Talk:Transgender rights in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Rewrite lead sentence
The lead sentence needs to be rewritten to avoid distortion of the type illustrated by the Mississippi River floods example at WP:LEAD. Mathglot (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've replaced it with “Transgender rights in the United Kingdom have evolved over time, having seen significant advances since the 1990s.”. Not a fantastic sentence, but it's a start. &mdash;ajf (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that attempt. This was more a bolding issue as in WP:BOLDAVOID and WP:LEAD.  Any change to the lead still has to follow what the article says, since the lead is merely a summary and shouldn't introduce new information.  Maybe I'll give it a shot. Mathglot (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft lead
Here's a draft of a new possible Lead, what do you think?

If it's too long, we could just go with the first paragraph, or maybe tack on a shorter version of the other two. What do you think? Or start over, and propose a different one, if you'd like. Since all of this is a summary of material already contained in the body of the article, no references are needed here (although anything unsourced in the body would need to be). Mathglot (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That might be okay. Though the bolding of multiple words looks silly, and the European Court of Human Rights is not a European Union institution. &mdash;ajf (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, you're misunderstanding the spousal veto. That's not an issue from before same-sex marriage was legal: before that was passed, the marriage just ended if a spouse acquired a GRC. It's an issue created by the same-sex marriage legislation passed for England and Wales, which gives one spouse control over the other's gender recognition for some reason. &mdash;ajf (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The bolding was a result of my misapplying MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD and I didn't like how it looked either, so all the bolding should be removed. Thanks for the explanation regarding EU and the spousal veto. Can you fix up whatever problems you see and propose a version below as a next draft? Mathglot (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's my attempt:
 * This cuts out everything that did not seem to be supported by the text.&mdash;ajf (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This cuts out everything that did not seem to be supported by the text.&mdash;ajf (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Legality of sex without disclosure of trans status
91.110.126.37 removed some content about the legality of sex without disclosure of trans status saying "please discuss. the legal precedent is not clear on this issue." 

It seems like we have a good source showing that this is considered to be a problem by some activists: "Trans people could 'face rape charges' if they don’t declare sexual history, warns trans activist"

And we have sources showing that people have been convicted in England and in Scotland.

To avoid the issue of legal precedent, would it be satisfactory to replace the table header "Legal to engage in sex or sexual intimacy without disclosure of trans status" with something else? Such as "Have people been convicted of sex or sexual intimacy without disclosure of trans status?"?

Ping. --Wickedterrier (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You said "None of the previous constituted factually justifiable claims, relies on anecdotal evidence, and has not been published by an academic site in order to verify its authenticity."

I'm confused by this statement. The statements are factual (the statements used to be about whether sex was legal or not, but now it's about whether prosecutions/convictions have occurred), they are based on actual convictions (which, yes, are anecdotal, but the legal system doesn't conduct randomized controlled trials, so I'm not sure what kind of data you're looking for?). And Wikipedia generally works on reliable sources, not reliable academic sources. So I'm not sure why not being an academic source is not acceptable?

Thanks. --Wickedterrier (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The only accurate way of sourcing this with guidance notes from the CPS, the direct sourcing of the relevant case law, and legal notes. As well meaning as trans activists are I don't believe they meet the necessary standards of reliability here. Its like citing catholic activists for information on the Catholic church. they are not removed enough to be considered wholly reliable. Until reliability of sourcing is found the information is activism and it turns the article in to soapboxing, and activisim. Both of which go against wikipeida's foundation. Please note Sophie Cook is a Labour member and has stood for parliament as a a Labour candidate. She specifically selected the seat of Tim Loughton for his anti-same-sex marriage position. This therefore biases her as a source. Also the Scottish case is not precedent and it is not applicable outside Scotland unless cited by a UK wide court such as the Supreme Court. This is an area of a lot of conjecture and cannot be included due to its many holes and issues. 91.110.126.37 (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

New Articles
This article should focus heavily on rights and nothing else. Legislation and Formal Legal recognition procedures should be a comprehensive single article. So should health care and so should marriage and civil partnership rights. 91.110.126.37 (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The legal rights for Trans people in the UK of recognition and marriage rights etc are exactly relevant to....Transgender rights in the United Kingdom, ... why separate them? signed confused of wikiland :) ~ BOD ~ TALK 14:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Not at all the need to split is to focus this article and have focused other articles. This could become the sprawling mess of general LGBT rights articles. 91.110.126.37 (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Redirect from "TERF island" at RfD
Note: There is a redirect from TERF island to this article. This has been nominated for deletion. I suspect that not many people are aware that this redirect exists so I thought I should drop a note here in case anybody is interested in participating in the discussion. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Public awareness
The second paragraph of the section Public awareness is great, but I seem to remember some kind of investigation into the kind of language used in articles on trans people and how that has changed that could be used here. From what I remember, it highlighted the fact that the usage of slurs has dropped sharply, but that the inclusion of content that centres around 'questioning' the existence of trans people and trans rights has risen sharply.

