Draft talk:Transgender marriage

Recreating this article
Sharouser, this is to address your latest restorations and post on my talk page. As you know, in this discussion, I made arguments against creating this article or any article titled "Transgender marriage." I noted that there is not an abundance of coverage on the topic of transgender marriage. I noted that there are barely any academic or news articles on it. I noted that "all I see are brief mentions using the term 'transgender marriage' and usually talking about it in the context of same-sex marriage." I asked, "Where are the sources speaking of 'transgender marriage' as its own entity? How does one define 'transgender marriage'? Who says that it's a marriage where at least one transgender person is the spouse, as opposed to both being transgender, like [your] incarnation stated? What if one or both partners do not consider it a transgender marriage, but rather a heterosexual marriage or a gay marriage?" I noted that "while we're on the subject, I don't see anyone trying to create an Intersex marriage article. What is an intersex marriage?" Another editor (Roscelese) agreed, stating, "where is this 'abundance of coverage' of transgender marriage that isn't just 'how are trans people affected by the legality or illegality of same-sex marriage'?"

You were not able to sufficiently challenge the arguments against creating a Transgender marriage article. You can't source its definition, and any sources you were to add about it would almost always be in the context of same-sex marriage. Your Transgender marriage article does not meet WP:GNG. That you do not understand that is troubling. This "Transgender Marriage and the Legal Obligation to Disclose Gender History" source you mentioned does not make it meet WP:GNG. And the "Can this marriage be saved? Addressing male-to-female transgender issues in couples therapy" source you mentioned certainly does not. That latter source is about issues in a marriage once the partner who was previously considered a husband comes out as transgender; that is something to be covered in the Transgender sexuality article. I do not see how a Transgender marriage article could meet WP:GNG at this point in time. And that you came back to the dead discussion in May to state "I will restore this article in June. I will insert more references.", and no one replied, does not equate to WP:Consensus. Given the statements in that discussion, it isn't correct for you to interpret editors no longer replying to you in that section as silent consensus. There is clearly no consensus there supporting you creating this article. Editors do not need to keep replying to you on the matter. And when they have already made solid cases on the topic of discussion, why would they? It's draining to talk in circles. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I guess we can see what AfC eventually does with it and go from there. Crossroads -talk- 06:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that Sharouser has found souroces that do not simply fall under "legal implications for trans people of the il/legality of SSM," given eg. the couples therapy source and the idea of legal requirements to disclose transition history before marriage. I'm more on the fence than I was though, since even though these various small studies and articles are on different aspects, they're still circling in some way around the topic of transgender people and marriage. Would a different title assuage concerns about how "transgender marriage" is not a thing/not a notable thing? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging users from old discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies
Courtesy pings for, , , , and. I hope it is not an annoyance but due to back and forth and continued dispute over this proposed article I have moved it to draft to let it go through the normal vetting process. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

English grammar and quality of material
While it would be possible to fix what has been written so far with a degree of interpretation of intent, I am wondering if is not a native English speaker, which would complicate the creation of this draft. It is something that can be worked with once we have established WP:Notability though, as proficiency at English is not a requirement for editing Wikipedia. Just for example this sentence, which is representative of the English used throughout:



Should be something like:



And I further might have written the sentence entirely differently if starting from scratch.

The information also appears outdated, or to use a meaning of "state" that might be confused with US States (which all allow same sex marriage) in If these states allow same-sex marriage, this restriction is dropped usually.

These things will require either the creator of this article to become more knowledgeable in English and professional writing or considerable cleanup and maybe some mind reading by more proficient editors before this article can be considered for promotion to main space. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)