Talk:Transgender
Despite what some people might think, a "neutral point of view" does not mean portraying all viewpoints as equally valid and important. In fact, it means the complete opposite. Uncritically presenting statements which have both been proven false and are actively harmful to a marginalized minority couldn't be further from neutrality. To put malicious disinformation next to statements that you may disagree with but which definitely aren't disproven or harmful as if they were the same is to actively support the side that wishes to see trans people dead. Trans people all over the world face discrimination and oppression, they are being denied human rights, they are denied access to lifesaving medication, they are victims of hate crimes, they have a disproportionally high suicide rate, and all of that happens because people believe those same things that you uncritically portray as a legitimate viewpoint. That is not neutrality. By legitimizing and spreading ideas which lead to the oppression and death of trans people, you are actively contributing to the problem. The lives of trans people are more important than the sense of superiority you get from your false neutrality, the smugness you experience when you say "there's actually zero difference between good and bad things". It's easy for you to not care about issues that don't affect you and just ignore the harm they do to others, but maybe consider that your life isn't the only one that matters. Or if you refuse to do that, then you should at the very least openly admit that, one, you are not actually interested in neutrality and two, you are okay with contributing to the oppression of marginalized people. This blood will be on your hands too. Comrade Death (talk)
- Truth to power! Dronebogus (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Quotability[edit]
About this edit, the authors Shahzi Bokhari, Teddy Cook, Chris Elston, and Ayeen Forootan are not notable since they have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time; and the quotes aren't independently well known WQ:Q, the sources are blogs, a facebook page and others don't have a link to be verified. Robin Loup (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- If you’re going to remove them, be sure and remove or replace their use in the images Dronebogus (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- This quote is not notable, I can't find it in reliable secondary sources. Robin Loup (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I didn’t add it. It is notable (see W:Irreversible damage) but filling the article with ignorant propaganda from non-experts barely anyone outside of the TERF/far-right nexus has heard of is a lousy idea. It’d be like if the article on Homosexuality was 60% homophobic preachers or the article on Jews was mostly antisemitic screeds. Maybe we need an article for “opposition to transgender rights” to keep it separate from the apolitical topic of transgender people? Dronebogus (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, it seems that many of the quotes are more about the transgender rights movement than transgender people per se. The problem is that to have the quotes in another article still won't solve the POV problem, it would create a content fork. Robin Loup (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not necessarily— a “transgender rights movement” article would be about a notable individual subject— the political aspect of being trans as well as opposition to trans rights. The main article can be about simply being trans. If transphobia doesn’t fit into the latter category then it’s probably just a garbage quote that can be thrown out as undue weight to to the ignorant personal opinions of people who really have nothing to do with transness as a whole. Dronebogus (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Dronebogus: Sounds good, I create the Transgender rights movement article so now it's a matter of moving the quotes there. Robin Loup (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- I removed the quotes that are tangential related to the article. That quotes belong elsewhere. Robin Loup (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not necessarily— a “transgender rights movement” article would be about a notable individual subject— the political aspect of being trans as well as opposition to trans rights. The main article can be about simply being trans. If transphobia doesn’t fit into the latter category then it’s probably just a garbage quote that can be thrown out as undue weight to to the ignorant personal opinions of people who really have nothing to do with transness as a whole. Dronebogus (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, it seems that many of the quotes are more about the transgender rights movement than transgender people per se. The problem is that to have the quotes in another article still won't solve the POV problem, it would create a content fork. Robin Loup (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I didn’t add it. It is notable (see W:Irreversible damage) but filling the article with ignorant propaganda from non-experts barely anyone outside of the TERF/far-right nexus has heard of is a lousy idea. It’d be like if the article on Homosexuality was 60% homophobic preachers or the article on Jews was mostly antisemitic screeds. Maybe we need an article for “opposition to transgender rights” to keep it separate from the apolitical topic of transgender people? Dronebogus (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- This quote is not notable, I can't find it in reliable secondary sources. Robin Loup (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)