If anyone can find it, I'd be grateful - if it highlights UK media specifically, then it'll be especially important to include here.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Section on Ewan Forbes
It would be good to include a section on Ewan Forbes and the effect on trans rights following the case. Here's a few articles [1 ][2 ] Throughthemind (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Public attitudes
the paragraph on public attitudes is a little one-sided and does not present any matters that a majority of the public are sceptical about e.g. pre-op trans women should not be allowed to use women's changing rooms, trans women should not be allowed to take part in women's sport. (see https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights). it might be better to reference the survey's themselves rather than newspaper articles giving their take on the survey. There seems to be an assumption amongst a section of the public that trans means transsexual in the sense having surgical sex reassignment but this is largely not the case. --2A02:C7D:8A9:6700:9421:F436:3EC7:D7F4 (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The survey you link doesn't show that the "majority" of the British public diagree that pre-op transgender women should be allowed into women's changing rooms.
 * It states that, for all Britons, when specified that the transgender person in question has not had gender reassignment surgery, a plurality (a number of votes cast for an option that receives more than any other option, but does not receive an absolute majority) of Britons disagree that transgender men women should be allowed into the changing rooms and toilets for their respective genders.
 * Which isn't a majority, though it is another kind of disappointing; one wonders how people would plan to enforce this kind of thing.
 * More interesting is that, when specified that the transgender person in question has had gender reassignment surgery, for all but sporting events under the survey results section 'Access', the plurality of Britons agree that transgender people should have access to the changing rooms and toilets of their respective genders.
 * So it's a lot less clean-cut, and it's not a clear "majority". In fact, looking at the results of that survey (see here), I'm seeing an awful lot of green.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 11:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

PinkNews
WP:RSP lists PinkNews as a reliable source, so what's the issue?

@Sideswipe9th Snokalok (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Copying the message I just left on your talk page. PinkNews is a reliable source, however no citation to a specific PinkNews article was made in . Per the BLP policy because there was no citation, that edit was removed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, I'll redo with the citation Snokalok (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WAIT I JUST REALIZED I FORGOT TO CODE IN THE CITATION. HOW FOOLISH OF ME Snokalok (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01
— Assignment last updated by WGST320 (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Original research on statement of reasons
Just wanted to note that I've a paragraph added by Snokalok, that presented a specific quotation from the policy statement about the invocation of section 35 of the Scotland Act as original research as it was cited only to the text of the policy statement. If there are reliable secondary sources that could support this, it could potentially be restored.

However, given that this statement sets out the legal position of the Westminster government in blocking the legislation passed by Holyrood, I wonder if we might better be served in terms of content by waiting for legal scholars and commentators to make commentary on the statement? Given the significance of the invocation, I suspect there will be such commentary from all parts of the political spectrum over the coming days and weeks, as such analyses will feed into any challenge of the section 35 order by the Scottish government. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Dog whistles
I am deleting this section because:

1) There is nothing in the source about ‘dog whistles’, and in fact this expression is not compatible with the comments in the source.

2) It is out of date – it refers to the (most recent) Tory party leadership contest. If there is something significant in the current Tory policies on Transgender matters, then that might be noted in our article. Sorry - last contest but one. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

3) The source is heavily opinionated, so that the comments should be attributed.

