Talk:Hijra (South Asia)/Archive 4

Requested move 16 June 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved Dr Strauss   talk  06:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hijra (South Asia) → Hijra (transgender group) – "This use of Hijra is as a borrowed word, leaning a corrupted word, for many, the transgender nature of the topic is hidden and the arriving at the topic is astonishing." Thanks, User:SmokeyJoe —  AjaxSmack  00:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This was recently proposed at more ambitious and ultimately doomed multi-move request and was discussed extensively at Talk:Hegira. Please refer to that discussion for background.

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Hijra (gender) or Hijra (gender identity) or Hijra (third gender). What is important is the inclusion of "gender" and removal of geographical location.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)  Oppose plain "Hijra" as ambiguous with Hegira and astonishing to many who would land there.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC) Oppose any use of a terminal "s" as a sufficient WP:SMALLDETAILS difference.  A terminal "s" is too small, and both are ambiguous anyway.  Hijras can be people who participate in Hijras.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see a significant advantage. It looks unnecessary complicated. I have suggested the following more succinct options: Hijras, Hijra (third gender) and Hijra (transgender) (even Hijra (gender) is a possibility). That said, nobody debunked nor even effectively contested the argument in favour of moving this page to plain Hijra, so it should have been implemented, and not undone (the strength of the argument counts, not the number of participants who agree, per WP:NOTVOTE). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as per this article, the term "transgender" is actually problematic in this case (and "third gender" increasingly turns out the best description). "Group" is iffy, too. Therefore Hijra (third gender), Hijra (gender) and plain Hijras remain as the only viable options. Personally, I prefer Hijras before Hijra (third gender) and this before Hijra (gender). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The qualifier "South Asia" makes no sense in this case. The words in parenthesis should clarify the page topic, and (South Asia) doesn't clearly convey that "hijra" is in reference to gender. Willard84 (talk) 07:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support move as per the comments on Talk:Hegira. Khestwol (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The current title makes this look like a place name, not a phenomenon unrestricted in geography. bd2412  T 12:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per Willard84 below (and yes, I realize they're supporting above), this term does not precisely conform with "transgender" in the sense usually meant in English.  It *can* mean that, but it can also mean cross-dresser or eunuch or "third gender", while transgender individuals usually prefer to be recognized as actively their transitioned gender (at risk of overgeneralizing, take with a grain of salt, etc.).  I don't see a problem with South Asia, but if it's considered so important as to merit mention in the title, I would support Hijra (gender identity) as well, which I think is vague enough that it gets across that it's a spectrum of gender identities, without also being too specific.  SnowFire (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * &#8203;The problem with "(South Asia)" tacked on to "Hijra" is that a hijra is a migration and the title seems prima facie to refer to a South Asian migration (hence the comment that "the arriving at the topic is astonishing"). —  AjaxSmack 00:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you mean the flight from Mecca that gets romanized a number of different ways, it's going to be shocking no matter what, since this topic has nothing to do with it. (I know I was shocked as well, and still would be at any of these titles!)   That said,  هِجْرَة doesn't imply migration in general, it means specifically one flight, and nobody would use "South Asia" to describe it IMO, so the current title isn't much worse or misleading IMO.  SnowFire (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose It is too presumptuous to define an entire culture and tradition by labeling it as "transgender group". I prefer move to "hijra" because there is no Wikipedia article by that name so the parentheses are not necessary at this time.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  23:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * &#8203;The primary or at least an equally important meaning of Hijra is Hegira so that move probably won't happen. Any other suggestions? —  AjaxSmack  23:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Hijra" is not even listed on the "Hegira" page as a significant alternative spelling. I checked Google for "hijra" and all the hits that I see are for the South Asian cultural group. What evidence do you have that people searching for the term "hijra" expect to see the article on "Hegira"? Also, it is strange that Wikipedia is not currently using the term "hijra" either for a disambiguation page or an article. I think that the default action should be to move this to hijra, and if anyone wants to do something unorthodox, then there should be consensus about not doing the typical thing.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  12:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * &#8203;Nineteen of the top 50 Google Books results for "Hijra" are about the hegira in a narrow since or analogies thereof. Still, this was lower than I expected, so I would not oppose a move to Hijra if others agree.  However, I would ask to let this nomination run its course first, as almost anything beats "(South Asia)" as a disambiguator. —  AjaxSmack  21:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support move to Hijra (gender) or Hijra (gender identity) or similar – it seems the clearest way to disambiguate the page without weirdly using a geographic descriptor for a non-place article. V2Blast (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I agree with Blue Rasberry that this page should be moved to simply Hijra. The gender group does in fact seem to be the most common meaning for this exact spelling; people referring to the Hegira tend to use the spelling "Hijrah". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose I am from India, and the term doesnt refer to transgenders at all. It is already mentioned in the article itself. I agree the geographic descriptor is odd here, but that doesnt mean we should label a particular group that they dont even belong to. I prefer the order put forward by user Florian. — usernamekiran (talk)  02:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose nuances in current English usage mean that transgender as a parenthetical here would give the article a meaning that the text and sourcing doesn't support. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * To many people, including non-Muslims who know a fair amount about Islam, "Hijra" and its new and old spelling variants, without disambiguater, primarily means Muhammad the prophet's migration from Mecca to Medina. The page name Hijra (South Asian transgender group) or similar would be much clearer. