "activist". Willard Austria (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I contacted the activist in order to find an image for the article. Is that inappropriate? Or is that a solid contribution to the encyclopedia?

Do you have other images (with suitable copyright permissions) to contribute?

ProfGray (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Indonesian peer-reviewed law journal

Hi. Please explain your concern that prompted this tag: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transgender_genocide&type=revision&diff=1099292812&oldid=1099292635

As a courtesy, I'd ask that you initiate discussion to tags like this in the talk page, either in new sections or under the Content issues already raised. @Mhawk10 because I don't want to revert tags and then I have to start a discussion myself just to get your explanation etc. Cheers. ProfGray (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Three reasons: (1) I can't find any relevant academic credentials for the author; (2) being a "legal analyst" at "PT Netzme Kreasi Indonesia", a cashless banking startup (crunchbase) doesn't support the author being reliable for the topic of international law; and (3) I'm skeptical of the journal's peer-review rigor. Taken together, I don't think the paper is a reliable source for the topic of genocide and international law. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, those are doubts. But let's assume that we can't clear up his credentials. I don't think we should assume a peer-reviewed journal outside the West is completely unreliable. After all, the context matters: his article is simply being used to establish that "scholars" have made this argument. Not that the legal argument is correct or proven; after all, we hopefully never claim or imply that intl law is about to change. That sentence can (or should) be backed up by several sources now, incl Eichert and Kidd/Witten. In regular scholarship, it would often suffice to cite the sources and let the readers make their own judgments about reliability. I suppose we could point to these reservations by how we describe the authors, but that might come across as expressing a bias, too. ProfGray (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't assume that all non-Western journals are non-reliable. My impression after reading this specific work is that the editorial quality of the publication is low; it's riddled with grammar issues. If I look at single paragraph in the entire work that explicitly deals with transgender and non-binary persons, it contains In the view of the rebels, these genders considered being a blasphemy which turns out from its nature that it shall be only men and women. The transgender even forced to return to what they were supposed to be. I don't know how phrases like these genders considered being a blasphemy and The transgender even forced to return to what they were supposed to be would get past a competent reviewer given that they're missing operative words. Sentences like [t]he existence of barbaric actions and the magnitude of the destruction that has been gained (vandalism) due to the gendercide case in China has claimed 200 million women both infants and adults disappeared leave me sincerely questioning the extent to which editors actually have a command of the language the paper is written in, which matters substantially when you're doing peer review. I could go on and tear the paper apart; there are issues on basically every page, but it doesn't come off to me that the source is anything like a high-quality academic source. We cannot push aside the author; authors matter and impact the reliability of the source (see WP:SOURCE). If you're using this as a WP:PRIMARY source to establish that scholars have made the argument, WP:SYNTH issues aside, I'd like the person to actually be a scholar rather than a random fintech lawyer. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it reads like someone trying to write in a foreign language, maybe even trying to translate from his native language. Didn't bother me, since I'm accustomed to reading undergraduate papers, but I see your point. I'm not going to claim that his legal argumentation supports his assertions about trans and intl genocide law.

There is new information pp.90-91 (para's w fns 68-73) about non-conforming gender categories in Indonesia and how they were "hunted down" during an Islamic purification campaign. Satrio refers to these as Bissu massacres (91) Satrio writes:

• "This event can at least be considered to be a form of crime of genocide, because in fact this group was the target of purification. Historical documents do not provide clear data about the number of victims of DI / TII troop savagery led by Kahar Muzakkar but referring to the proportion of bissu in South Sulawesi in the past decade, there are very many victims who have died.[73]"

I'm inclined to accept this information, since it appears to be sources and nothing is tickling my suspicious radar, though there are presumably other interpretations of the same events (as in all cases, I suppose). ProfGray (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Didn't bother me, since I'm accustomed to reading undergraduate papers, undergraduate papers (and those of similar quality) aren't reliable sources. Even Masters dissertations are considered generally unreliable unless they have significant scholarly influence, and I would expect a masters dissertation to be of significantly higher quality and factual reliability than the median undergraduate paper. And I don't think the publisher of the research paper, which appears to be in its fourth year, has been published in one of the reputable peer-reviewed sources or well-regarded academic presses that WP:SCHOLARSHIP actually demands.

The plainest issue that I have is that we're characterizing someone who appears to be a random corporate lawyer as a scholar and we're using that (along with another primary source) to establish that [s]cholars have argued that the definition of genocide should be applied to transgender persons, or expanded to cover transgender persons, because they are victims of institutional discrimination, persecution, and violence. There are scholars that have done this, but this ain't the right source to support that statement; the credentials aren't there for the title of "scholar" and the description is of events in the 1960s while the lattermost phrase in the sentence is expressing a continuous present. After all, I can't cite a work on the Armenian genocide that talks about the events of the early 1900s and use that to support the sentence scholars have argued that the definition of genocide should be applied to Armenian persons, or expanded to cover Armenian persons, because they are victims of institutional discrimination, persecution, and violence, even if that source describes a historical act of genocide.

More substantially, the operative phrase within the source the past decade doesn't really make sense when the entire motivating part was actions in the 1960s. If we're talking about the decade following the 1960s, then perhaps it's just a simple error of translation, but I really can't find anything in even the cited source about that. I tried to trace back where it's sourcing the information from (the link in the pdf is a deadlink), and it winds up being this article on Gusdurian Network, which seems to a site dedicated to the ideology and theology of a movement within the Nahdlatul Ulama, but the text of the cited source doesn't help in figuring out what decade the fintech lawyer is talking about; my reading in context is that the intent was to convey the decade after the mass killings, but if I have to do this sort of thing to extract basic claims of fact from a source then the content of the source is not exactly helping us satisfy WP:V. I have little doubt about there really having been genocide within the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 that targeted ethnic minorities and singled out people of particular genders within them for particularly cruel treatment, but that isn't really the point, given that the source we're citing for this is currently low-quality. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Very cool that you found the Indonesian article about the (genocidal) treatment of the Bissu. Did you drop it into google translator? It seems to match what is reported in the law review article. It talks about them hunted down and refers to it as genocide. ProfGray (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This book confirms part of the account -- including that the bissu were marginalized, threatened and killed under the Islamic movement (1953-1960) described in the other sources. Calling Back the Spirit, R. Anderson Sutton

This book gives a more complete corroboration of the (genocidal) campaign against the bissu: Gender Diversity in Indonesia: Sexuality, Islam and Queer Selves, Sharyn Graham Davies

Yet another book, filling in details with Davies and mentioning the source for the Indonesian article you found. The Gay Archipelago: Sexuality and Nation in Indonesia Tom Boellstorff ProfGray (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Weimar to Nazi Germany sources and write-up

On "transvestite" tolerance and suppression in Weimar Germany, see the following sources:

Sutton, Katie. "" We Too Deserve a Place in the Sun": The Politics of Transvestite Identity in Weimar Germany." German Studies Review (2012): 335-354.