4) Most importantly, there is nothing of substance in the text added in this para. Our article is supposed to be about transgender rights, not remarks by politicians. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The section was poorly written but I think there is something to say here about the extent to which (sometimes violently) transphobic rhetoric has entered "mainstream political discourse" in the UK. This is relevant to trans rights in the UK as it is clearly part of a coordinated softening up operation in advance of possible legislation removing legal rights for trans people. Just glancing at the front pages of the UK national newspapers on a daily basis will reveal two or three deeply bigoted stories each week and that is just the front pages. Now we have politicians parroting back those meaningless dog-whistle catchphrases as if this is a normal way for people to talk. So, if anybody can find good sources and write something encyclopaedic from that then I think that is definitely on-topic for this article but I don't see any point in trying to salvage that removed section. DanielRigal (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Sunak
Sunak said he wanted to change the word "Gender" to "Biological Sex" in he Equality Act 2010 should we include this, or leave it out until it is changed (or leave it out if it isn't changed at all) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-sex-ehrc-b2315394.html Melofy (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The source only says: The Prime Minister will consider official advice that says changing the definition of sex in law would create greater “clarity” around women-only spaces. So I think this is far too indefinite to include in our article. We should wait until there is proposed legislation before parliament. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

UK – ‘Lowest support for trans rights in the world’
Regarding this addition to the article: A June 2023 poll regarding support for trans rights on a variety of issues, including access to single sex spaces and gender affirming healthcare for teenagers, found the UK to have some of the lowest support for trans rights in the world.. I don’t have access to the source, and I find the text vague and dubious. The title of the article refers to single-sex spaces, rather than trans rights in general. And ‘some of the lowest….in the world’ gives no information. Which countries were surveyed? What were the ‘scores’? Which countries came higher? Which lower?