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a debate whether Hijra means transgender or third gender. Any such debate is futile, since the term is rather all encompassing, and means anything from castrated eunuch, to transgender, to androgynous, to third gender, or even just people who dress in drag for recreation. The proper vocabulary to distinguish these groups has not yet been made, so Hijra can mean anything, though in South Asia (Pakistan at least), Hijra *generally* means third gender, though it is also used in reference to transgender (since it is hard to differentiate between third gender and transgender without engaging in debate with each individual hijra). Therefore, both "Third Gender" or "Transgender" would be suitable. The former is probably more technically correct, though the latter is more easily understood by English-speaking audiences, since "Third Gender" isn't a concept very well-defined in the West, as compared to "transgender" which is common parlance. I vote Hijra (transgender) or Hijra (third gender).Willard84 (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No to gender and sexual labels "Hijra" is a South Asian regional identity, a social identity, a religious identity, a cultural identity, a legal identity, a community identity, a gender identity, and could be described in other ways. I can agree that among Western writers and reliable sources there is an emphasis on sexuality and gender, because in the Western tradition there is a highly abnormal interest in any perceived variation of gender or sexuality. In the current Wikipedia article, most of the information in the article addresses issues other than gender and sexuality. I do not feel that defining this community by gender and sexuality is the most correct way to present the topic. From a Western perspective the gender difference is striking, but from the local perspective, hijra communities are part of life and I do not think that most local people would raise the issue of gender first in describing hijras. Most commonly I have heard people describe them for clapping, party crashing, or for their religious services. I wish Wikipedia could avoid the parenthetical labeling and commentary all together because it is condescending. Why, among all the ways that hijras can be labeled, should Wikipedia decide that discussing them for their gender and sexuality is most relevant? I think "South Asia" is best because regional identity is a defining characteristic and probably hijras could not exist outside the context of South Asian culture. Transgender individuals are everywhere, and South Asia has those too, but not all transgender people in South Asia are hijras yet all hijra communities are in South Asia.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  22:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you cite this? It reads as a very different spin to the content of the article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what to cite. I hope that it is already apparent that "hijra" is not a synonym for "transgender". I think the wiki article already communicates that the hijra community has its own culture, and that not all transgender people in India are hijra.
 * I assume you know Western culture. An example that I could give is that in the past, if a movie or television show depicted an LGBT+ character, then their defining character trait was "LGBT+". Nowadays this has changed in the West, and the media presents LGBT+ people with their personality and then may or may not also show that they are LGBT+. The change was because of a recognition that although some people on the outside become intensely fixated on the gender/sexuality aspect of other people's lives, LGBT+ people typically do not want a public persona emphasizing their gender and sexuality to a greater extent that non-LGBT+ people experience. A term like "transgender" is entirely about gender so to talk about transgender issues is to emphasize gender. With hijra culture there is a lot more there and gender is not the most striking aspect of it.
 * If I had to provide a citation, the most popular sources are probably Bigg Boss because it depicted hijra culture in popular media and maybe City of Djinns for being the most popular book to have an essay about hijra culture. In both of those works there was an attempt to present hijras as individuals who have more in their life than their gender, just like other characters in the works were defined first by something other than gender.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  12:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Bluerasberry, my assessment of this is that your opposition is centred on the inclusion of "trans". I can accept that, "trans-" does not appear frequently in written association with the topic.  However, Hijra (gender), Hijra (gender identity) and Hijra (third gender) have no such problem, these terms are well-associated already.  Hijra (third gender) seems most acceptable, "third gender" is very frequently used.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not objecting to the transgender label. I have two other objections.
 * This article should not be disambiguated. "Hijra" is a word and spelling which refers to the subject of this article. This article is the primary topic for that word. Also, neither is there any other article going by this term, nor is there is a disambiguation page, nor do other articles mention this spelling as an alternative spelling. The default action should be to place this article at "hijra" with no disambiguation.
 * "Hijra (South Asia)" is more accurate and respectful than "Hijra (gender identity)". If hijra were a gender identity, then it could exist outside the context of South Asia. The essential part of the concept is immersion in South Asian culture. The Hijra community does not have its origin in the modern Western discussion about gender politics and does not need to be described in a way that conforms with Western interest in applying gender labels to people. The hijra community benefits when people think of them in terms of what they do. Applying a gender label here is would be like titling an article "Priest (male)" for a wiki article on "Catholic priest" or "midwife (female)" for an article on birth attendants. Trans roles are no so different that they need to be defined by gender when other roles with a gender requirement are not defined in that way. The discussion here is defining the hijra role by gender when in the case of male only roles or a female only roles, the role would not be defined primarily by gender.
 *  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I am quoting the article itself: "These identities have no exact match in the modern Western taxonomy of gender and sexual orientation,[24] and challenge Western ideas of sex and gender.[10]" Hijra group cant be labelled as transgender. Kindly look for my vote above for further brief details. (I dont like "ref talk" lol) — usernamekiran (talk)  02:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hijra (South Asia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007132618/http://www.rhcatalyst.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Programs_STI_Prevention_Bangladesh to http://www.rhcatalyst.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Programs_STI_Prevention_Bangladesh
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728122027/http://transgenderlawcenter.org/trans/pdfs/Trans%20Realities%20Final%20Final.pdf to http://transgenderlawcenter.org/trans/pdfs/Trans%20Realities%20Final%20Final.pdf
 * Added tag to http://test.hsa.edu.pk/journal/issue-march2012vol2no1/Abdullah%20MA.OA.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090913183933/http://bangkok2005.anu.edu.au/papers/Jami.pdf to http://bangkok2005.anu.edu.au/papers/Jami.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hijra (South Asia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111223441/http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2013/nov/11/hijras-now-separate-gender to http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2013/nov/11/hijras-now-separate-gender
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202173932/http://altlawforum.org/PUBLICATIONS/PUCL%20REPORT%202003 to http://www.altlawforum.org/PUBLICATIONS/PUCL%20REPORT%202003