Marhoefer, Laurie. Sex and the Weimar Republic: German homosexual emancipation and the rise of the Nazis. Vol. 23. University of Toronto Press, 2015.

These are both solid academic sources. I would delete references based on the Mel Gordon book, Voluptuous Panic..., looks iffy, sensationalist, and is not published by an academic press. cc: @The impartial truth

Marhoefer argues that "coercive measures of the law [such as laws on venereal disease and prostitution]... were directly related to the law's liberatory aspects. ... This dynamic of freedom predicated on containment characterized the [Weimar] Republic's sexual politics more broadly. The relatively free sphere for homosexual emancipatory publications were critical to homosexual and transvestite subcultures, and the Republic tolerated it in part by ensuring its public presence was minimal." (83) She says that "the Weimar settlement on sexual politics... meant liberation for gay men, lesbians, and tranvestites at the price of agreeing to curtail public representations of queerness." (208) -- emphasis added

Marhoefer notes that, within a few months of the Nazi dictatorship in 1933, it closed gay, lesbian, and transvestite bar, clubs, and publications as "immorality." (174-5)

Sutton confirms these 1933 closures. Sutton states that, starting in 1934, "male-to-female transvestites were frequently caught up in the dramatically increased prosecution of male homosexuals under Paragraph 175. This intensified with the foundation in 1936 of the Reich Office for Combating Homosexuality and Abortion, which oversaw the registration of transvestites, and in some cases imprisonment, forced castration, and even death in the concentration camps.[fn 79]"

Holocaust encyclopedia (USHMM):

"Some self-identified transvestites were arrested under Paragraph 175. These were people who were assigned male sex at birth, but identified—and often dressed and lived—as women. When they engaged in sexual relations with men, the Nazi regime saw this as male-male sex. But, many transvestites did not see themselves as “homosexual” (“homosexuell”). They did not consider their sexual relations with men as male-male sex. Nonetheless, they were punished according to the regime’s definition." ProfGray (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

As a heads up, I've created Draft:Persecution of trans people in Nazi Germany. Currently it's a copy-paste from this article (with proper CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution) and it seems like a reasonable companion to Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany, given the sourcing in this article and the sourcing above. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The idea would be to create a new article and, in this article, have a concise summary with a link to the main piece? I think that's a reasonable approach. However, I'd request that you hold off on that process. For one thing, there's the outstanding merger proposal. More importantly, perhaps, there's active editing of the current article, motivated partly -- and helpfully -- by your review and critique. This article is less than a month old. I'd suggest giving it a bit more time to stabilize, especially since we are still pulling together and digesting the underlying academic (and other reliable) sources, many of which may inform how we write up the Nazi era (see my recent comment above about Nellans, which at first glance is not an article about the Nazis). ProfGray (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

In relation to your draft, the claim that "transgender people were at greater risk of becoming victims of state-sanctioned violence than Jews due to their "perceived gender nonconformity", is clearly nonsense, and I didn't find it in the source. For the Nazis being Jewish was an essential characteristic, while homossexuality and transsexuality were considered degenerate behaviours. Homossexuals and tranvestites were persecuted if they expresed their orientation. Jews were persecuted even if they did not express their identity Knoterification (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. A vandal must have added "than Jews" to the original text, which I see was there by July 6th. I restored and fixed the error you found. ProfGray (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Not a genocide

Pretty clear this discussion is going nowhere good. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is literally not a genocide. Trans people aren't a minority ethnic group that is being killed systemically. This whole "trans genocide" term is disrespectful to those who were victims of real genocide. 78.135.101.108 (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC) This is addressed in reliable sources (many of which explicitly argue for the expansion of the definition of genocide) and in the article itself. This page is for discussion of the article, not of your personal grievances with the topic. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 21:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC) The word "genocide" should be replaced with a word that actually fits considering the definition has yet to be changed. Perhaps it would be prudent to re-label the article as "Discrimination against Transgender People"? Genocide specifically deals with nationalities and ethnic groups, not gender. It feels like people are trying to just stick a buzzword in without a reason to. 2600:6C52:7E7F:F52F:C928:9DAD:B737:85F8 (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Yeah Thaddeus when you change the definition of a word - IT CHANGES THE DEFINITION OF THAT WORD. So you use the new definition of the word while relying relying on readers to use the actual definition of the word. It's It's sneaky slimy tactic I see more and more these days and apparently you aren't smart enough to see through it. 2001:8003:7CCB:A901:AD7E:5F5F:EC47:C80 (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Mentally ill dudes changing definitions of words, who would have thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.239.249 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC) There is no trans genocide going on anywhere on the planet. This page is incredibly disrespectful and is based on the fantasies of mentally ill people on Twitter. 81.96.202.32 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC) If there’s a reliable source that argues this (trans g) is not a genocide, or that it’s disrespectful to other victims, that source and its main points can be put in the article ProfGray (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC) It looks like there is already a word that describes what this article is attempting to call genocide. How about Transgendercide? There doesn't appear to be a rational reason to expand the definition of genocide. A quick look at the Oxford dictionary shows that the word has greek origins, genos + cide, with 'genos' literally meaning race and the suffix '-cide' denoting an act of killing. I attached a link to a wikipedia page on Gendercide, which seems to fit this article perfectly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendercide 2600:6C52:7E7F:F52F:C928:9DAD:B737:85F8 (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Are you arguing that there was never a genocide of jewish people in World War 2 because being Jewish is not a race but a religion? also being transgender is not a gender, there are both transgender men, transgender women and transgender non-binaries thus it don't exactly fit the gendercide definition as it wouldn't target a single gender. Some happenstances of gendercide could have transphobic motivations and thus fit within the scope of transgender genocide, but certainly not all of them. 88.141.158.167 (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Jews are an ethnoreligious group, as stated in the first line of their wikipedia entry. This is why the term 'genocide' applied to the Holocaust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews Transgender people are not a race, a nationality, or an ethnic group. They are identified by being gender non-conforming. As such, the word Gendercide is much more fitting than the word genocide. Discrimination against them is specifically due to gender nonconformance. If you would like to argue that Transgender people are somehow a race, a nationality, or an ethnic group, then that should be included in this wikipedia entry to justify the use of 'genocide'. As of right now, it just looks like the wrong word is being deliberately used for nebulous reasons. 2600:6C52:7E7F:F52F:C928:9DAD:B737:85F8 (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC) If there’s a reliable source that argues your point, then that point can be added to the encyclopedia. If you are trying to better understand the application of the concept of genocide to transgender people, I suggest you start with the Kidd/Wittern, Kritz, and Eichert sources in the article. ProfGray (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC) As stated in their own works, they admit that the definition of genocide needs to be expanded for what they personally as activists consider to be a genocide. The word Gendercide already exists to describe what they've observed. You can't prove a negative, so asking for a source repeatedly is incredibly bad faith. This is a simple case of blatant misuse of a word, conceivably to score political points. 2600:6C52:7E7F:F52F:C928:9DAD:B737:85F8 (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Yes, some admit that the legal defintion would need to be expanded: for that context, the article is about their proposed application of genocide. But some folks do not think they need to wait for a legal determination or expansion, they are applying the concept without confirmation of the law, because the use of concepts and discourse are not actually bound by or enforced by law. There's no law against using a concept like genocide in various realms of discourse, and that's what the reliable sources here are doing. I suppose I need not repeat my point about the ability to bring up reliable sources that dispute this usage, but it's important for readers (of my comments) to understand how Wikipedia functions and is written. You may think they are misusing a word, the question is whether we can find reliable sources to make that point and then put it in the "criticism" section. ProfGray (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Jews have specific genes, which is why its a *geno*-cide. There is no evidence transsexuality/transgenderism is genetic in any way. SlimyKlerburt (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Causes of gender incongruence#Genetics Tjf801 (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC) The term "genocide" does not literally require shared genes. Case in point, the UN definition of genocide explicitly covers religious groups, like Jews. You can convert to Judaism. You don't have to be genetically related to other Jews to be a Jew. Loki (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Jews are absolutely a race, we admit that we are and I can't imagine why we would shy away from that. We have a nation-state of our own built around Jewish ethnic identity. So no, genocide does not fit here. Especially since the actual issue at hand is not the systemic murder of Trans people, but suicide. We don't call the mass-suicide of white men in the Midwest a "genocide"... ConstantineChase (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC) If there’s a reliable source that argues your point, then that point can be added to the encyclopedia. ProfGray (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Random MSNBC opinion piece cited for facts

