The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I would agree with the deletion, it's redundant and incomplete, and any attempt to try and give a complete, balanced rendering of this policy development would be pointless trivia and overlong. Void if removed (talk) 08:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed, it helps contextualize things, so shortening and summarizing it will be helpful, rather than outright deletion of historic information. Raladic (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
