Template talk:LGBT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Additional articles[edit]

I would like to add four articles (the last one still a bit of a stub) to the template, as they jointly constitute an important part of LGBT history. Specifically, they are Pederastic relationships in classical antiquity, Historical pederastic relationships, Pederastic couples in Japan, and Egalitarian same-sex relationships in classical antiquity. Any thoughts? Haiduc (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The size of this template is getting ridiculous, even with the minimised sections. I think these would be better placed in a Template:Pederasty. Rebecca (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - too many articles in template currently. Firestorm Talk 13:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - one reference to pederasty is enough - if people want more they can have a template on the article to help them find other articles on the topic. Mish (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Even the one article on pederasty that's there is one too many when it comes to the LGBT Template. "Pedarasty" as defined in those articles has no historical link to LGBT anything, that is, unless you have the "homosexuals-are-child-abusers" myth in mind. In other words, just because homosexuality as a behavior is what's shared, does not require it to be included under a LGBT rubric of any sort. Remember, the word is still commonly and directly associated with child abuse in most of the Western world. What's more, the topic is already covered under homosexuality, which goes beyond identity politics. Besides, not only is pederasty pre-LGBT anything, it also constitutes a relation of power, i.e. far from both the struggle for LGBT equal rights and the striving for LGBT well-being. I, therefore, suggest someone create a pre-LGBT category, template, etc. should they deem it that important and provided that they realize that it's not an LGBT topic in its own right. --CJ Withers (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've made a note of this discussion at WT:LGBT as these template talk pages aren't generally on people's watchlists. I'll also point out that there is a difference in pederasty and pedophilia. - ALLSTRecho wuz here 18:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, purely for space and utility reasons. The current template is already too bug and performs its function poorly imo, by trying to include too much. A separate template would serve readers and editors better in this case (and in many others). But i do think pederasty has very strong historical and cultural links to LGBT, and anyone who has read up on the suject would agree, so that link should stay.YobMod 20:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, makes sense to me, but I have never done a template before. Should I just adapt this one? Is there a stable of standard forms somewhere? Is anybody interested in lending a hand? Haiduc (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Here, try this. I have created Template:Pederasty; by adding {{Pederasty}} you can insert template {{Pederasty}} to the relevant pages. I have tested it on a couple. If there are more pages, or you want to reorganise the listing, just edit the template. If you want it broken into sections, let me know. Mish (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you! If I need more help I'll let you know. Haiduc (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Identities[edit]

Sorry to have to revert, but the correction of "sexual identities" to "sexual orientation identities" was justified, if not overdue.


sexual orientation identity = identity based on sexual orientation: homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual
sexual identity = identity based on sex: physically or biologically male, female, intersex, transsexual
gender identity = identity based on gender: socially male, female, in-between, gender-free, transgender


The fist sentence or paragraph of these articles is very clear on the differences. --CJ Withers (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not supported by sources, and is due to a recent non-consensus edit of the sexual identity article. It has been referred to as 'sexual identity' for years. Mish (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit to the Sexual identity page, and provided evidence of the established usage here:
To avoid replicating discussion, I have opened up discussion of this issue here:
I have also notified the other relevant project here:
Mish (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Inversion[edit]

Why is "inversion" listed as a distinct sexual orientation in this template? It is an old clinical term used by 19th century doctors for homosexuality. It certainly isn't a distinct orientation; just a synonym. B-Wuuu (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point - it should be in the 20th Century history section, as it fell out of use after the 1930's. Mish (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. B-Wuuu (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream gay[edit]

I have removed this, because the term is a neologism (may not exist outside the article), and the article itself seems to be an opinion piece more than anything. As it is primarily anti-gay, if the article does survive, societal attitudes would be the wrong section - prejudice could be more appropriate, if the article can more clearly demonstrate this form of inverted LGBT-homophobia is established within WP:RS. Mish (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC) {{edit protected}} "mainstream gay" seems to be there again, can someone remove it please?