I recently removed this piece as a standalone citation from the article. It's a labeled opinion piece from MSNBC, and I don't see why it particularly carries any weight if no reliable secondary sources have talked about it as a piece. Despite this, I have been told that this is both not an opinion piece and that it is is an opinion, but a "notable" one. I'm bringing this to the talk page, as it seems like we really have no reason to include it as far as balance in the article is concerned, and adding that view from an opinion source without anyone else discussing it seems to be an issue with WP:NPOV. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It would be good to get a second source on it and to sharpen up "hypothesized by some" accordingly. I don't think removing it is a good idea though. The compilation of these lists is a very significant new development and we need to cover it. DanielRigal (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there any reliable source that places the actions of Texas's DMV in the context of this topic? Anything other than an opinion piece? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Probably. Have you even looked? ––FormalDude (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I have. And the reporting that the opinion piece is citing (from The Washington Post) doesn't mention it whatsoever. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's the link to the reporting, if you'd like. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

MSNBC:

A Washington Post report published Wednesday, the day the Club Q survivors testified, detailed how the notoriously transphobic Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton attempted to get a list of names of people who had changed their gender on their state IDs from the state’s driver's license bureau.

WashPo:

Employees at the Texas Department of Public Safety in June received a sweeping request from Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office: Compile a list of individuals who had changed their gender on their Texas driver’s license and other department records during the past two years.

––FormalDude (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Correct. Can you please point to "it" (where the Washington Post report contextualizes this within the context of gendercide/genocide)? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The MSNBC source does not claim that the WashPo report contextualizes anything within the context of gendercide/genocide... ––FormalDude (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

So... why is it in this article? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The supporting text is literally quoted in the reference. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me rephrase, why is it in this article if no reliable sources describe it as being connected to this topic? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Fixed the no RS part with a bold compromise edit just now. It is connected to this topic as it is describing systematic discrimination against transgender people. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted my edit summary. I did not say it was not an opinion piece, I was saying it was not being used on a factual basis, hence hypothesized. Whether it's undue or not is a different discussion, I just objected to your original removal reason. --Pokelova (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I think RTH was wrong to say that the MSNBC opinion piece was being used for fact statements, as the content sourced to it was evidently opinion (though perhaps under-attributed). I think RTH is right on the connection between Texas's actions and this article is too flimsy for inclusion right now. Even the opinion piece doesn't directly mention genocide. I think this article will be stronger if we stay rigorous about demanding that the sources used explicitly say "genocide" or something fully equivalent like "they intend to kill or deport all trans people from the state". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

We cannot use sources which make no mention of transgender genocide to make claims about transgender genocide

Hi @TheTranarchist: These are absolutely cases of synthesis. I hope this should be obvious, but: this is an article about transgender genocide. The content we write should be about that topic, not e.g. a general history of violence against LGBT people. And if we're writing about transgender genocide, the sources we need to use better be about transgender genocide, otherwise we are necessarily reach[ing] or imply[ing] a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If you want some of this stuff to stay, my suggestion would be to find sources which are actually about transgender genocide and write the article based on those.

For the Indonesia section: it is absolutely synthesis to use books on general Indonesian history, which make no reference to genocide, and then use them as a source for examples of transgender genocide. I checked a digital copy of all three books; the first citation has no page numbers, but from what I can see makes no reference to genocide at all, at any point throughout the entire book. The second and third do not make reference to genocide either.

For the Nazi Germany section: largely more of the same. The text I removed makes no reference to transgender genocide, and from what it appears neither did the sources it cites. It was just a discussion of (and in the case of Fritz Kitzing, a puzzlingly specific example of) anti-trans violence in Nazi Germany. Endwise (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy belated new year! I'll make some edits to try and improve things.

For the first point, I think there is a degree to which a little synthesis is applied. For example, if we were writing an article about Jewish genocide, and a source discusses in depth the experiences of Jews in concentration camps but doesn't explicitly use the word genocide, it would not be a stretch to consider the concentration camps a part of the genocide and include the source in a discussion of Jewish experiences in the camps.

For the Indonesia section, I hadn't got a chance to look at the sources yet. This raises a larger issue, as I think parts of gendercide (specifically the third-gender section) should be moved here.

For the Nazi Germany section, I think removing Kitzing is the right move. I'll try and expand on Sutton a bit more, particularly for context, since I think it's important to note the genocide occurred in the context of a pre-existing growth of transgender rights and a trans rights movement. For the targeting of transgender people/transvestites specifically I'll try and change the source and make it more of a statement than example (ie: "the Nazis specifically targeted transgender people when sending people to camps") since there are a few examples. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I added a hatnote to the gendercide article in the third gender section. I don't think anything needs to be moved as long as we touch on each of those paragraphs here, although we could certainly rework the section in gendercide to be more of a broad overview. On your synthesis point, I think the distinction is that those events are categorically accepted by academics as constituting "genocide," but as transgender genocide is such an evolving field of research it's difficult to present synthesis as simply a restatement of established fact. As long as you can defend any specific point of contention, though, we're probably fine. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

In general, the article suffers from being a giant WP:SYNTH blob when there aren't actually sources describing the overarching topic. I'm frankly not sure what to do other than propose a wholesale rewrite, but the article title seems to be pinning us into a place that sources don't go. Something like gendercide and transgender people would be a lot better, as that topic actually appears to have significant coverage. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, while I'm here, the 2012 journal article from Katie Sutton used there also makes no reference to genocide, transgender or otherwise; the opening "Sutton describes the transition to genocidal actions in Nazi Germany" is just OR as well. Endwise (talk)