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Long quotation
The following quotation moved from section "‎In the Mahabharata" to the Talk page for furthe discussion:

This is mostly unsourced information taken from a speech by a self-promoting non-specialist who took part in a conference. The content was added by various accounts including anonymous SPAs pushing the the author of the quotation in numerous articles around Wikipedia. Valid material relevant to the article should be summarized in normal, encyclopedic style as we would do for any article, and added to the relevant section(s), if appropriate. Mathglot (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, another relic of the time (...which possibly continues as the present day...) when we had some editors pushing Gopi Shankar all over the place. Thanks for moving it out of the article. -sche (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Undiscussed move
How is it that, after a proper Rfc about a RM that was completed, and resolved as not moved, the article was then later moved without discussion? That doesn't seem right. Mathglot (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * (Having not been involved in either, I will observe that) the RM was about moving it to be disambiguated as a "(transgender group)" and opposers specifically disputed that transgender was an appropriate descriptor, at least in its common narrow sense. The later move changed one geographic disambiguator for another, narrower (and apparently still accurate?) disambiguator. -sche (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Me neither; I get why the first RM was rejected, and I agree with it. The point is, an Rfc was held for it, to let others weigh in so it could be decided by consensus, as . I don't see why the move that happened later, should have happened with no discussion. Should we just move it back, and open an Rfc to see if a move to the current name has support?  Both terms, South Asia and Indian subcontinent have Wikipedia articles which claim that the definitions are somewhat fuzzy; but what I get from the latter, is that it has more to do with geography, the pushing up of the Himalayas by a land mass moving north and slamming into the Asian continent, while South Asia, is some combination of political (a list of some countries, not the same list in all definitions) and geographic "the southern part of Asia". But whether my analysis is correct or not, doesn't really matter; the point is, there is more than one view on this. It's not so clear cut, that a unilateral move should have been attempted. I'm just not sure what to do about it now. Mathglot (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it's not clear to me: do you think "Indian subcontinent" is not a good title? If so, let's discuss it and certainly you can make a strong argument that if there's no consensus for either title it should default to the old title. But if the concern is just that it should've been discussed because someone could object, well... the mover explained why they thought "Indian subcontinent" was appropriate and no-one objected then or over the following several months, and ~20 editors (including you a few weeks later) edited the article after the move without objecting to the title. WP:CONS says "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." And pages like WP:RFC, WP:RM and WP:PM discourage having RfCs/RMs/etc just for the sake of formality if there's not actually a dispute. -sche (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't clear to me whether it's a better title or not (so your confusion is accurate). I'm objecting to an undiscussed move, that I don't see how the editor could assume was controversial, that's all. Moves are more serious than edits; it's no big deal to revert an edit, but moves shouldn't be reverted lightly, neither should pages be moved lightly for the same reason. I know about edit consensus, otherwise probably would have just moved it back, had I noticed it soon enough; but it's a volunteer project, and stuff happens. And yes, I did edit after, but I just didn't notice then. At this point, there's probably little to be done, except possibly be more vigilant going forward. Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I am undoing the undiscussed move since it was a part of a pattern that many editors have objected to at numerous points of time and at numerous venues (see links in this warning to the user, for a non-exhaustive list of those discussions). I don't have any firm views on which title is preferable and editors are welcome to start a RM discussion if they believe that the one with "Indian subcontinent" is preferable. Abecedare (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hijra Pride Flag
Has the Hijra pride flag been verified? This is the first edit to add it, and since then it seems to have been a removed and re-added at least once. Are there any sources that indicate widespread acceptance or any usage of the flag? The Wikimedia page indicates it was created by a tumblr user in September of 2018, and added to this page only a few months later, making it seem unlikely that it was an established flag at the time of its addition. This would be a bit of an unusual case as far as citogenesis is concerned - if we can find sources indicating its use now, while it may have been in part because of Wikipedia, keeping it is probably appropriate. But without a citation verifying it, the flag would fall under WP:SELFPUB, in which case I think it should be removed. Darthkayak (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Transgender_flags had the same story. Someone made it but it had no recognition in media, then someone posted it to Wikipedia as activism, then it went to tumblr, then it went to mainstream media, and now it really is in Wikipedia backed with sources. I appreciate the good wishes but Wikipedia is not for starting trends like this.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case I'll remove it, at least for the time being. I've been looking for sources, but I don't think any exist. Perhaps one day it'll be widely used. Also, that story about the Helms flag was really interesting. Darthkayak (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Srehman07. Peer reviewers: Avillalobostovar, Uambra.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hijra as a derogatory term - is the current phrasing of the article appropriate?
Had a conversation with a Pakistani friend about this article and they were shocked by its name, saying that the proper or formal way to refer to the group is khawaja sira (the article currently says "they are also called" khawaja sira as if it's an alternative name) and "hijra" is a slur. This sent me down a rabbithole of reading up on the word and I've come to the conclusion that this article could use some work.

