Talk:International Transgender Day of Visibility/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removed Proposed Deletion

I removed the deletion because the reason given is that the article is "not notable" but it is a notable holiday. It has been recognized and celebrated by many LGBT organizations including the Human Rights Campaign. It has been celebrated for 3 years and has definitely been established as an official holiday within the LGBT community, even though it is a new holiday. Pianosandwich (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)pianosandwich

Recent layout edits

@Castncoot: I respect that your recent edits were made in good faith, but I think they make the layout of this page look much worse. As with the Transgender Day of Remembrance where you've made similar edits, I do not want to appear self-serving by restoring a photo I took to a more prominent position on the page, but I would like to discuss with other editors whether your changes have improved the page. I don't believe having a large generic transgender symbol is preferable to having a photo taken at an observance of the event. Also pinging Mathglot who reverted your changes earlier. Funcrunch (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Also note, per your edit summary about the trans sidebar, that as I mentioned on Talk:Transgender Day of Remembrance, the trans sidebar is this template, which has the transgender flag, not the symbol you've inserted. Funcrunch (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

See also

I reverted the addition of the link "International Transgender Day of Remembrance" from the See also section. An objection to this removal was raised at Talk:International Transgender Day of Remembrance in off-topic asides here and here. The place to discuss what is appropriate in the See also section on this article, is this talk page.

User:Castncoot, My understanding is that you believe that consistency demands a reciprocity of links in the "See also" sections of different articles that all contain the same transgender sidebar; so that if article A has link B in its See also, then article B should have link to A in its "See also" section, and vice versa. (Please correct me if I have misrepresented your view.)

However, this argument is incorrect. Rather, International Transgender Day of Visibility/Archive 1 should not contain a link to International Transgender Day of Remembrance in the "See also" section, because of what guideline WP:NOTSEEALSO says about links already contained in the article. Hope this helps clarify. Mathglot (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I fail to understand what you are saying. All that WP:NOTSEEALSO states is that redlinked topics and dab pages should not be listed as entries. I see nothing about not including reciprocity, because precluding reciprocity would defeat the very purpose of WP:MOS:SEEALSO. Castncoot (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems a bit disingenuous to stop reading WP:NOTSEEALSO just before the sentence that is germane here, and obviously it's not the one about dab links. Do you really want me to copy/paste a sentence out of a very short guideline page here?

In addition, if you wish to make a case for "reciprocity", you need to quote a guideline that *does* mention it, not one that *does not*. I can quote a hundred guidelines that do not mention it, but I'm afraid that gives you no support for your argument. The burden of proof is on you to find one that does. Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

controversies section not really controversies?

hatred that happened at the high school isnt really a controversy, nor is the indian thing. i think the category needs a different name because its not as if theres push back from the community about the holiday, its religious transphobia and police violence. 1.126.106.41 (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. I renamed the section. I'm sceptical that the high school bulletin board is DUE as much space as we're currently giving it; no objection to trimming it... -sche (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

why MAR31?

Any sourceable reason for the date? Arlo James Barnes 08:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This article contains the following information:

Crandall-Crocker wanted to make sure that the day was far enough away from Transgender Day of Remembrance, which is recognized on November 20, to ensure there was minimal confusion and gave ample time for individuals to process both days.

Doughbo (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Change the word conservatives

People who prioritize religion/faith are both progressives and conservatives. Your depiction that “some conservatives” were upset is misleading and a false representation of a much larger group. For example, you didn’t say SOME progressives celebrated trans day of visibility being celebrated over Easter. Why is that? Could it be that the intent is to mislead people into thinking a vast majority of Americans prefer a visibility day over their sacred observation of resurrection Sunday, that only a small amount of people who are conservative disagree? to a very divided yet primarily politically-centrist country, this was insensitive with an intended effect. Choosing Catholicism/Christianity does not make one politically conservative nor does being conservative make one Catholic/Christian. Please respect the faith and devotion of Catholics and Christians. 2603:7080:613E:9AFC:7C7D:2849:29AF:23D1 (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Peter 4:8 says: "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins." And John 4:8 says: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@2603:7080:613E:9AFC:7C7D:2849:29AF:23D1 you do not need to chose between religion and supporting trans people. You can do both. Only a subset of religious people are transphobic 98.116.173.242 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

+1. There are two binary issues here: whether one is religious, and whether they support progressive gender ideology. I do not know in which context the word "conservative" was originally used, since it is not currently present in the article. Nevertheless, use of the word to refer broadly to the opposition seems fine. Doughbo (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Global effort to change the day so that it never lands on Easter

Article needs to mention that this day is a controversy in most Christian cultures already, especially when it lands on Easter Sunday. Many news articles are covering the rage associated with disparaging a Christian holy day. 47.149.186.81 (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

no reason to delete this section as that is what the TALK function is meant to be for. There needs to be more in the article about all the controversies associated with this day. 47.149.186.81 (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You got any reliable sources for that effort by fake Christians to change the day? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not aware of any attempt to change the date, and most of the "controversy" is from blatant misinformation about the origins of Trans Day of Visibility anyway. Canadianlaugh (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)User:CanadianlaughCanadianlaugh (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)