@Endwise: I've made some edits that I hope have helped for a couple of these issues - Those are mostly just phrasing edits through. There's definitely still some synthesis and OR issues that need to be worked out. I had done my best a few months ago to work through some of it but wasn't in a great headspace. Over the next few weeks I'll try to work through, piece-by-piece, and check everything against the sources. It would be nice to get those maintenance tags off the top! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 07:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 journal article

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10402659.2022.2129000 2600:1008:B030:4837:D1F5:7FA8:EF69:B415 (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this, mysterious IP - I've added a summary to the article under "Genocide Studies" ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

(The IP was me.) I modified the section on the article a little to reflect its contents. Maivea (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Content issues

I added an NPOV tag, though there are a number of content issues in the article. I initially though Twinkle would place the merge tag on this page, but alas my comment went to the merge target. As such, the issues I noted in my merge proposal are probably pertinent to be discussed here. I've added them below:

Lead:

1. The First source is WP:FORBESCON by a non-SME. When talking about when a phrase was coined, we need to use better sources than this.
2. The lead states that Legal scholars have argued this definition should be applied to, or expanded to include, transgender people. Transgender genocide includes killing transgender people, causing serious bodily or mental harm to transgender people, and imposing conditions of life intended to eliminate transgender as a gender identity. While this is probably the position of some legal scholars, the lead does not provide a citation for this. Per WP:LEADCITE this is fine if there are substantial citations in the body, but there really aren't. The citations in the body that support this claim are this article in the Padjadjaran Journal of International Law and a writing by a Master's of Arts student in a Yale-published law review. And nether the article in the Padjadjaran Journal of International Law nor the Yale source mention the terms "transgender genocide" or "trans genocide" at all; the former simply advocates for gender as protected from genocide and gives only passing mention to anti-transgender actions, but the second source does advocate for expanding the Rome Statute explicitly protect transgender persons.

Background:

1. The background section is mostly fine, but the article about genocidal sexual violence doesn't actually appear to address this topic significantly at all; its expansion of the concept of GSV is basically that sexual violence as a component of genocide can also happen to people who aren't cisgender women, including transgender people, non-binary people, and cisgender men.

Scholarship:

1. In general, the scholarship section takes lots of articles that don't tend to focus on anti-transgender violence and presents it as if they do. The exception is Kidd and Witten who do indeed use the term and indeed focus on this, but they aren't legal scholars; why do we present them as such? Kidd was a medical student at the time while Witten is a biologist who works on trans gerontology. They're reliable as a primary source for having used the term, but their words don't really carry WP:WEIGHT in the field of genocide studies or international law.
2. The reference that appears to be about ISIS and gender-based violence links here, which appears to be the wrong source. Upon finding the actual source, it appears that we're citing a sentence on page 1052 that doesn't talk about the definition being litigated and a footnote on page 1053 that also grants that it's possible to interpret the statute to protect transgender persons; the article currently appears to not be wholly representing that part of the source.
3. I'd hesitate to present a J.D. candidate or a recent M.A. grad as legal scholars for the purpose of substantiating the wikivoice statement that scholars have made similar arguments regarding the legal definition of crimes against humanity. It seems quite WP:UNDUE and a misrepresentation of their credentials.
4. The Nellans piece is a general critique of the field of genocide studies for focusing on the biological destruction of groups and their capacity to reproduce as the key part of genocide. But the topic of this article appears to be oppression of transgender people as genocide, not the oppression of transgender people within genocide. Application is WP:SYNTHy.
5. Theriault offers a paragraph on page 137 in which he mentions gay and bisexual men alongside transgender individuals as being the objects of genocidal sexual violence. Again, this is within the framework of GSV being a part of a larger genocide and later goes on to say that genocide is a tool of rape, singling out transgender people from that paragraph despite the fact that identical laws targeting other marginalized people would spark severe public outcry is a misrepresentation of the source when the source is also talking about lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons also being targeted by laws that would otherwise spark severe public outcry.

Use by activists:

1. The book allegedly published by University of British Columbia was published by Jessica Kingsley Publishers. We can't misrepresent sources like this and give then a false academic veneer.

Somewhat more apt, most LGBT rights groups don't tend to use this term to describe even fatal violence against trans people. The Human Rights Campaign doesn't do this, and the literature seems to broadly treat describe "Violence against transgender people" rather than "transgender genocide" or "trans genocide". If we're going to have an article on violence against transgender people (which seems like a notable topic but is currently in the general LGBT article), this article needs a fundamental rewrite that better reflects mainstream scholarship on the topic is something that's going to have to happen. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This section ("Content issues") is a copy of the points made in your "Merge proposal" (previous section). Is it common protocol to put the same comments in two places?

I find it confusing. Should I and other editors insert copies of our responses here and at the "Merge proposal" or only in one spot?

You raise many points that are worth addressing. I can try to address some of them, thought not sure where to do that. ProfGray (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The issues both motivate the merge and also apply to the current article content, so I'm not exactly sure how to handle where to place responses. A central discussion place would probably be better, though here works if the issue is related to the current article content. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

an anon editor deleted the two tags at top, presumably an error ProfGray (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Is it common protocol to put the same comments in two places? no it's not. Comments and discussion should not be duplicated in multiple places. The correct way to do this is to start a discussion on one page, with a pointer left on other pages as appropriate, but that's not what was done in this case. (t · c) buidhe 23:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I will be removing the tag as WP:WTRMT per #8

You may remove a template when according to your best judgment the lack of edits and/or talk page discussion should be interpreted as the issue not worth fixing (as a form of "silent consensus"). Please note there is currently no consensus for general age-related removal of maintenance templates – that is, removing a template purely or chiefly because it is old is not considered a sufficient argument. Exception: removing POV-related templates whose discussions have gone dormant is encouraged, as addressed in the bullet point immediately above Filiforme1312 (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about synthesis

Let's clarify or pinpoint the concerns about WP:Synth and see if they can be addressed to improve the article. So far, I see two comments (by Ⓜ️hawk10) to discuss:

• The Nellans piece is a general critique of the field of genocide studies for focusing on the biological destruction of groups and their capacity to reproduce as the key part of genocide. But the topic of this article appears to be oppression of transgender people as genocide, not the oppression of transgender people within genocide. Application is WP:SYNTHy. (see above)
• many of these sources don't mention "transgender genocide" at all, or they talk explicitly about gendercide rather than genocide (comment with the tag)

For starters, which sources do not address genocide in relation to transgender persons?

Also, please elaborate on the as compared to within genocide concern. What is the distinction you see and, in any case, why don't both fit within the topic? For example, the Holocaust is generally understood as a genocide, or set of genocides, and the systematic killing or discrimination against transgender persons during the Nazi era seems quite relevant to the article, even if the transgender targeting is arguably located within the broader dynamics or topic (or main article) of the Holocaust. If you disagree with the inclusion the Nazi era content, please explain.

