Talk:Transgender history in Finland

Requested move 21 November 2023

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

– Our main article on this topic is Transgender history and not History of transgender people, which is wordier. Google ngrams also shows that "transgender history in …" is used in the literature, while "history of transgender people in …" is not. Furthermore, I would argue that transgender history is more than just the history of transgender people, but also of political, cultural, etc. circumstances. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * History of transgender people in Finland → Transgender history in Finland
 * History of transgender people in the United States → Transgender history in the United States
 * History of transgender people in the United Kingdom → Transgender history in the United Kingdom
 * Note: WikiProject LGBT studies has been notified of this discussion. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand the rationale behind this move, but my concern is that the pages appear to be structured around the previous name. How would they be expanded to more broader to about " political, cultural, etc. circumstances" of transgender people as put it?
 * Also, the "non-binary" and "intersex" sections of the UK article ("History of transgender people in the United Kingdom") should be split off into either Third gender (for the non-binary section) or Intersex people in history (for the intersex section). I guess I can understand why they are in that article, but... they would be better suited somewhere else, so the information is not lost. Historyday01 (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Concerning being structured around the current title, I see your point that a lot of the coverage is just about individual historical trans people. I don't think that's bad either, and it's natural that in past times, a lot of the information we have would be about individual cases rather than societal developments. I don't think this presents an obstacle to moving, however.I agree that the "Intersex" section needs to go elsewhere, given that they are unrelated topics. But while individual non-binary individuals may choose not to identify as transgender, I maintain that non-binary history belongs firmly within the sphere of transgender history. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it necessarily poses an obstacle to moving either, I'm just saying that it may require additional research to fulfill the new name of each article. I'd be willing to pitch in a bit to help. So, surely, I support the name change. In terms of the second paragraph, I think you are right about the Intersex section. When it comes to the non-binary section, maybe some of it could be incorporated more into the general text, and/or some or all also moved to Non-binary gender (I was thinking of having a whole page dedicated to non-binary history, but I think that might be overkill, as there isn't that much there in the non-binary section, I just cited, right now) Historyday01 (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per Maddy's comments, WP:COMMONNAME, the fact we have Category:Transgender history, and because I'm about to publish Draft:Trans history in Brazil. Best,Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, we already have the naming convention LGBT history in XYZ that holds across all articles (I haven't seen a single page called History of LGBT people in XYZ), so having a different naming convention for trans history seems weird to me. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * History of transgender people in Brazil has now been moved to this title and should also be encompassed by this RM. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Additional note: It should also be "trans history in Brazil" not "transgender history in Brazil" - this was discussed at the LGBT Wikiproject Noticeboard here and the TLDR is "transgender" refers to a small percentage of trans people in Brazil, many of whom are Travesti (gender identity) and don't consider themselves "transgender". That's supported by the article's body and sources overwhelmingly. Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Striking per my comment below, this can be discussed after this RM. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We strive for WP:consistent titling of articles and so the title has been made consistent with the other History of transgender people in X titles. So if there are more different parts in Brazil, they should be WP:Split from the main title into a related separate article. Transgender is the correct umbrella term in the English language, and this is the English Wikipedia, so we follow English language convention and Wikipedias rules and guidelines. As the main Travesti article clarifies in the terminology, the term predates the use of Transgender in the area, but is considered a regional equivalent in part - The use of the term travesti precedes that of "transgender" in the region and its differentiation from the notions of "transsexual" and "trans woman" is complex and can vary depending on the context, ranging from considering it a regional equivalent to a unique identity. Raladic (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Raladic I don't mind the "history of" consistency/title format change pending this RM. I'm unclear what you mean by if there are more different parts in Brazil, they should be WP:Split from the main title into a related separate article though, could you please clarify? "Transgender" is in umbrella term in Western contexts, but in Brazil transgender people are only a small part of the larger trans umbrella - the title including "transgender" is a misnomer considering only a minority of trans people there call themselves transgender as most are travestis who explicitly reject the term and most of the sources (English, Portuguese, and Spanish) in the article likewise don't use "transgender" and/or explicitly say "trans" is the umbrella term in Brazil. "[history of travestis/travesti history] in Brazil" would be a more appropriate title than one with "transgender" but it would still be too narrow. I believe "transgender history/history of transgender" is appropriate for most articles we have, but this case is unique due to the considerations above. Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm meaning that in this case if as you're saying there is a clear distinction (although it looks like it is blurry), then there should be two separate articles "History of Transgender people in Brazil", which talks about Transgender/Non-binary identities in Brazil and a separate one on "History of Travesti people in Brazil" that talks about that and they can link to each other as appropriate. Raladic (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This ignores the obvious connections between different trans people. What is the advantage of such a division? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, in the English language, "Transgender" is considered the umbrella term for Trans identities (whether it is Transgender itself, or non-binary or other non-AGAB identities) - refer to transgender and per WP:ENGLISHTITLE, it thus should be used (whereas "trans" is an abbreviation and per WP:TITLEFORMAT avoided), even for an article about Brazil, again because WP:CONSISTENT is also another policy that applies here. The article can still discuss that the term has different historical meaning in Brazil, but it is the term that English language readers of EN-wiki are looking for when they are looking for an article about Transgender History in different countries. Raladic (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, in the English language, "Transgender" is considered the umbrella term for Trans identities – this is way too bold a statement. I've been reading lots of gender studies sources for Cisnormativity, and I'd say most use trans for this purpose. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we're somewhat going in circles (no worries since this question was also considered at eswiki and enwiki at the noticeboard and I myself grappled it with ages before choosing "trans" in the first place lol). I'm going to strike my above comment and propose we revisit whether "transgender" OR "trans" is the best title for the Brazilian article after this RM as it's a separate (if related) question. Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Comment - The main problem I see with the proposed expansive meaning is where the line to the other series of Transgender Rights in … is drawn, since a lot of the things like political, healthcare and so on are already covered in those articles and by making the title here more encompassing, it also gets more ambiguous, that line will get blurrier and blurrier. Especially even looking at the different formats of the existing articles already. Raladic (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the tangent above lol. For the record, I don't think that would be an issue as we already have the joint naming convention LGBT history in XYZ and LGBT rights in XYZ (and I think per WP:CONSISTENT/WP:COMMONTITLE that supports the moves especially since Transgender rights in XYZ is already a convention). To me, while they're closely related, the former tends to include culture and more of the backstory on how those rights came to be, while the latter tends to focus on the modern rights and less of the political struggles to get them (usually linking to the history article for that). This applies to the history/rights split for both "Transgender..." and "LGBT..." (though admittedly, the UK/US/Brazil articles follow that topical split more than the Finland article). Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem about the discourse, I brought a summary linking to here back to the LGBT Studies board if you want to discuss further there.
 * I think your point here is good, so as long as we could ensure that the Transgender history in X articles stay on the topic of the history and don't delve too far into the rights issues beyond the historical evolution, I suppose it makes sense for consistency with the Transgender rights in X series. Raladic (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I had an idea on backburner I think this is a good spark for: I'll create a table somewhere about the state of the various Transgender rights/history in X articles and post a link here or at the LGBT noticeboard shortly. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per discussion above for consistency, granted that we ensure that the Transgender history in X articles stay on topic to avoid overlap with the Transgender rights in X articles. Raladic (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)