Unless this text is clarified, it should be removed. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't have a subscription to The Times (yuck), and can't squeeze past their paywall, but I suspect the survey they're referring to is here. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And here's the actual report of the survey by Ipsos. In the bit of the article I can read, Beal (the Times columnist) draws attention specifically to the fact that the UK came third from the bottom (amongst the thirty countries surveyed) regarding the right for trans people to use single-sex spaces and receive gender-affirming medical care while in their teens. In other areas, the UK appears to be much more 'middle of the road'. I think that the recent addition should be reworded - it's too broad-brush. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting - the US was actually below the UK on both of those questions. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the links.
 * If the survey referred to by the Times is the one you have provided a link to, then the text added should be deleted, because it does not accurately reflect the survey. For instance, the survey says 77% of Britons agree that transgender people should be protected from discrimination in employment, housing, and access to businesses such as restaurants and stores which does not square with ‘lowest support for trans rights’.
 * The survey also seems oddly American for results concerning the UK. It refers to ‘public restrooms’ which is presumably American English for public toilets.And it refers to ‘health insurance systems’, which is not particularly relevant for the UK, where the significant question is ‘should it be available on the NHS?’
 * There is also the question of whether this survey is noteworthy, if, as appears, it has only been reported in the Times.
 * So I think the text should be entirely deleted.Sweet6970 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a study of thirty countries. Re AmEn vs BrEn, I guess they've got to pick one; same goes for 'health insurance systems', if you're going to do the same survey in 30 countries, you've got to make it fit the broadest possible base, and most countries have some form of health insurance system. My guess would be that British participants would read that as 'should this be available on the NHS?'. As for whether it's noteworth (or WP:DUE, in local parlance), Ipsos is up their with the most bodies who carry out surveys like this, and it seems relevant to this article, so I wouldn't have an issue with including it here. Anyway, I've gone ahead and reworded the mention a bit; courtesy ping to who originally added the sentence.  Girth Summit  (blether)  15:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Removal
Snokalok, Sweet6970, This information seems noteworthy. Even if it doesn't go in here, it could find a place in UK transgender history or other LGBT articles. CurryCity (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t think this is, in itself, noteworthy, and it certainly should not be included in this article, because it is about attitudes, whereas this article is about rights. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree completely; there are statistics about public acceptance of LGBT people in LGBT rights in the United Kingdom, in LGBT rights in the United States, Transgender rights in the United States, LGBT rights in the European Union, LGBT rights in Mexico, LGBT rights in Australia, LGBT rights in Asia. It absolutely makes sense for those statistics to be included here. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed it's even in a section headed "Public attitudes" that includes copious other such statistics. I've restored the content and I would go so far as to suggest that removing it again would be could be considered to be disruptive. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree – you should explain what this survey has to do with the subject of this article, which is Transgender rights in the United Kingdom. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Like many “X rights in Y” articles, there is a section headed “Public attitudes”, which includes results of surveys into the opinions of the wider public into the minority in question. The article already includes mentions of 7 older surveys, as well as various mentions of petitions with numbers of signatories. As I mentioned already, 7 other articles that I looked at also contain such survey results, despite the article title including the word “rights”.
 * Are you really trying to suggest that you think a discussion of the public attitudes pertaining to minority rights has no place in an article about those rights, contrary to the established consensus on this article and others? Given you’re the person seeking to go against the established consensus (for inclusion of a “public attitudes” section with statistics from such surveys), it is for you to justify your proposed change, not me or @CurryCity to justify adding updated information. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 15:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (1) Are you really trying to suggest that you think a discussion of the public attitudes pertaining to minority rights has no place in an article about those rights ? No – rather the reverse. If the survey was about attitudes to rights, then it might be relevant. But the inf added is not about rights, it is solely about attitudes, which means it is not relevant to this article, which is about rights.
 * (2) The onus is always on those who want to include material in an article, and not, as you incorrectly say, on me.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Go and read the section “Public attitudes”. You will see that those surveys already in the article are already about attitudes. Sorry, but you are clearly advocating against the consensus of what is already included in the article by trying to exclude information about a survey that is fundamentally the same as pre-existing information in the article. Your distinction between rights and attitudes is simply not the case.
 * The material is consistent with the existing article contents; you are the person trying to change consensus here. So no, the onus is still on you to demonstrate either that the consensus should be changed — across this article and all its equivalents for other jurisdictions — or that this specific survey is somehow dissimilar from the surveys already included in the article. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Because this article is focused on rights, attitude may not warrant a fully detailed mention. At the same time, the long-standing practice does appear to include at least some attitude-related information. We can make a shorter mention.
 * There isn't a main article about transgenderism in the UK, and information about attitude is found in many different places. Perhaps History of transgender people in the United Kingdom can be expanded, or a new article created, to describe attitude as it evolves. CurryCity (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * to OwenBlacker: you do not have consensus for inclusion of the material which I deleted, and you reinstated.
 * to CurryCity: you have suggested a ‘shorter mention’ – what wording do you propose?
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is functionally identical to (but updated from) information that is already in the article by consensus. Claiming that there is no consensus for inclusion is disingenuous at best. The existing mention is already short and to-the-point; it doesn't need shortening to be consistent with information that is already in the article by pre-existing consensus.
 * It is entirely appropriate that a section headed “Public attitudes” contain updated information about public attitudes, consistent with the existing content. I honestly can’t understand your reluctance here — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with you here. The information in question is appropriate for the "Public attitudes" section, it's on topic, it's new polling data from a well-known source, it's worded in a neutral manner and it's brief enough that it can be placed there without overwhelming things. Definitely in favour of keeping it. XTheBedrockX (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this should be in this article as it’s the most relevant place I know of for it. Those who do not want this information here should suggest a more relevant place for it. Total omission of content from reliable sources is not helpful. Helper201 (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Updated Content Removal
@Sweet6970 I believe the content about the comments of Sunak to class in the article as it is the current state of events in 2023, and the effects of his speech are already being felt. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 (Talk) •  𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂  09:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is Transgender rights in the United Kingdom. The text which you added, and which I deleted, is not about transgender rights. It is a political statement which does not change transgender rights, and does not even announce any policy change in relation to transgender rights. It is political ephemera. WP:NOTNEWS Also, the source is not suitable. And the second sentence does not have any source. Any statement made on Wikipedia should have a suitable source. You say in your comment here that ‘the effects of the speech are already being felt’. If you have a reliable source which gives details of such effects, please provide it here so we can discuss whether there is anything relevant which should be added to this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Public attitudes
CE Public attitudes section to harmonize with article Murder of Brianna Ghey as was discussed on the talk page there and implemented in that article. Ward20 (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Legal recognition of non-binary identities
Shouldn't the "Legal recognition of non-binary identities" section explicitly acknowledge the fact that there is no such legal recognition at present? JezGrove (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hopefully the section is clearer now. There's probably a lot more that could be added from this source from 2022. – GnocchiFan (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That there is no such legal recognition is disputed - there is no coherent legal standard for determining the legal gender of people born outside the UK, and the gender recognition act by a plain reading of the text does not limit recognition to binary gender for the foreign route.
 * The situation will be clarified, for better or for worse, soon. Ryancdotorg (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (I sued the bastards) Ryancdotorg (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01
— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Transphobia and TERF ideology in the UK
This article doesn't once mention transphobia or trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF ideology) or the so-called TERF War. I think we should have something about the (very unusual, in a Western context) extent of transphobia/transphobic discourse in the UK given how much attention it has received, and why the UK has sometimes become known as "TERF Island." --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - it ought to mention it, and if you have the time to add it in, I and many other editors would be grateful and supportive.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree it should be discussed but in a balanced way - I do not believe for example its transphobic - and theres no discussion of how trans rights affect womens rights either. It is a complex nuanced issue involving womens rights and womens spaces which cannot simply be dismissed with such simplistic language. This is a complex topic with valid concerns on all sides of the debate. Dismissing womens views as transphobic without discussing them is in itself mysogynistic. Such an approach stifles debate and does not help women or the trans community. For example there is no discussion of how some trans women, with male genetalia are preesuring lesbians into relationships and calling them transphobic for not wanting to engage - even though this is now well documented and is not a rare occurance. Sweeping valid concerns such as this under the carpet as "transphobia" or "TERF" is leading to worse outcomes for the entire LGBTQ+ community. Deleting this comment rather than discussing it maturely is censorship and is not a mature way to deal with these issues. If you disagree say why - thats what the talk is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.181.195 (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2024
Under the first paragraph of "Legal recognition of non-binary identities", remove the word "only" in the sentence "In 2016, a formal petition through the Parliamentary Petitions Service calling for EDM660 to be passed into law gained only 2,500 signatures before closing" per MOS:ONLY 118.99.2.37 (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Makes sense in the section; 3rd paragraph mentions the 100,000 signature threshold for a petition to be considered for a debate.  (talk | contribs) 14:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Receded vs Varied
@Sweet6970

