Talk:Transgender genocide

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)

"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)

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)

Agree, thats just ridiculous 212.103.88.123 (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

New photo

Hi everyone, I added a photo which I believe better illustrates the concept to the lead section of the article. Of course, I’m open to discussion here if there are any objections; however, I believe that this new picture conveys the most accurate representation of what the idea of trans genocide actually is.

File:Transgenocide1.jpgUser:Cairnpoke 03:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)