Nellans, in particular, states that genocide studies should pay more attention to genocide of transgender persons. Nellans is not talking about queer persons who are incidentally killed (e.g., because they are Jews), but rather their persecution and murder as queer people. For example, "Empirical evidence from Nazi Germany indicates that the persecution of queer people was an important part of the Nazis’ genocides." (p.54) This recognizes that trans discrimination was within an array of Nazi genocides (note the plural) and yet deserves more empirical evidence (55) and ts own theoretical analysis, e.g., with concepts such as heteronormativity (55), life force atrocities (56), group reproduction under nationalism (58), reproductive futurity (60), erasure of queer lives (60), which also devalues their lives -- i.e., "the deaths of queer people are less genocidal" (64) both to murderers and (the more novel argument, in a way) within genocide studies (62-63). Nellans also argues that these dynamics have implications for resistance to genocide and care afterwards. In short, Nellans applies the tools of queer theory to understand the genocidal treatment of transgender persons (and other queers) before, during, and after genocides, and that's very much an analysis of trans genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfGray (talk • contribs)

The only specific mention of trans people in that piece is in a footnote on page 52. The argument Nellans is making is much, much broader; it's about the way that the current framing of genocide frames groups liable to it only in reproductive contexts, which indeed is a queer theory approach to genocide. Nellans is talking about queer people, broadly, not the specific subgroup of queer people that are transgender. My reading of within vs as comes from the paragraph in which that very footnote is lodged: Researchers have begun to pay more attention to the ways in which people’s genocide narratives differ according to their social positionings. The difference between male/female, men’s/women’s, masculine/feminine experiences has inspired the most scholarship. Within the past thirty years, a sub-field examining “gendered” experiences of genocide has emerged. These scholars’ make the central argument that examining the different ways men and women participate in genocide leads to insights into gender politics and improves our ability to identify genocide. The paper then goes on to describe a number of ways that gender has affected experiences within genocides. The paper then proceeds to go through the history of Nazi Germany's persecution of homosexual men, and continues on to offer a theoretical framework, but I simply can't find a single quote or series of quotes in any single page that you've noted above that frames this as a trans phenomenon rather than a phenomenon affecting queer people broadly construed. It is a sharp and dedicated analysis pointing out the potential issues with treating genocide as the destruction of a group inherently embraces a sort of reproductive futurism and excludes as potentially genocidal violence against people that is not related to the group's reproductive future, but it is novel synthesis if we are relying on this paper to (a) provide a framework to distinguish violence against transgender people from violence against other LGBQ people; or (b) comment on "transgender genocide" specifically given that the source does not do that. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

A third issue is a tagged sentence. "Activists in Brazil have described the targeting of transgender people, and Black transgender people specifically, as a genocide." The synth concern seems to be that the activists are focused on the targeting of trans ppl, and Black ppl, but not "Black transgender" combined. However, I do see this in the ORE article by Swift (noting that 'T' refers to trans in LGBTQ+):

• "Here, Passarelli, dos Reis, and Bolina’s deaths and violent assaults speak to the everyday violence enacted against Afro-Brazilian LGBTQ+ women and people by military and civil police and community members as a persistent and ongoing human rights crisis and violations against Brazil’s large, vibrant black LGBTQ+ population." and
• a section entitled "Brazil: The Epicenter of Violence Against Black LGBTQ+ Women," and
• "there is also a homocausto mulher negra (“black gay women’s holocaust”) against black lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning women in Brazil." so the author's wording does combine black with transgender. There is also this paragraph, which seems to underscore the point (bold added):

• "Afro-Brazilian transgender women are, too, survivors of unyielding violence. Research shows that a disproportionate number of transgender women do not live to be 35 years old, and most of the transsexual or transgender women in the world who are murdered are black. A 2017 report by Global Rights: Partners for Justice, a human rights organization based in Washington DC, indicates that Afro-descendant transgender women in Brazil experience high rates of intersectional antiblack, gendered racism and hate crimes; class discrimination; inadequate access to education, employment, healthcare, and housing; and verbal and street harassment and lack of legally sanctioned protections (Global Rights: Partners for Justice, 2017, pp. 6–8; Swift, 2018a). Hate speech and transphobic remarks against Afro-Brazilian transgender women are commonplace among “prominent Brazilian legislators, journalists, and intellectuals. Moreover, rare public portrayals of Afro-descendant transgender women often depict them as violent, subversive, criminal, and uneducated” (Global Rights: Partners for Justice, 2017, p. 6). // State-sanctioned violence against black Brazilian transgender women is ubiquitous."

• In addition, Swift explicitly argues that it's intersectional and not only anti-black: "Finally, scholarship on state-sanctioned violence in Brazil has often solely focused on how antiblackness and antiblack violence are embedded in the conception of the Brazilian state, without interrogating the intersectional colonial and postcolonial linkages to how white male heterosexism, patriarchy, and violence have not only shaped de jure and de facto antiblackness but also homophobia, queerphobia, and transphobia during enslavement and after emancipation."

I went into detail in looking at this rather disturbing article. I hope that I'm addressing your concern, User:Mhawk10, and that I didn't miss the point! In any case, there's plenty of content here to elaborate on the data and type of arguably genocidal violence against trans people in Brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfGray (talk • contribs)

That tag was improperly applied. I've rephrased it to be in line with the source more and to put the elevated risk of violence faced by Black trans women in WP:WIKIVOICE given the sourcing.— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Article Subject

Reading through this again, the article subject here seems to be an amalgamation of various tasks; it seems to be a mix of: (a) historical cases in which trans/third-gender people were systematically killed; (b) discussion of the literature that argues for extension the human rights lens of genocide to the topic oppression of transgender people; (c) discussion on the term "transgender genocide" and its use; and (d) an article that attempts to cover this all as a unique event. @ProfGray: are you able to summarize your intended purpose of this article? I'm not exactly sure how to solve a lot of the issues without some sort of concrete thing to build upon. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. You articulate it pretty well. The article deals with the transgender genocide: the term and its usage, its history, its treatment in academic literature and popular culture. That seems like a good start of encyclopedic coverage of a specific, notable topic. To be sure, it needs to be improved in writing and structure. Plus, there are other reliable sources to deepen and broader the coverage.

Not sure what you mean by a unique event, do you mean on the kind of event that happens on a given day? That part confused me.

Ok, I do hear you that you feel there's something not quite concrete here. It may unsettling to deal with a topic that is itself contested, unsettled, and emergent (last 15 years). Still, I appreciate the real effort and intelligent critique you've put into the article, and the research, and you continue to comport yourself like a responsible, good faith editor, despite your qualms. ProfGray (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

To follow up my last comment: You are relatively new to Wikipedia and I don't know how much you've encountered articles about that center around the application of a contested concept. I spent considerable time dealing with an article about apartheid and Israel. Back around 2007 or so. Many concerns of the type you raised, such as original research and synth. Over the years, the article went through name changes, many Afcs, and giant edit wars that went to arbitration (multiple times IIRC), which I hope does not happen to us. I think one difference is that there's a solid gamut of reliable sources that address transgender genocide, from the start, so it's much less driven by political activism outside and within WP. ProfGray (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Opening sentences

Let me suggest that we discuss the lede here. Not to stifle bold editing, but for the purpose of collaborative understanding of how to properly frame and describe the topic.

