Talk:Transgender rights in the United Kingdom

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2024
"social" challenges in the lede then goes on to describe legal challenges (and trans people certainly face medical challenges that cis people do not). Change this to just "challenges"? Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This page is not protected. You can edit it yourself. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Weird! I could've sworn there was a little lock blocking the edit button. Thanks for letting me know! Sock-the-guy (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Trans women prisoners
Please stop changing the wording on trans women prisoners. Your changes make the text incomprehensible. A ‘female trans prisoner’ would be a trans man. It is trans women we are talking about here. Also, please note that your changes are not minor; in the Wikipedia sense of the term, a ‘minor’ edit is one which would not reasonably be disputed, e.g. correcting a typo. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * While you are correct to request that Useful1 leave the original wording alone, this is an inappropriate, inflammatory and counterproductive way to make that request. Please strike your claim that "A ‘female trans prisoner’ would be a trans man.". Not only is this incorrect, it is needlessly offensive to a point where it is as likely to make Useful1 believe that your request can safely be ignored as to actually achieve what you want.
 * The best way to make sure that all readers understand the article correctly is to use the phrase "trans women prisoners" (or maybe "transgender women prisoners"). This is correct, unambiguous and universally accepted terminology. It avoids opening the door to pointless arguments torturing the words "male" and "female" in weird, confusing and unhelpful ways. Also, please read Help:Minor edit to see when to use the minor edit tickbox. Our definition of a "minor edit" is far tighter than you might have expected. (Don't worry. It catches a lot of people out.) The best approach is to not tick it if you are in any doubt at all whether you should. Nobody gets told off for not ticking it. There is an option in the settings to make all edits minor by default. Please make sure that this is turned off. It is a bad option that is basically just a rake for unsuspecting people to step on. DanielRigal (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents is that both options have issues.
 * I actually agree with Sweet6970 that "female trans prisoners" sounds like it refers to trans men (it comes off as a really weird and derogatory way to refer to them, but it does come off as referring to them). The use of male/female is to refer to sex in the common parlance, and trans-female/trans-male for trans women and men respectively were advocated for a few decades ago but never got widespread acceptance.
 * "trans women prisoners" just sounds clunky and would for any demographic - you'd never see "asian women prisoners" or etc because "prisoner" is a noun but so is "woman" and "adjective-noun noun" is "noun noun" when we're trying to convey "adjective-adjective-noun".
 * As such, I think the text should be imprisoned transgender women as a clear and readable alternative. Alternatively transfeminine prisoners could work, but is likely to confuse our readers (and is likely too much a stress from the sourcing) so I think the former is preferable. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think your suggestion of imprisoned transgender women works the best grammatically and is clear. Raladic (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I made a similar change just now in Special:Diff/1225542529, although I didn't end up using imprisoned trans women exactly. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 03:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I like ’ elegant solution to the wording problem. I have added back the qualification in the Scottish policy, that the prisoners would have to be considered a risk to women and girls, as well as having a relevant conviction. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Since Transgender is a Gender identity, why not keep it simple, clear and understandable and say transgender-identifying (or even trans-identifying for brevity)? Zeno27 (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For the same reason we don't say asian-identifying, black-identifiying, cisgender-identifying, heterosexual-identifying or weird phrases like that - we don't need to strap the word "identifying" on when speaking about identity. Additionally, it raises confusion, as "trans-identifying" doesn't specify mtf or ftm, and it is additionally generally used as a dogwhistle to misgender (ie, "trans identified males" to refer to trans women).. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah. This is definitely terminology to very strongly avoid using, even on a Talk page. It may be that some people might have picked it up in good faith without realising what is going on, so I don't want to bite anybody's head off here, but it is intentionally obfuscatory language designed to confuse those who are not in the know and to act as a dog-whistle to those who are. DanielRigal (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This site is a complete joke. Don't use wikipedia for researh. Anyone can take/put anything on here. If you want to get relialbe information cross reference actual sources. Useful1 (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Or just vist less visted pages. But you've been warned. Useful1 (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * On the contrary to "anyone can put anything", this discussion is a textbook example of the WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss editing process. The article now says trans women [who are] imprisoned instead of trans women prisoners. Does this satisfy your original goal?
 * If you have other compelling points for why the exact phrase trans female prisoners is necessary here (preferably not based on wild accusations of sexism or transmisogyny), you can still argue them, but consensus here seems to be that trans female is a potentially confusing term which should be avoided.
 * I'm sorry you had a frustrating experience editing Wikipedia. I hope you try again later. Consider brushing up on the project's rules or try WP:The Wikipedia Adventure, and give it another shot. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * On the whole I think it's still perfectly fine and grammatical for articles and categories to use women X and trans women X as adjectives (e.g. Category:Women composers, Category:Transgender women writers) when the only alternative is something pathologizing like MTF transgender or a less exact term like . –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Criminal Tribes Act
Apparently the Criminal Tribes Act criminalized the Hijra under British colonial rule of India. It could, maybe, be relevant to historical context. This retelling in BBC News mentions "commentators" who associated hijras with "filth, disease, contagion and contamination" and claimed they were "addicted to sex with men". VintageVernacular (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That would not be relevant to this article, which is about rights in the UK. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While I'm not proposing a specific change, it may be a line of inquiry for interested editors to produce some. In gay rights contexts WP discusses some historical laws against gay sex for instance to provide background context (in that case, such laws were imposed on colonial subjects which has had lasting effects in e.g. Africa). I'm not sure how we categorize this but India would have been under British administration and it can reflect historical cultural attitudes back in the homeland of an empire as well. VintageVernacular (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This article is specifically "in the United Kingdom", while the Hijra are primarily in India. Although there is a history of colonialism with regard to the influence of British rule over India, the material would probably be best added to LGBT rights in India, LGBT history in India, or some similar page. The United Kingdom is specifically England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
 * It depends on the content added, though. I can potentially see some statements about, e.g., laws against homosexuality or transgender people, that originated in the UK, and were propagated to British colonies, being mentioned briefly in this article (in a section on history), with a wikilink to the article for that other country containing the more detailed history. That seems like it would be in scope. Hist9600 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Anything to do with homosexuality would not be within the scope of this page, which is about transgender rights. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hormone replacement therapy
according to our article on Hormone replacement therapy, Hormone replacement therapy (HRT), also known as menopausal hormone therapy or postmenopausal hormone therapy, is a form of hormone therapy used to treat symptoms associated with female menopause. Also, the headnote says: For transgender applications, see Transgender hormone therapy.

