Talk:Violence against LGBT people/Archive 6

Proposed merge of Transgender genocide into Violence against LGBT people
This appears to be a WP:POVFORK of the article on violence against LGBT people that makes WP:WIKIVOICE assertions that there is an ongoing genocide against trans people. While some of the article is reliably sourced, the vast majority makes use of unreliable sources or fails verification to support the POV. The issues are extensive in the article, involving both novel synthesis and failures to maintain a neutral point-of-view. The only way I see that this can be properly remedied is a selective merge. In short, the presentation of background and scholarship sections (as well as other miscellaneous problems) leads the article to largely be synthesizing scholarship regarding ways to expand the concept of genocidal sexual violence with non-academic use of the term by activists. I'm also not seeing WP:SIGCOV of this term by multiple independent RS, so I'm presenting a merge as an WP:ATD-M as some of the content may be useful to merge.

To highlight some of the content issues, I'll go problem-by-problem, as of this revision.

Lead: Background: Scholarship: Use by activists:
 * 1) The First source is WP:FORBESCON by a non-SME. When talking about when a phrase was coined, we need to use better sources than this.
 * 2) The lead states that Legal scholars have argued this definition should be applied to, or expanded to include, transgender people. Transgender genocide includes killing transgender people, causing serious bodily or mental harm to transgender people, and imposing conditions of life intended to eliminate transgender as a gender identity. While this is probably the position of some legal scholars, the lead does not provide a citation for this. Per WP:LEADCITE this is fine if there are substantial citations in the body, but there really aren't. The citations in the body that support this claim are this article in the Padjadjaran Journal of International Law and a writing by a Master's of Arts student in a Yale-published law review. And nether the article in the Padjadjaran Journal of International Law nor the Yale source mention the terms "transgender genocide" or "trans genocide" at all; the former simply advocates for gender as protected from genocide and gives only passing mention to anti-transgender actions, but the second source does advocate for expanding the Rome Statute explicitly protect transgender persons.
 * 1) The background section is mostly fine, but the article about genocidal sexual violence doesn't actually appear to address this topic significantly at all; its expansion of the concept of GSV is basically that sexual violence as a component of genocide can also happen to people who aren't cisgender women, including transgender people, non-binary people, and cisgender men.
 * 1) In general, the scholarship section takes lots of articles that don't tend to focus on anti-transgender violence and presents it as if they do. The exception is Kidd and Witten who do indeed use the term and indeed focus on this, but they aren't legal scholars; why do we present them as such? Kidd was a medical student at the time while Witten is a biologist who works on trans gerontology. They're reliable as a primary source for having used the term, but their words don't really carry WP:WEIGHT in the field of genocide studies or international law.
 * 2) The reference that appears to be about ISIS and gender-based violence links here, which appears to be the wrong source. Upon finding the actual source, it appears that we're citing a sentence on page 1052 that doesn't talk about the definition being litigated and a footnote on page 1053 that also grants that it's possible to interpret the statute to protect transgender persons; the article currently appears to not be wholly representing that part of the source.
 * 3) I'd hesitate to present a J.D. candidate or a recent M.A. grad as legal scholars for the purpose of substantiating the wikivoice statement that scholars have made similar arguments regarding the legal definition of crimes against humanity. It seems quite WP:UNDUE and a misrepresentation of their credentials.
 * 4) The Nellans piece is a general critique of the field of genocide studies for focusing on the biological destruction of groups and their capacity to reproduce as the key part of genocide. But the topic of this article appears to be oppression of transgender people as genocide, not the oppression of transgender people within genocide. Application is WP:SYNTHy.
 * 5) Theriault offers a paragraph on page 137 in which he mentions gay and bisexual men alongside transgender individuals as being the objects of genocidal sexual violence. Again, this is within the framework of GSV being a part of a larger genocide and later goes on to say that genocide is a tool of rape, singling out transgender people from that paragraph despite the fact that identical laws targeting other marginalized people would spark severe public outcry is a misrepresentation of the source when the source is also talking about lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons also being targeted by laws that would otherwise spark severe public outcry.
 * 1) The book allegedly published by University of British Columbia was published by Jessica Kingsley Publishers. We can't misrepresent sources like this and give then a false academic veneer.

