This template is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
This is the centralized talk page for Template:Transgender (appears at bottom of articles) and Template:Transgender sidebar (appears at side of some core transgender topic articles). Except for the sidebar containing less content, changes to one template should be reflected in the other as well. If your message only relates to one of the templates, please specify sidebar or footer.
I second this, and believe it should be removed from the template. Is there anyone who has a valid reason it should be included on the template, before I remove it?Ariadne (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be interesting to make this sidebar a bit more general: it could be renamed to Gender instead of Transgender. To me, it would make sense to put the sidebar on the page Gender, and to include the gender identities woman and man. Intersex is a physical condition, and maybe no-one identifies themselves as such (?), but I think it should be included as well. A lot of (international) Wikipedia visitors who look for information about transgender may not know of the terms gender and intersex, and it's a good thing to invite these people to read about it. Laurier (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I struck part of my post above because I remember that this is the talk page for Template:Transgender sidebar; the talk page name should align with the template name, though. Flyer22 (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, it was worth a try! ;-) I still think the term gender is not as familiar to a lot of (international) visitors as one might hope, but I know Wikipedia is not a dictionary and not an activist forum. Thank you for replying, though! Laurier (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funcrunch I wrote too pointedly. She is only controversial in the sense that she is an artist and activist with her own opinions, so I changed "controversy" to "individualism". She is controversial in the sense that any individual doing bold things without the backing of an established organization is likely to be at odds with others, and the controversy is not any deeper than that. I understand that the artist has debated with others, which is fine, but taking any position with any amount of controversy brings context and baggage into mentions of their name.
I got the idea to post from a trans activist group in NYC who did not want to use that particular flag because they said that the artist has sought to be noted as the originator of the flag and to be named in conversations around its use. I think it is fair to give credit, but Wikipedia is highly influential in this space and credit which Wikipedia grants can have profound value. I hesitate to recognize an individual mostly acting alone as someone who needs to be remembered for all trans activism worldwide in all circumstances perpetually when this symbol is so new. If Wikipedia presents the symbol broadly in this template where trans issues are discussed, then that seems like an editorial choice to me and to wield more influence in favor of one person than I am sure it is right for Wikipedia editors to grant. I would prefer a symbol that has most of its meaning in concept behind the symbol, and I worry that too much of the flag is tied to the artist who wished to be named as the originator. Thoughts?
Do you have a link to Helms stating that she wishes to be credited for use of this flag, etc.? I don't doubt what you or the folks in NYC are saying, I just would like to see more context. Funcrunch (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I propose a "Related" section for links to areas that are not transgender topics, but intersect them. For example, LGBT, Intersex, DSM, minority stress, sexual orientation. It might be a challenge to keep the list under control, but this seems to have worked out ok with Template:Intersex. Related links help to recognize intersectionalities and may also help users distinguish issues and find information. Trankuility (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Crossroads, what is wrong with including queer heterosexuality in the sidebar? Per its page it concerns "heterosexual persons who show nontraditional gender expressions, or who adopt gender roles that differ from the hegemonic masculinity and femininity of their particular culture". The subject seems relevant enough for inclusion in this see also section due to this relation. I don't see anywhere it fits in the LGBT sidebar and seems most relevant here. Helper201 (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did place it within the see also section as I agree it doesn't specifically mention transgender but it does relate to something very similar and related in gender identity and expression. What about placing the template on Gender and sexual identities? Perhaps under the other section? Helper201 (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I initially placed it there but then moved it to the see also section. It seems more relevant to gender over sexuality as far as I can see from reading the page. Helper201 (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello All, as part of Wiki Loves Pride I began a stub for pinapinaaine from Tuvalu and I wondered if the term could be added to the template alongside fa'afafine, etc.? Many thanks, Lajmmoore (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article Third gender I saw there was an image provided in the source code for the template Template:Transgender sidebar. However no image is displayed on the actual page. I don't know the inner workings of this so I'm posting this comment here so perhaps someone with the know-how might find out what's happening, thank you. WanderingMorpheme23:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the image was added back in 2006, and at some point this got mashed together with the sidebar. The image and caption are irrelevant to the article, so I have removed. Wrackingtalk!01:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not acceptable to remove relevant links over personal objections (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) to sourced content. The link to trans-exclusionary radical feminism clearly belongs here, in the same section as the anti-gender movement, with which it is closely linked (or a subset), as discussed by sources in the target article. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the link is relevant in this template, but placing it under the "Discrimination" heading was an absurd violation of NPOV, and the parentheses serving to imply it is another name for, or subset of, the anti-gender movement were also editorialising that goes beyond what the GCF article itself says, and certainly far beyond what there is consensus for at the GCF talk page. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The target article clearly supports it being included in the same section as the anti-gender movement. Those are two political movements or ideologies that are defined by their opposition to transgender rights, and countless academic sources discuss trans-exclusionary radical feminism as a subset of the anti-gender movement, or at the very least closely linked to it. Having anti-gender movement in one section, and the TERF movement in another, is absurd. Why is Catholic opposition to trans rights discimination, and not the anti-trans ideology that started as a fringe movement in radical feminism? Readers will expect to find these two closely related phenomena next to each other, not in entirely separate sections. Indeed, both articles very prominently mention the other, including in a hatnote. But we could remove the parentheses and include them as separate entities. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