This is confirmed by the NHS website on this subject: which says: About hormone replacement therapy (HRT) - Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is a treatment used to help menopause symptoms. It replaces the hormones oestrogen and progesterone, which fall to low levels as you approach the menopause.

You have reverted to a version of our article which says: Despite this, on 21 March 2024, NHS England announced that it would prescribe hormone replacement therapy to children age 16 and older. This is plainly wrong and makes no sense whatever. You should self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, and as I explained in the edit summary, HRT for Transgender people is also called HRT, as outlined as in the disambiguation right on top of Hormone replacement therapy and the lead of Transgender hormone therapy - Transgender hormone therapy, also called hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
 * Two other separate editors have made this change here and here and you have reverted both of them  and I undid your second reversion after agreeing with the other editors as editing Wikipedia is based on consensus, which on the topic of transgender HRT is clear that that is the common term. Raladic (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As I have demonstrated above, the usual meaning of ‘Hormone replacement therapy’ refers to a treatment for menopausal women. That the expression may sometimes be used to refer to treatment for transgender people is irrelevant – our article should not use the term ‘Hormone replacement therapy’ in an obscure way. The general public reading our article will wonder why young people are being given a treatment which is used for menopausal women. You should self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, @Sweet6970. The hormones given are not replacing but supplementing so referring to the treatment as HRT can only be misleading. It would be far less confusing and more neutral to simply refer to 'hormone treatment'. Zeno27 (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Sweet6970 and Zeno27 and Void if removed and -DanielRigal: That the phrase HRT should not be used because it is misleading in the case of under 18s, and is not used in the source article. Peckedagain (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The citation says:
 * cross-sex hormones (5 times)
 * gender-changing hormones (twice)
 * masculinising or feminising hormones
 * hormone treatment (twice)
 * GAH (for gender affirming hormones) (4 times)
 * I can't see a reference to "hormone replacement therapy", which seems to be a misnomer - the actual NHS statements quoted by this source and in the NHS announcement itself say "gender affirming hormones".
 * Given the WP:COMMONNAME of the linked article is "Transgender hormone therapy", if for some reason you're not following how the source words it I don't see why shortening that to "hormone therapy" is an issue, but if there's no agreement for that I'd say stick to the sources (in this case, the NHS, which this section is about), in which case its more appropriate to say "gender affirming hormones". Void if removed (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this section worth deleting, as now superceded by time? -Proposed reforms in 2022
Certainly a good case can be made that the Reuters 'leaked document' can be deleted, as the actual NHS docs were published.

Regards the 2022 NHS documents and the comments on them and WPATH response the current situation has changed since the CASS review and responses to that this year: so what do people think about the 2022 content? Leave in as historic facts? Or delete?Peckedagain (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would support the deletion of the whole of the section ‘Proposed reforms in 2022’, as this has been overtaken by events. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I’d leave it in, but heavily shorten it to only a couple of sentences. Say,
 * “Previous reforms considered included banning the provision of gender affirming care outside of the NHS, banning those who receive such care from later receiving it from the NHS, and recommending the initiation of ‘safeguarding protocols’ against said patients.” Snokalok (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this proposed summary is too sweeping, and I would rather keep the existing wording than use it. But I would still prefer to delete the whole section. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)