Somewhat more apt, most LGBT rights groups don't tend to use this term to describe even fatal violence against trans people. The Human Rights Campaign doesn't do this, and the literature seems to broadly treat describe "Violence against transgender people" rather than "transgender genocide" or "trans genocide". Some of the content (particularly in the background section) might be well-merged to the article on anti-LGBT violence, but I'm honestly not seeing WP:SIGCOV of "trans[gender] genocide" from even the independent RS sources in this article. I think a selective merge is the best way to go. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose stealth deletion of a distinct topic. Please take it to AFD if you believe its non notable. Walls of text are unhelpful. Incidentally the publishing company in question is an academic publisher distributed by UBC Press, which the citation generator picks up on. Try AGF before jumping to the conclusion that someone is trying to fabricate source reliability (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The U.S. website indicates that it's an imprint of Hodder & Stoughton, which itself is an imprint of Hachette (publisher). A look through its website gives the impression that it's a popular press publisher. It does publish some textbooks, but if you were to read through Google Books preview of the actual book that's being cited, it's very clear that the book is a personal narrative rather than an academic work. And, unless I'm misunderstanding the way the publishing market works in Canada, it being distributed by UBC Press is not it being published by UBC Press. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And, with respect, I think there might be a notable topic of violence against transgender people that gets brought out into its own article. There are plenty of sources for something like that. The issue is that the article, as it currently stands, is a giant POV fork from this article that tries to put a narrative of genocide into Wikivoice where there's little academic support for the designation. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment about Content forking concern: The article began as a paragraph under Genocide. The UN definition of genocide has long been questioned by scholars because the definition does not cover, among other things, political and social groups. I added a paragraph to address proposals to cover transgender persons, especially since the term trans genocide has gotten some distinct usage. Upon later reflection and research, I thought that the distinct usage was sufficient to meet Notability criteria for an article.
 * So, in hindsight it may appear to be a fork from some other article about LGBT violence, but that was neither the process nor my intent. Presumably my intent is not important given WP:AGF, but I still feel it's worth noting that I was preparing for a faculty seminar on genocide studies and matters of definition & scope are significant, contested, and notable in this field. ProfGray (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment on peer-reviewed, scholarly sources. The following sources address genocide as it applies to transgender persons:
 * Eichert, David. "Expanding the Gender of Genocidal Sexual Violence: Towards the Inclusion of Men, Transgender Women, and People Outside the Binary." 25 UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs. (2021)
 * Kidd, Jeremy D. & Tarynn M. Witten, "Transgender and Transsexual Identities: The Next Strange Fruit—Hate Crimes, Violence and Genocide Against the Global Trans-Communities," 6 Journal of Hate Studies 31, 49–53 (2008)
 * Kritz, Brian. "The global transgender population and the International Criminal Court." Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal 17 (2014).
 * Miranda, Deborah A. "Extermination of the joyas: Gendercide in Spanish California." GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 16, no. 1-2 (2010): 253-284.
 * Nellans, Lily. "A Queer (er) Genocide Studies." Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal 14, no. 3 (2020): 7.
 * Purnomo, Anandy Satrio. "The Urgency to Include Gender as Protected Group under the Crime of Genocide." Padjadjaran Journal of International Law 4, no. 1 (2020)
 * Waites, Matthew. "Genocide and Global Queer Politics," 20 Journal of Genocide Research. 44, 65–67 (2018)
 * Jones, Adam. Genocide: A comprehensive introduction. Routledge, 2016.
 * See also: Jauk, Daniela. "Transgender Movements in International Perspective." The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies (2016)
 * These sources establish the Notability of this specific topic for a WP article. These sources come from 3 peer-reviewed law journals, 2 peer-reviewed genocide studies journals, two other peer-reviewed journals, a respected encyclopedia, and a textbook by a leading genocide scholar. The WP article also discussed the scholarly work of Spivey and Robinson, which looks at anti-LGBT discourse as genocidal.
 * The WP Transgender genocide article does not "synthesize" the scholarly (or activist) attention to genocide as it applies to trans persons, as is apparent from the above sources. (Not to mention the news and other sources cited in the article.) The connection between genocide and trans identities is explicit in these sources, not invented by a WP editor. It is clear that from these sources that there is (quote) "Significant coverage" [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
 * A few minor points about authors & sources are raised by the proposal. Ok, you're not impressed by the credentials of the authors. Though transgender genocide is an emerging topic that hasn't been addressed by senior scholars, these are still reliable, peer-reviewed sources. Is it common for WP to second guess the quality of peer-reviewed articles? If so, rather than focus on the author's credentials, perhaps we should evaluate the quality of each journal?
