Talk:Transgender genocide: Difference between revisions

 

Line 82: Line 82:

Using sources about people being transphobic in general to construct a “background” section is just turning the article into a [[WP:COATRACK]] of bad things. This article should focus specifically on the topic at hand. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 09:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Using sources about people being transphobic in general to construct a “background” section is just turning the article into a [[WP:COATRACK]] of bad things. This article should focus specifically on the topic at hand. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 09:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah… the paragraph starts {{tq|Statements made by American right-wing media figures regarding trans people have been criticized as genocidal}} which does relate to the topic of this article, and does appear apply to what Michael Knowles said. But, as far as I can see, none of the other sources relate the statements of Matt Walsh/MTG/Charlie Kirk to genocide, so the entire rest of that paragraph is synthesis. [[User:Endwise|Endwise]] ([[User talk:Endwise|talk]]) 09:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah… the paragraph starts {{tq|Statements made by American right-wing media figures regarding trans people have been criticized as genocidal}} which does relate to the topic of this article, and does apply to what Michael Knowles said. But, as far as I can see, none of the other sources relate the statements of Matt Walsh/MTG/Charlie Kirk to genocide, so the entire rest of that paragraph is synthesis. [[User:Endwise|Endwise]] ([[User talk:Endwise|talk]]) 09:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more transgender people. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn’t match what’s most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example “man/woman”, “waiter/waitress”, “chairman/chairwoman”) that reflect that person’s latest expressed gender self-identification. Some people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person’s life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBTQ+ WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Transgender genocide, gender, or sex. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Transgender genocide, gender, or sex at the Reference desk.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Section size for Transgender genocide (19 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 1,149 1,149 112 112 Scholarship 18 12,673 0 1,457 International law 5,640 5,640 708 708 Genocide studies 3,414 3,414 341 341 Biomedical and genetic ethics 2,782 2,782 314 314 Other fields 819 819 94 94 History 809 22,892 82 2,036 Nazi Germany 6,216 6,216 686 686 Indigenous peoples of the Americas 1,721 1,721 83 83 Indonesia 731 731 81 81 Brazil 1,885 1,885 88 88 Russia 3,168 3,168 76 76 United Kingdom 779 779 107 107 United States 7,583 7,583 833 833 Activism 1,728 1,728 103 103 See also 145 145 0 0 References 30 32,575 0 0 Works cited 32,545 32,545 0 0 Further reading 1,274 1,274 0 0 Total 72,436 72,436 3,708 3,708

There are people out there — primarily trans netizens — decrying what has happened in re U.S. executive action since January 20, 2025 (most notably the ‘Protecting Women…’ order, the anti-trans military order, and the gender-affirming care ban order, as well as consequences (such as research being repealed, CDC being down, etc.)) as transgender genocide. Definitely think an expansion on this end is warranted. Casspedia (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can’t do original synthesis to link these things and we can’t draw directly on the analysis of random people online, no matter how compelling their arguments. If you know of any Reliable Sources making this link then that is what we need to expand the coverage. Feel free to use those to expand the article or, if you don’t want to do that, then drop them below for other people to consider using. Bear in mind that anything that doesn’t make the link explicitly is going to be challenged so the quest is for sources that are Reliable and which explicitly mention genocide or an unambiguous synonym. Remember, sources do not have to be American, or even in English, but they do need to be Reliable and directly support the content they are used to add. International human rights organisations might be a good starting point. —DanielRigal (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only piece currently post-2024 election I can find regarding Trump’s policies (too early for more academic sources to have come out) is this article from MSNBC. While not related, searching did bring up this research article on Puerto Rico and this one on anti-transgender conspiracism and it’s genocidal aspects, that people may find use of. — Cdjp1 (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a very bad, dangerous and borderline genocidal itself way of evaluating the validity of a source. First hand experience is a MORE legitimate source of than a scholarly article. Any claim otherwise is giving academia a monopoly on controlling information and the narrative, which eliminates the voice of people experiencing a genocide, which is part of genocide. 75.110.194.224 (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, in particular WP:Verifiability. Although not all claims need to be from academic sources, we do need to ensure that all claims are supported by a reliable source. What is considered reliable will depend on the claim being made, but we wouldn’t, for example, cite a pseudo-anonymous social media post for the existence of an ongoing genocide. That being said, if you do find a source that supports a claim that you want to add to the article, don’t hesitate to bring it to this talk page. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not understanding how the lived first hand experiences of people experiencing genocide is not a reliable source. By that logic Anne Frank’s diary couldn’t be considered a reliable source about the Holocaust. Please explain to me the meaningful difference in reliability of said sources. 75.110.194.224 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

It does not involve claims about third parties;