For me, it seems clear that the article is not about the phrase alone (transgender genocide) but about what it describe or means, that is, about applying the concept of genocide to social phenomena (aka systematic discrimination and persecution of trans ppl). The article does not assume that the application is "True" but merely that various ways of applying the concept is made in reliable sources. These applications are not all the same, e.g., some refer to intl law and others do not. cc: User:mhawk10 ProfGray (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Holding aside the background section's part on Nazi Germany (which I think can be spun off into its own article), the thing that I'm seeing is at the core of this topic is a bunch of different conceptions of what is meant when the term "genocide" is applied to transgender people. One author is basically making the case for considering a gendercide, more broadly defined to include social death, to be considered genocide and applies that to the whole LGBTQ community in light of efforts by ex-gay groups. Another is talking about eliminating a third gender group as a component of settler colonial genocide, in my reading rather than treating it as a unique genocide altogether. And some sources describe specific violent acts or oppressive policies in the modern day as being genocide (though this view seems to be a very small minority w/in relevant literature).

Some of the international law papers focus more on things like analyzing the current extent to which LBGT people are afforded protections under international law, proposing ways forward to improve protection of transgender persons under international law both from genocide and crimes against humanity, at times also considering transgender people more broadly in the context of queer persons. Some of the coverage (such as by Eichert) is so broad that it focuses on expanding the concept of genocidal rape to include all people who are not cisgender women.

I think a topic like "genocide and LGBT people" might be substantially easier to write than this topic, both because it allows for us to connect with the literature that treats the subject more broadly and it renders some of those more general articles about how gender affects experience within a genocide to be used without violating WP:SYNTH or doing original research by applying every concern an author writes about "queer" or "LGBTQ" people to only trans people. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. 1. Why are different conceptions of trans genocide a problem? There are many competing definitions of genocide, legal & otherwise, as shown in both the genocide article and the Genocide definitions article (!)

2. Please clarify your concern, maybe cite WP guidelines, about the use of sources that refer to both (in various combinations or disaggregations) T and LGB genocide. I don’t see why this is a problem. Loose analogy: If a source refers to US-Canada trade, couldn’t it be used in both an article about US trade and in an article about Canadian trade? Even if there’s no article about Canadian trade, does that mean the source can’t be used for US trade? Using it for US trade does not negate the need for an article on Canada (or a combo article), right?

In other words, if anybody wants to write a “parent” article on genocide and LGBT people, that’s great. some of the trans sources will be useful. But trans genocide is still a notable topic, so it’s suitable to draw on reliable sources, regardless of whether those sources are about trans ppl alone or are clearly covered in an LGBT analysis. I respect your concerns and I’d like to address them.

3. I don’t understand your point about a “unique” genocide or event. Some say that trans ppl are targets of genocide and some that this genocide has distinctive features. But even when trans (or Roma or disabled) are a component of a larger genocide (genocides), as with the Nazi era, I don’t see why that’s objectionable. ProfGray (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

1) In general, the different conceptions of how this sort of stuff is phrased is not a problem in and of itself. However, it poses a problem for the current article text inasmuch as the article needs to maintain a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. And, despite there being an enormous amount of literature that talks about gendercide as the lens through which to view this, the lens of gendercide is almost completely sidelined. Compared to the nearly forty mentions that the term "genocide" gets, the article only give it two mentions of gendercide its text, both of which are in direct quotes. We're not presenting this topic through the lens of the overwhelmingly predominant way that researchers have discussed. This is a huge issue as far as NPOV is concerned, and I frankly think that we're construing several of the sources in ways that aren't reflective of broader scholarly analysis of them.

For one example, take Miranda's highly cited work on the Joyas. Our article presents it as if it fully and unconditionally embraces the descriptor of genocide to describe Joyas-specific violence, which is a questionable interpretation of the text that sources that write about Miranda's work don't appear to embrace.

Some sources discussing the Joyas during Spanish Colonization and Miranda's work
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Miranda, Deborah A. (2010). "Extermination of the Joyas: Gendercide in Spanish California". GLQ. 16 (1–2). Miranda's work, which has been widely cited, frames the violence against Joyas primarily through the notion of gendercide, which is to say a genocide-akin process that targeted these people on the basis of their gender. Miranda frames genocide and gendercide as pairs that worked together in eliminating native identity, with the former targeting the natives broadly and the latter being used with reference to the the killing of a particular gender because of their gender as gendercide. Whitebear, Luhui (2022). "3: Drifting across lines in the Sand; Unsettled Records and the Restoration of Cultural Memories in Indigenous California". In Bernardin, Susan (ed.). The Routledge Companion to Gender and the American West. Routledge.. The chapter refers to a genocide of indigenous peoples writ large, but frames the gender specific violence against Joyas through the lens of gendercide. Chapter 33 in the same book also affirmatively refers to the violence against the Joyas as gendercide. Rifkin, Mark (2020). "3: Gendered self-determination". In Winkle, Heidemarie (ed.). Multiple Gender Cultures, Sociology, and Plural Modernities: Re-reading Social Constructions of Gender across the Globe in a Decolonial Perspective. Routlege. Another source that's secondary w.r.t. Miranda's writing describes Miranda as framing the Joyas' singling out for particular violence and derision by the term "gendercide". Lang, Sabine (2016). "Native American men-women, lesbians, two-spirits: Contemporary and historical perspectives". Journal of Lesbian Studies. 20 (3–4): 299–323. doi:10.1080/10894160.2016.1148966. Yet another source that refers to Miranda's work on the Joyas, referring to the how the Spanish attempted to physically exterminate the Joyas as gendercide while referring to the plight of natives more broadly as five hundred years of colonization, cultural genocide, and forced acculturation.

There are also papers that talk more broadly about the use of gendercide as a tool of the settler colonialism (and/or settler colonial genocide) more broadly, such as Imperial Terroir: Toward a Queer Molecular Ecology of Colonial Masculinities and Gone to the Spirits: A Transgender Prophet on the Columbia Plateau. Even Eichert, whose law review article we currently cite, points out that colonizers sought to exterminate third-gender people as part of a larger genocidal project against Native American language, culture, and religious practices (emphasis mine). But this mainstream framing is missing altogether in the current article, instead we place in Wikivoice what appears to be an erroneous characterization of Miranda's work and choose to provide nearly all our WP:WEIGHT to views that embrace the use of the term genocide. Our presentation of the elevated level of systematic discrimination and violence against transgender people in wikivoice as "Transgender genocide" or "Trans genocide" is something that does not quite follow from a reading of the broader literature.

2) Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article being verifiable in a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication (emphasis mine). Throughout numerous points in the current article, we're very clearly using the author's texts in ways that change their meanings. This includes the way we currently characterize Miranda (as explained in the example above), but it also includes the way we characterize the writings of Eichert in a manner that's frankly inconsistent with the broad intention of the source text.

3) My point about unique is to say that, among those sources that characterize settler colonial violence as genocide or cultural genocide, the vast majority of sources that refer to the Joyas appear to treat the violent extermination of the Joyas as a part of those settler colonial genocides that were ordered towards the destruction of native people and native culture; the gendercidal violence targeted them to a truly brutal extent, but they frame those actions as a genocide against Joyas qua natives rather than Joyas qua Joyas. If the article is only supposed to include the perspectives of those who say that trans ppl are targets of genocide or that this genocide has distinctive features, even when the scholarship that doesn't affirmatively characterize the violence this way being much greater in number than scholarship that does, then there are very real issues with the article departing significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views regarding anti-trans violence. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response.

1. Re: gendercide. it'd be great if you want to take a stab at explaining the relationship between genocide of a gender vs. genocide of transgender persons (or, by gender identity or gender expression). Would you please make or suggest edits that would give gendercide its due role here? Likewise, it'd be fine to add the framing that genocide of joyas was part of a larger genocidal project. Would you contribute that please?
2. Would you please identify "the numerous points" where you see a need for changes? You've put up an NPOV tag for the whole article and I'd like to resolve every concern you have. (If possible within the next week or so, since somebody submitted a DYK.) I think I've already revised Eichert, so if you still see a problem, please make or suggest specific edits.
3. Re: unique. It sounds like unique is part of how you expressed your #1 here. (Uou're saying that, at least regarding Joyas, that there are disputing or mainstream academic views to add. That's great, since you've reviewed those views, please add them to the article to contextualize Miranda.) ProfGray (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Bernie Farber source is dubious

I won't rehash the debate about Farber's credentials. My issue is that the source does not clearly state that Farber is objecting to the term "genocide." Rather, there's a vague claim that the term may be considered insensitive by some (a weasel word) and then his name is mentioned. The article is not coherent enough to be used as a source. Unfortunately I cannot edit or flag it. 2603:7081:1603:A300:D501:B22D:E35D:4C33 (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That is the text of the article, it also contains 24 minutes of audio that expands on the subject. --Pokelova (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Genocide claim in interntional law?

The International law section claims that: In a 2008 academic article in hate studies, Jeremy Kidd and Tarynn Witten argue that abuse and violence against transgender people makes them a target of genocide as defined by the Genocide Convention, which would need to be reconfigured for their eligibility.[26] In line with the convention, they argue that transphobic discrimination and violence are not random or atomized, but rather come from the intent "to eradicate a group of people who violate a widely held and popularly reinforced norm of binary gender with a connection to heteronormative sexuality."[26] They say that this motive of "eradication/annihilation"

But UN genocide conventionsays that an genocide is when:

Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Notice how it doesn't include Transgender people, because your sexual orientation isn't a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Transgender isn't even a culture. So under international law, Transgender Genocide doesn't exist. Which should be mentioned. In the article. --User:Crainsaw (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You are asking us to engage in original research. DanielRigal (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

So international law, and internationally recognized definitions of genocide is original research now? User:Crainsaw (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

No, but your interpretation of it is. If you want to do something with this then find reliable sources and expand the criticism section a bit (not too much!) with neutrally written content that reflects what they say, not a synthesised argument of your own derived from your interpretation of them. DanielRigal (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

How? You can't interpret International law like this, if they wanted to, then it would've specifically included genders. But it didn't.User:Crainsaw (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You can remove anything that is genuinely improperly cited, per WP:V, but your disruptive insistence on pasting in the big quote from the UN is argumentative and POV. Please stop. Please don't make me break out the warning templates.

If you want to approach this constructively, and I hope that you do, please find reliable sources who make or cover the same point as you are trying to argue and add neutral coverage of that. Initially that belongs in the the Criticism section. Don't try to make the argument in Wikipedia's own voice. DanielRigal (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Plus, we already have a source making more-or-less this argument in the criticism section. It doesn't need to be made over and over again. --Aquillion (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The UN isn't a reliable source? The real POV is you guys removing all the real criticism, while adding improperly cited materials. Here are sources about the definition of genocide [1][2][3]. Crainsaw (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are continuing to misunderstand what you are being told and I'm not sure how to explain it any more clearly to you. Your most recent edit was this in which you removed a fragment of content which actually supports your argument that official definitions of genocide do not normally include gender minorities. (Also, that was not a minor edit, but I'm not going to use that as a pretext to revert it.) Please don't take this the wrong way, but are you sure that you understand the text that you are editing? DanielRigal (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake, I'll revert it Crainsaw (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This article doesn't actually appear to cite anyone who claims that it meets the current definition in the Genocide Convention. Where it did seem to say that, like in the passage you mentioned or in the section about the US, this article was just misrepresenting the sources it was citing. Endwise (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2023

Change "transgenders" to "transgender people" in the first paragraph. The use of the term "transgenders" when referring to transgender people is associated with the dehumanization of transgender people. PerseidDreams (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Use of a word like "transgenders" was very clearly inappropriate, although I am assuming it was used carelessly rather than maliciously, and PerseidDreams was right to point this out. DanielRigal (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I have taken that entire sentence fragment out as it was a recent addition and I have no way to know whether it reflects the contents of the existing references used for that paragraph.

@Recobben: Thanks for trying to improve the article. I've left the rest of your changes but I took out the fragment "that could potentially lead to the mass death or extermination of transgenders from a society". Do you have access to the three references currently used for that paragraph? If so, do they support what you added? If not, do you have an additional reliable reference to support that addition? If you do then please feel free to readd it but please take care with the wording. We need to steer well clear of potentially offensive phrases like "transgenders" and "transgenderism". DanielRigal (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Edit onto Protected Page

I would like to add the following information to this page (anyone is welcome to critique the precise wording of the statements):

A medical report published by Yale in response to bans on gender-affirming care argued that the bans were no more ethical than a prohibition on healthcare for any other life-threatening medical condition.. The president of World Professional Association of Transgender Health wrote an opinion article in the New York Times stating her view that these laws constituted an effort to "rid the world of transgender people." Similar sentiments were expressed in a WPATH public communique: "Anti-transgender health care legislation is not about protections for children but about eliminating transgender persons on a micro and macro scale." Skye5515 (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The "persecution" definition under to the Rome Statute is brought up under this article, but how would people feel about citing the Rome Statute directly for it's definition of extermination (a type of crime against humanity): "Extermination" includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population; "

References

Trans Genocide is the wrong word

Trangender genocide is not a real thing as the meaning of Genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group."