 * UBC Press -- good catch, this is an error. I'm sorry about that. The book is properly placed in the "Use by activists" section. UBC Press only distributes the publisher, about which it says: "In 2016, JKP was awarded Independent Academic, Educational and Professional Publisher of the Year by the British Book Industry Awards." So, at least the publisher is legit and UBC is selective in which academic / educational publishers it carries.
 * Comment on "genocide." Genocide is not the same as violence, nor is it simply a subset of violence. That's a common misconception. For instance, genocide arguably may include discrimination against trans persons regarding health care access and recognition of identity. There's also "cultural genocide" in the UN Convention and analogous concerns in some of the research cited above.
 * You may be correct that "most LGBT rights groups don't tend to use this term" (genocide) but how would you figure that out? I fear that it would take original research. If I find that some LGBT groups have used the term, would it be suitable to put such usage in the article, or would that be original research? How much usage by LGBT groups would you consider significant to include in a write-up about transgender genocide, whether merged or not? ProfGray (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional peer-reviewed articles that deal with transgender genocide. These are not in the article (yet) but help demonstrate the notability of the topic. They also demonstrate that discussions pertaining to genocide are not only about killing and "ordinary" violence.
 * On sterilization as having a genocidal aspect:
 * Carastathis, Anna. "Compulsory sterilisation of transgender people as gendered violence." In) Fertile Citizens: Anthropological and Legal Challenges of Assisted Reproduction Technologies (2015): 79-92. Author is asking, "Could legally mandated sterilisation of trans people constitute a crime against humanity with genocidal inflections -- deliberately constructed to bring about the systematic elimination or destruction of a particular group?" (80)
 * Repo, Jemima. "Governing juridical sex: Gender recognition and the biopolitics of trans sterilization in Finland." Politics & Gender 15, no. 1 (2019): 83-106. This author cites Carastathis (above) but also complicates the picture and talks about resistance to eliminating trans ppl.
 * On trans-associated genetics leading to a concern about eugenics to eliminate trans ppl:
 * Rajkovic, Antoine, Allison L. Cirino, Tala Berro, Diane R. Koeller, and Kimberly Zayhowski. "Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals’ perspectives on research seeking genetic variants associated with TGD identities: a qualitative study." Journal of community genetics 13, no. 1 (2022): 31-48. ""A few participants went to further lengths, citing that the pathologization and medical genocide that may result from TAGR could potentially be even worse in places less tolerant of TGD people. ... Many participants brought up the role of genetics in eugenics against TGD people with the goal of eliminating TGD people." (41)
 * Hammack-Aviran, Catherine, Ayden Eilmus, Carolyn Diehl, Keanan Gabriel Gottlieb, Gilbert Gonzales, Lea K. Davis, and Ellen Wright Clayton. "LGBTQ+ Perspectives on Conducting Genomic Research on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity." Behavior Genetics (2022): 1-22. -- cites Rajkovic et al. and similar findings
 * On queer theory approach to genocide:
 * Vernon, Patrick. "Queering Genocide as a Performance of Heterosexuality." Millennium 49, no. 2 (2021): 248-279. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/03058298211033339 -- this articles picks up on Waites and Nellans, above, and IMO helps explain their arguments about genocide, etc.
 * Perhaps I should have found these articles earlier, but some are recent, e.g., 2021 or 2022. ProfGray (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Canadian law explicitly added gender identity or expression (e.g., transgender) to its law against promoting genocide.
 * See: https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained (This explanation mentions transgender re: gender identity.)
