Talk:Transgender rights in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 December 2018 and 20 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amolina02.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 7 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smwhat15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaitlin.stewart.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Virginia SRS/birth certificate law changed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Virginia

check summary table...reference 44? should map be updated to change VA to purple? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.139.9.55 (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Would OH's birth certificate law be "Unclear due to conflict between state law and judicial rulings?"
Article below shows a ruling that says it's unconstitutional to disallow birth certificate changes in OH. Possible legal precedent for TN too? https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/state/2020/12/16/judge-sides-transgender-residents-countering-state-policy/3922653001/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintermintleaf (talk • contribs) 14:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead seems to violate NPOV as it says that bills that restrict the irghts but does not mention how many bills were inroduced that removed restrictions
The lead currently says Transgender rights in the United States vary considerably by jurisdiction. By the end of 2021, at least 130 bills had been introduced in 33 states to restrict the rights of transgender people.[1] Seems to violate WP:NPOV as it does not mention the bills introduced that removed restrictions of the rights of transgender people Qwv (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Vera Institute research
@Mathglot

So, the part I added I think is directly relevant to all of those sections, hence it should go in all of those sections, no? Or am I missing something? Snokalok (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Snokalok. I think it's very unusual, to say the least, to add identical or near-identical content in four places in the article (diff), and could give the impression of WP:REFSPAM, although knowing your edits to some extent I don't think that's what's going on here.  I thought about keeping one of the copies of it, but I didn't know which one, but it's sourced so feel free to add it back somewhere in the article. With respect to general principles of good writing, I'm trying to think of an example where you'd find something like this in professional writing, and I can't; it would be pretty odd to say the least and unprofessional-looking, and I'd suspect a publishing glitch of some sort. I'm not sure if there's a specific guideline that applies here at Wikipedia, although I'll have a look around, but as far as having multiple copies of it, why don't we let some other editors weigh in, and see what they think. Mathglot (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mathglot
 * That's fair. My underlying thought was that if someone looks at an article on transgender rights in the United States, they're not going to be reading it top to bottom, they're going to be jumping to individual sections for a snapshot of one particular issue, and my thought is that since the bit is relevant to all of these issues, it should be included in all of them so that anyone looking for that snapshot gets the most accurate picture of directly relevant information. Snokalok (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, and at first blush there seems to be some logic to it. However, the problem I see with it is that if this works with the "Vera" paragraph, than why not with this-other-paragraph, and then why not with that-one-over-there, and pretty soon everything is duplicated everywhere, and you've got an article six times as long (or twenty times?) as before, and the article becomes this impenetrable mass of duplicate content all over the place and it becomes even *less* likely that anyone will read the article from beginning to end. (Actually, we already know from studies that they don't, but I don't have a link handy.)
 * It's a kind of infinite regress problem: once you start in on this, where does it end? As far as guidelines and policies, maybe there are shades of WP:DUEWEIGHT that apply here; namely: what is it about the Vera content that makes it worth including four times in the article, rather than some other editor's favorite bit of content? Would we end up in a "duplicate-war", where you add your fave bit, and then editor B adds theirs? Maybe that's the underlying problem that I couldn't quite articulate the first time. Mathglot (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mathglot
 * That makes sense. For now I'm going to add back the education and the prisons bit because those are only in one section to my recollection, and I think the repeated piece will belong best in the housing section, but if you have other thoughts, by all means. Snokalok (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

US jurisdictions with "gender X" driver licenses
The section is currently just a long bullet list, and isn't really appropriate here. However, it could be spun off and expanded into List of US jurisdictions with "gender X" driver licenses, and then the section here could be redone as a brief paragraph in summary style. Mathglot (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * For the time being, I rendered the bulleted list into prose until it could possibly be made into its own article. Iscargra (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Should we move some info to the transphobia in the US article?
I'm mainly suggesting this in regards to the public factors section, I feel it'd better serve both pages to move it there, and have a "see also" link somewhere pointing readers in that direction.

I should note, I am not suggesting this for sections where statistics and the like are crucial or important to the understanding of policy, for example the housing section. Snokalok (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Tuckerlieberman You tend to this page as much as I do, what are your thoughts? Snokalok (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, thanks for asking for my opinion. Yes, in general, if material leans more toward transphobia, it makes sense to move it to the other article ("Transphobia in the US"). But this "Transgender rights in the United States" article shouldn't accidentally give the impression that everything is rosy just because we keep all the transphobia on another article. We could write general sentences here, as needed, to summarize the overall bad climate and specific challenges to trans rights. The details of transphobia can be kept somewhere else. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)