I tried to find more information and it seems to be the case that saying "hijra" as a substitute for "Transgender" is offensive, not just in Pakistan / the Urdu language, but also in India:

Excerpts from these sources:


 * Although for convenience of understanding I am using the term hijra in this piece, social workers and activists prefer the term Khwaja Saraa as hijra is a derogatory word in Urdu. - Could be used to source hijra being offensive in Urdu
 * For a trans women, “hijra” is a very derogatory term to be used, just like as it is wrong [sic] to call a gay guy ‘Hijra’, and it is very offensive to call a trans-woman a ‘Hijra’. - Could be used to articulate how hijra should not be substituted for LGBT-related words
 * [...] the larger problem here revolves around the continuing usage and perception of the word hijra as an insult. It has been repeatedly used to imply weakness, impotency, and the inability to “get things done”, among other things. In choosing to make use of the term in such contexts, politicians are reinforcing the prejudices associated with it, and are sabotaging efforts to uplift the community. - From an op-ed from an author who seems to be an activist for eunuchs who believes that the term Hijra should be reclaimed. The context of this quote appeared to be a politician being widely condemned for calling a female politician a "hijra" as a sexist insult.

The article does currently mention this, but only briefly:


 * Most hijras live at the margins of society with very low status; the very word "hijra" is sometimes used in a derogatory manner - acknowledges that it can be derogatory but doesn't exactly elaborate
 * This term is generally considered derogatory in Urdu and the term Khwaja Sara is used instead. - This is good, but I think this should be reiterated elsewhere in the article.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying we should rename the article (though I do think we shouldn't use "Hijra" when talking about Pakistan). Even though it is offensive to refer to LGBT people as hijra (even in India), the term hijra still - to my knowledge at least - is the correct way to refer to eunuchs. What I suggest is:
 * 1) Expand the article and lede to more thoroughly cover the term's controversy, and
 * 2) Gut the "Pakistan" section of "In films and literature" - It's mostly unsourced except for it sourcing YouTube videos and IMDb pages which don't even use the term "hijra" despite the article's current wording using it extensively here.

I'm not nearly educated enough on this topic to feel comfortable making any changes to the article myself, so I'd be really interested in what more knowledgeable editors have to say about this.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 08:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: LGBTQ Reproductive Health
— Assignment last updated by Nishaptl (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hijra is not transgender?
Many sources seem to note tha Hijra is not transgender, but "third-gender".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/23/why-terms-like-transgender-dont-work-for-indias-third-gender-communities/

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20170720-the-semi-sacred-third-gender-of-south-asia

https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/religion-context/case-studies/gender/third-gender-and-hijras

Pinkslimo (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * In both India and Pakistan "Transgender" is used as a legal term to encompass all gender minorities including intersex, third gender, and modern trans identities. See Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 & Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018. Anthroqueer (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)