 * There's also a WP article on this: An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code
 * I believe another half dozen countries also include -- or have been interpreted to include -- gender identity (or transgender) in their laws about genocide. Presumably this information could be added in an encyclopedic manner, if properly sourced. ProfGray (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It could be arguable that there are POV issues (though I would argue that most of your issues are nitpicky and stem from a lack of understanding of the article's subject) but this certainly isn't an example of a WP:POVFORK. If you have issues with the page, work on the page. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 19:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. The subject of the other article is "belief that transgender people are /could be subject to genocide". Both pro and con are already covered. That is not even closely related to specific instances of anti trans violence which would be in scope of this article (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * So the article's just about the term "Trans[gender] genocide" and not about the elevated level of systematic discrimination and violence against transgender people? I'm confused here. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per ProfGray, Transgender genocide is a verifiably notable topic. Content disputes should be addressed with normal editing and talk page discussion. The article may require significant rewriting, but that is not a reason to merge. –– FormalDude   talk   05:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose without prejudice towards either reworking the article to be more explicitly about the term or merging into the article about gendercide which may be a better fit. I think ProfGray has done a good job outlining the case for stand-alone notability, however - I apologize that I don't have time to answer your specific complaints,, as I'm on-call this week, but I think he's made the case decently well. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 09:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, striking my vote - If I don't have the bandwidth to fully evaluate, I probably shouldn't participate in the discussion. The London heat is getting to my head! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 21:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: there are POV issues here, yes, but I don't think this is a POVFORK as it has a much narrower scope to Violence against LGBT people and does not disagree with it. It is strange to have a standalone article on this rather than the broader Violence against transgender people. However, it seems the topic of the academic term transgender genocide is notable, and the article should cover academia that specifically uses the term and analyses it, or opposes this specific term as being inaccurate/not useful. Much work needs to be done to eliminate passing mentions, sources that do not use the term and other content not fully relevant to the topic. — Bilorv ( talk ) 08:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I'd say that the article is not about the use of the term, per se, but rather the (contested or arguable) application of the concept of genocide to discrimination and violence against transgender persons. These applications address both the legal meaning of genocide as well as other uses/meanings. ProfGray (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Violence against LGBT people appears to be strongly focused on either state violence against specifically homosexuality, or interpersonal violence against LGBT people. State violence against trans people is a different thing from either of those. Loki (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. There is no "genocide" against people identifying as transgender, and it cheapens the term genocide to use it in this way. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you have a personal opinion about the topic, that's fine, but did you look at the article and any of the dozens of sources cited?
 * We can't wish away the many reliable sources that apply "genocide" to the persecution of transgender persons, so how would it help you if the transgender genocide content is merged here? ProfGray (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There has been a genocide against Trans people on several occasions throughout history, most famously the Holocaust itself. You're making a ridiculous argument. Faust.TSFL (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A quick check made me believe that "Transgender genocide" is notable for inclusion in this article, but not its own. I had never heard of the term until now. It doesn't seem that this is an established concept in academia or anywhere else. In fact, the article definitely seems like a WP:POVFORK. The fact that some sources use the term doesn't automatically warrant a stand-alone article. I also support renaming the "Transgender Genocide" article "Violence against Transgender people." Scorpions13256 (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is not a place to gain notability or to do some little promotion or advocacy. And I agree, it cheapens the term genocide. If everything is genocide, nothing is. I have checked and yes seems as a WP:POVFORK.178.222.109.206 (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Although I oppose merging this with the much broader topic of violence against LGBT people, I think we should rename the page to "Transgender gendercide" instead. Since gendercide has also been used to talk about discrimination against people of third gender people. And can very much apply to all trans people. And its bascially just the term genocide but for gender minorites and not ethnicty/race/religon. Other than that, we should keep the page up.  Don&#39;taskwhyImadethis (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"Violence against trannies" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Violence against trannies and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pilaz (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Violence against LGBTIQ+ people
Should this article be moved to 'Violence against LGBTIQ+ people'? --TadejM my talk 19:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I would support a move to 'Violence against LGBT+ people' where + covers the many other variants. An article here suggests that the acronym could be extended at least to LGBTQIA. A case for LGBTQQIAAP is reported here. That was in 2015, and there may be more letters on the way; latest I'm aware of is LGBTTQQIAAP2S. The rainbow flag has likewise had pink and blue added to include transgender people, and black and brown have started to appear to connote racial diversity in the progress flag. The large number of letters in the LGBTTQQIAAP2S acronym and the plethora of colours in the flag has started to invite ridicule, with the epithet 'the Alphabet People', so while I think an encyclopedia should record the fact that this is happening, and explain what all these letters stand for, caution should be exercised in the headlining of articles. Currently, the umbrella article title remains LGBT. Chrisdevelop (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "could be extended at least to LGBTQIA" With all the suggested expansions, the label would cover 100% of the human population and lose its original meaning. The initialisms were supposed to represent an alliance of marginalized groups, not every possible variation of human sexuality. Dimadick (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's... nowhere near "100% of the human population."
 * That said, I Oppose the change as we're unlikely to find a new term that is both 1) going to get a consensus, and 2) satisfies WP:COMMONNAME better than the current one. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 11:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What about adding just a plus (+)? Chrisdevelop (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)