Lede follows body, the body clearly shows a recession of trans rights over the last several years. It doesn't need to be directly sourced in the lede if the body supports it, as you well know. Snokalok (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I cannot make sense of your comment. The lead, and the article, plainly show that trans rights in the UK have been expanding over recent years. Your edit which I reverted is contrary to the content of the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Lede changes: and Gender recognition / In June 2020, a report published by the European Commission...
Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raladic for your edits. And comments on my talk page. I've shortened my changes to Gender recognition as requested and left in the main sentences you wanted. (The report grouped cluster 1 and 2 as "least accessible", so saying anything than that is pushing a WP:POV)

I have added the list of countries in the same Cluster as the UK: as that helps the reader to get context. As does including a half-sentence more from the CoE's definition of Cluster 2.

Regards the lede you wrote: "the lead should summarize, briefly what the article is about, but not have more details than the article itself. "

My change was to correct a misleading quotation: the fuller sentence makes it clearer for the reader: Rather than
 * The Council of Europe reported of the UK that "anti-trans rhetoric, arguing that sex is immutable and gender identities not valid, has also been gaining baseless and concerning credibility, at the expense of both trans people’s civil liberties and women’s and children’s rights."
 * The Council of Europe criticised what it described as a "baseless and concerning" level of transphobia gaining traction in British society.

But you are right - the main body would also benefit from that full quotation.Peckedagain (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for the inclusion of the other cluster 2 countries, which I left in the edit.
 * As for the lead summary - anti-trans rhetoric is akin to transphobia and the summarized sentence does accurately summarize what the report summarized, so the expanded full quote doesn't add anything (other than more words than are necessary for the lead) that isn't already appropriatly summarized in the lead. If you want to expand further on it, that should go into the body of the article at the section on Transgender rights in the United Kingdom, which has more details on the report (and some others).
 * In general, the lead follows what the article says as a brief summary, typically in our own wikivoice. Raladic (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Terms can mean more than one thing
Imagine if someone went to the article on Manchester United and insisted that they were a "soccer team" because football was the thing the Steelers played. Anyone aware that a term sometimes meant more than one thing would be incredulous at such an insistence. 2600:1002:B166:6EC:0:3B:BD7A:6401 (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You're talking about the HRT thing, right? If so, I've just fixed the red link and changed the text to just "hormone therapy". I agree that "replacement" is in no way incorrect in this context, and it is one of the synonyms in the liked article, but it might confuse some readers who are used to seeing HRT used in a different context so it is probably better to let them click through if they want to know more. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking of adding it back myself but I noticed the page was already linked in the same section a few paragraphs earlier. (No strong feelings either way though, not going to remove it now it's there again) Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)