-Google

Theres no such thing as Transgender genocide. So use other words 5.104.178.227 (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. How does 'discrimination and violence' equate to genocide? I see no clear intentional genocide against transgender people, as this article instead refers to random statistics that point out issues that some transgender people face. DosariDosari (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not up to us to judge the accuracy of the term in this case. The fact is that these circumstances have been described as genocides by some, and we have reliable sources to support that. We just report this fact without inserting our own preconceptions. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Lol, that's so stupid. Define reliable source! 212.103.88.123 (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

We have been defining it clearly and publicly since February 2005. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources for full details. DanielRigal (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not what the word genocide means. Sure, reliable sources use that word, but if they said the sky was made of candy corn we wouldn't include that, because it's obviously not true. Not to mention it's insensitive to cases of legitimate genocide. Regardless of your opinions on the transgender topic, I think we can all agree they aren't experiencing genocide. It's just not how the word genocide works. LukFromTheWiki (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually there is a rather substantial body of reliable scholarly sources that describe some of the current anti-trans activities and legislation as a genocide against trans and non-binary people. Those are cited in the article. As by multiple policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV) we follow what independent reliable sources state about a subject, if you or any other editor wish to change the terminology in this article then you would need to provide an array of sources that support the idea that trans and non-binary people are not subject to genocide, and those sources would need to carry equal or greater weight than those currently cited. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a burden of proof fallacy. Can I please receive the evidence that trans people are being systematically murdered in an attempt to remove them from society entirely? LukFromTheWiki (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it's policy. All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable, and editor reasoning about a topic is not allowed. We have an array of reliable sources that assert trans and non-binary people are subject to genocide. Those sources appear to be the mainstream view on this subject. If you wish to assert that this is not the mainstream view, then the burden for change is upon the editors seeking change.

The answer to your question on sources lies within the sources in the article. You may wish to start with the sources in the scholarship section, but I would recommend reading every source in the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

You can compare things to genocide all you want, but it's not actual genocide. Comparing things to genocide doesn't equal genocide. You'd just be making a silly comparison. LukFromTheWiki (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia isn't written based on our own reasoning. We follow what the reliable sources say. In this case it is verifiable that some reliable sources have described certain events as genocides against trans people, so we report that. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion went a bit off the rails here. Let's just roll that bit up and move on.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't even know what I'm doing anymore. Wikipedia's gone to crap, I'll probably stop trying to improve it. To improve the site would mean being critical of mass media, which the site's rules make it clear isn't allowed. Apologies for my wrong-think. I'll do better to reject the evidence of my eyes and ears from now on. LukFromTheWiki (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry for my hostility. I usually don't backpedal from what I say, I usually stick to my gut, but that was overly hostile to you, and I'd like to apologies for that. LukFromTheWiki (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC) You’re a bit deranged and a lot transphobic. Imagine arguing with someone who objectively knows more about this than you do. Just another cissy fool. 50.115.94.74 (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Thanks, that's one of the finest Ad hominem fallacies I've ever seen. LukFromTheWiki (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Look, I'm all for discussion, it's something I enjoy, but I can't respond to blatant attacks on my character, other than say "I don't care if you think that," so unless you have anything of substance to say I can't exactly respond to that. LukFromTheWiki (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Agree, thats just ridiculous 212.103.88.123 (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't state as a fact that there's a genocide being perpetuated against transgender people. It says that some people have characterised it as such or argued that legal definitions of genocide should be expanded to include transgender people. Both of which are indisputably true, regardless of your personal beliefs. Endwise (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"In the United States" section is misleading

This excerpt says that "many" trans people are arming themselves with the implication that this is occurring throughout the United States. However, the source provided is a journal article that interviews TWO trans people in Texas. This section is unsubstantiated and should be removed since two does not equal "many."

Excerpt from Wikipedia article: The increased targeting of trans people by right wing militia groups has also been described as threatening genocide, and has led many trans people in the United States to, in response, stockpile weapons and gear - including AR-15 rifles and modern body armor - while training, sometimes in groups, to use them as necessary. SunflowerPunch (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I've changed "many" to "some". It could probably do with a more comprehensive rewording to put the emphasis more on self-defence than on weapons but that's enough to address the specific issue here. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal but it's not some. It's two. Anecdotes are not evidence. Nothappycamping (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Issues with article

Thread started by blocked editor.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was going to submit an edit request but I realized that there’s nothing that can be done to improve this article. Instead, I question why this article is on Wikipedia at all. Since there is no organized and systematic murder of transgender people, the reasonable conclusion is that there is no trans genocide taking place. This, then, would amount to having an article in an encyclopedia about a nonexistent topic. Obviously, if someone can present evidence from reliable sources that there is organized and systematic murder of trans people, then having an article on this topic would be justified. In fact, I would expect such an article to focus entirely on details regarding the organized and systematic murder of trans people. Regrettably, however, that is not the case. Abrolator (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Abrolator, you seem to be assuming that "genocide" means "organized and systematic murder". But pretty obviously, it's polysemous. So it may surprise that Merriam-Webster (generally regarded as a dictionary provided by and for thinking people) currently provides just one definition. This sole definition is: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group". Note "the group", rather than "the members of the group", and note the non-mention of homicide, let alone murder. -- Hoary (talk) 05:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Even ignoring the definition - reliable sources do refer to the topic in the article as genocide, and therefore that's the term the article uses. To ignore the source material would be a violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Tollens (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Indeed. Abrolator, Wikipedia just summarizes what other sources have said. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Perhaps it should be clarified in the lead section of the article that there is no systematic and organized murder of trans people? Are trans people being sent to extermination camps or being murdered en masse and buried in mass graves? If not, I would suggest making that clear up front so as to avoid conflation with actual genocides such as the Holocaust. Abrolator (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC) @Abrolator: I think it's already pretty clear: The term is related to the common meaning as well as the legal concept of genocide, which the Genocide Convention describes as an intentional effort to completely or partially destroy a group based on its nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 17:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC) I see. Well, if that’s how genocide is now defined, then for the sake of a complete encyclopedia, I think there should also be an article on female genocide. Women do face discrimination and violence (astronomically exceeding that experienced by trans people in terms of murder rate). I’ll start a draft. Abrolator (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Do reliable sources discuss it? Remember, Wikipedia only summarizes what other people have said. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 18:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Most definitely. I don’t think such an article would survive the onslaught of TRAs desperate to advertise their invented victimhood at the expense of real victims of violence and genocide, though. for more Abrolator (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Hm? What do you mean by "TRA"? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Edward-Woodrow, see TRA, including the "usage notes". And let's not encourage talk page soapboxing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC) I tend to agree with "it should be clarified in the lead section of the article that there is no systematic and organized murder of trans people". The fact that someone by digging around in dictionaries can find a vague definition that implies mass-murder, with the wording "destruction ... of a ... cultural group", but without quite saying it, does absolutely nothing to address the fact that genocide in the minds of most of our readers involves mass-murder. We should not be playing fallacy of equivocation games here. This article is apt to be highly confusing to many reader without such a clarification.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)