It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and

The article is not based primarily on such sources. 75.110.194.224 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR; placing opinion before journalism isn’t how encyclopedias do sourcing. 1101 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what you are talking about I didn’t mention anything about any sort of opinion. Please clarify what you are trying to say because what you are saying is borderline word salad to me. 75.110.194.224 (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Transgender genocide” is more accurately discussed as the crime of extermination. Rhetorically, “transgender genocide” works, but, legally speaking, genocide specifically refers to targeting people for their racial, ethnic, national, or religious identity. When you target someone for any other reason, under international law, it fits more precisely under the crime of extermination under the Rome Statute, as a crime against humanity. The definitions are very similar except that extermination applies to any group, not just race, etc. I feel like that should be discussed and misstatements about gender based violence constituting genocide should be corrected. The current article conflates genocide under Article 6 of the Rome Statute with Article 7(1)(h), which is limited by the definition of gender under 7(3), however 7(1)(h) includes a “or other group” provision that could include transgender people under the crime of persecution. Both persecution and extermination could serve as a legal basis to prosecute crimes against the trans community, depending on the facts in a particular case. The conclusion that the ICC would reject it as gender based persecution ignores other valid arguments for potential prosecution. I don’t have a secondary source to cite, but you can look at the Rome Statute to see what I mean. Zdrussell1 (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you say could be correct but, for purposes of naming this article, it can’t override WP:COMMONNAME. Let’s leave that issue aside as it can’t get us anywhere. Are there any specific cases where we (Wikipedia, not the sources) have got the Rome articles mixed up, contrary to the sources we cite? If so, that’s something that can be fixed. If you think the sources have them mixed up then that’s not something we can override unless there are better sources we can use which do get it right. —DanielRigal (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as an excessively pedantic argument. Genocide, like murder and rape, is a concept before it is a law. Think of it this way: in some countries, a woman can’t legally be a rapist because she is lacking the male appendage by which the crime is defined in some law. But one, surely, can’t argue that women can’t actually be perpetrators (at least not as understood by common people)? 1101 (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

genocide is according to Lemkin who lead the project to define it and article II

“any attempt to destroy a people in whole or in part.”

It is enough that the people attempting to destroy the other group consider the target group “a people” often interprettted as ‘a culture’ by legal scholars adjudicating the articles of genocide which differ in scope from Lemkin’s work-group’s original definition. In this case every case of discussion in law or policy regarding restricting and defining out of existence (memoricide) trans people, refer to them as a monolithic group and associate it with being a culture, often labeling it things like “a sick culture”. It is then clear from the side eliminating trans people that it is in fact a genocide, though many may not realise it.

The pages on Lemkin and Genocide clearly explain this kind of thing. The bigger issue is that the US is not a signatory of any human rights treaty nor the articels on genocide nor any international courts which could adjudicate. Further, legal norms are not the same as the law and as we have all witnessed, most genocides don’t get adjudicated for geopolitical reasons that nation/states routinely rate as more important than protecting populations from genocide.

But what the f do I know, I just work as a licenced historical communicator at the former main KZ of Sachsenhausen for over a decade…There’s plenty of scholarship on all of this.

People made similar arguments about slaves in north america when Lemkin and co attempted legal adjudication through the new international courts for slavery and native american/american indian genocides of which the later is still slowly ongoing in terms of mineral/landgrabs and legal dominion of reservations.

TalonX93.128.23.13 (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be split into two: one is on the historical experience of transgender people specifically during genocides, the other the politically-charged neologism that’s used in modern-day activism. Thoughts? It seems disingenuous to imply that whatever is going on now is equivalent to Nazi extermination camps. Bremps… 19:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands the article seems to be funnelling the viewer into a by no means widely accepted viewpoint, though I’ll seek consensus before major changes. Bremps… 20:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bremps – perhaps you have a point. The lead image features a trans woman who faced Nazi persecution, but the Wiki article doesn’t discuss this individual at all. And then some parts of the body discuss nazi persecution of trans people, but the sources are not speaking about transgender genocide, which is an academic term with specific meaning. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article (as well as the talk section) is borderline genocide denial. It frames the existence of transgender genocide as non-existent or debatable. While there are definitions that exclude transgender people from the definition of genocide, these are specific, arbitrary definitions of genocide, that either don’t include transgender people due to:
Lack of awareness due to erasure (genocide)
Or intentional lack of inclusion in the definition (genocide denial)

Something being a “legal” definition of genocide doesn’t change this because governments are capable of genocidal acts.

I realize my arguments here aren’t perfect, and someone can be very pedantic and prove me wrong. Genocide denialists are really good at their craft of twisting ideas. 75.110.194.224 (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok 88.10.81.51 (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the rather large “background” section, I noticed there are a lot of sources that do not mention transgender genocide, and are basically WP:SYNTH of published sources. For example, this on Charlie Kirk and this on MTG.

Using sources about people being transphobic in general to construct a “background” section is just turning the article into a WP:COATRACK of bad things. This article should focus specifically on the topic at hand. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah… the paragraph starts Statements made by American right-wing media figures regarding trans people have been criticized as genocidal which does relate to the topic of this article, and does apply to what Michael Knowles said. But, as far as I can see, none of the other sources relate the statements of Matt Walsh/MTG/Charlie Kirk to genocide, so the entire rest of that paragraph is synthesis. Endwise (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]