Done. --CapitalR (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

default template to unexpanded ?[edit]

I think this template should default to unexpanded not expanded because currently it takes up too much real estate and it is too imposing especially where there are other templates in the same article. --Penbat (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That is why the settings exist - so that it defaults to expanded, but if there are other templates, then it can be set as collapsed instead. Not a major task to collapse it (unless there is no consensus to collapse). You certainly should notify people on the project talk page if there is to be some discussion of this here. Mish (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Its a very simple change to make. I would have thought the default setting (where the template is initially collapsed if there are there are other templates on the same page but otherwise initially expanded) is an uncontroversial change. The setting can easily be adjusted again in the future anyway. --Penbat (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Arteagle, 8 June 2010[edit]

The policy of "Don't Ask--Don't Tell" is not about banning an individual but about banning the political "gay rights" movement brought to military. Gays will demand to live on-base housing. Gays will demand "gay pride" parades inside military bases. Furthermore, Gay will then demand "gay marriage" ceremonies for soldiers inside the office of the Commanding General of military bases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arteagle (talkcontribs) 21:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

LGBT sidebar - icon[edit]

I've restored the pride flag to the {{LGBT sidebar}}. While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is frowned on, images in these sidebars are pretty common:

And those are three of the five I looked at in Category:"Part_of_a_series_on"_templates. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Navbox with collapsible groups[edit]

Seems like the collapsing parameters in this template no longer conform to the syntax of the source {{Navbox with collapsible groups}}, which means all instances of {{LGBT}} that designate one section to be "expanded" are effectively broken. I'll try to fix, but could probably use some help. — HipLibrarianship talk 18:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What to do about merger of Template:Gender and sexual identities into LGBT[edit]

A recent edit merged much of the contents of {{Gender and sexual identities}} into this template. So this template largely duplicates that one. Ways to resolve this:

  1. Remove much of the merged content, making this template more as it was before the merger
  2. Check that the merge completely covers the other template, and complete the merge by making the other template a redirect to this one (using the required edit summaries).

This template has not been put on all pages that were added by the merge, so if it is to continue to contain the expanded content, it needs to be added to the relevant pages.

I favor option 1 - remove merged content. This template is getting too large to conveniently use. The merged content makes it much harder to understand the topic area. Just covering the basics of gender/sexual identities here (or not covering them on this template at all, and using the other template where appropriate) seems like a way to keep things manageable and a bit more intelligible. (When the major sexual orientations are buried in with a bunch of less common neologisms it makes it much harder to understand.)

Since some sexual orientations are not LGBT, it seems like merging the other template into this one might violate NPOV. Also, it seems questionable to have not clearly LGBT material (e.g., object sexuality, asexuality, etc.) in the LGBT template. Zodon (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a recent edit -- it was in June. It if was a recent edit you'd be justified in reverting per WP:BRD. However, since it's been in place since June, the burden is now on you to justify your edit. You have done so to my satisfaction, though, so I support your edit. However, I'm not an expert on the subject or a regular contributor to this page. Herostratus (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
How about the LGBT merge within the G+S Identity template as LGBT refers to the specific communities/identities of such which in itself are part of the more general encompassing G+S identities (including ones that are besides L, G, B or T). Crzer07 (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

SPLC-listed hate groups[edit]

I have removed a list of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups. For one thing, it was a POV addition - that is, there were called "hate groups" in wikipedia's voice. But also, it seems be a case of undue weight as far as this template goes - indeed, there is no comparable list of pro-gay groups. StAnselm (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think an article that was focussed just on anti-gay LGBT groups would be a perfect addition. Thanks for the idea! Insomesia (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes - you could be right. Sorry, I didn't explain myself - the exhaustive list had been added to the template here. StAnselm (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that list doesn't belong as is on the template but a separate article would. Insomesia (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Do whatever you want. - Balph Eubank 19:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Designated anti-gay hate groups[edit]

At the moment, the link to List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups is piped as "Designated anti-gay hate groups". This is POV - they are (only) designated as such by the SPLC. Template:Racism as a similar link piped as "SPLC list". Here are some options, in my order of preference:

  1. "SPLC-designated anti-gay hate groups"
  2. Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-gay hate groups"
  3. SPLC list

- StAnselm (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have changed it to option No.2 so that there is proper attribution. It stands out a little more now, but I think that should be OK. – MrX 20:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, this is a template not an article where more context is usually better. This entry should be anti-gay hate groups, in it's simplest terms this is what the template should represent. The only reason SPLC is in the article title is that we are being tight with the definition of hate groups to their definition which is widely accepted. Once we have a new parent article on anti-gay hate groups perhaps this link would redirect to that article instead. Insomesia (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
They are not anti-gay hate groups. They have been designated anti-gay hate groups by the SPLC. Your proposal is not neutral. StAnselm (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
That is your opinion, reliably sources, including the nation's leading authority disagree with you on this. Do you have any reliable sources that agree with you that these groups are not anti-gay hate groups? If not I think we need to restore a less-surprising entry on this template. If you want to contest this we can certainly get more eyes to help make an informed decision. Insomesia (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I would support using the shorter 'anti-gay hate groups' for brevity, as long as it falls withing the policies/guidelines for navboxes. I don't think it is at all inaccurate. – MrX 23:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm all for getting more eyes - though I see 65 people have this template on their watchlist. Does anyone say they are hate groups apart from the SPLC. I am reasonably sure virtually every reliable source say they have been designated as a hate group by the SPLC. It's not just a matter of whether the entry is accurate, it needs to be neutral. This is all the more so because it is a nav-box - there are no references and no explanations. StAnselm (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Correct, in the Wikipedia world these groups are all considered anti-gay hate groups, and if you search on "anti-gay hate group" on Wikipedia (seen here) you pretty much only get these groups, listed handily in one article per your suggestion, and related articles dealing with these anti-gay hate groups. Ergo the list of anti-gay hate groups is the only list of anti-gay hate group that Wikipedia has, no further template explanation or footnote is needed. If another reputable group also has a list of anti-gay hate groups on Wikipedia then we can reconcile what to do about this link at that time. Interjecting qualifiers and mysterious acronyms to readers is counter-productive. Insomesia (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
But in each case, the group is not called an anti-gay hate group in Wikipedia's voice - and nor should it be here. StAnselm (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Templates do not have to conform to that strict voice rule, instead we point to the relevant article where the reader can find what information we have on anti-gay hate groups, and that article is explicit it is according to SPLC. The same case is true for hundreds of links on templates that don't go into great qualifiers that there is controversy or some other circumstance, just that Wikipedia has coverage on the topic. You already tried to get the list deleted and that didn't seem to work. Here we simply are presenting it as the sole entry on anti-gay hate groups. Perhaps when we have more coverage a different link will be appropriate. Insomesia (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Who says templates do not have to conform to the strict voice rule? What policy are you referring to? StAnselm (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I'm leaning more strongly toward supporting the shorter piped link, for two reasons:

  1. The HTML title tag uses the full (unpiped) name, so that in most browsers, the longer lname would appear in a bubble when the mouse hovers over the link. This is by design, suggesting that templates should use shorter piped link.
  2. The SPLC, much like the ACLU, ADL, etc. are authoritative in matters of civil liberties/civil rights by their long standing reputation. By virtue of being designated a hate group by the SPLC, the group is then a de facto hate group.

MrX 00:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

With regards to (1), this is why my first preference is to have the acronym. With regards to (2), I know that you think that, but as you know, I and a number of other editors disagree. Now, I haven't canvassed at all on this issue, and if brevity is your main concern, we should be able to resolve things between the three of us. StAnselm (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure. I really don't have a strong committed preference either way, as long as it's clear what the link is about. One option is to bring in a 3rd, uninvolved, neutral editor to break the deadlock. – MrX 01:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • What about Anti-gay hate groups listed by the SPLC as an option? StAnselm (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    • No thank you, it's still introducing a needless acronym into a template that is already very full. This should be clean and simple. Are you going to continue to block this? Insomesia (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "very full"? It won't take up an extra line of text. It seems your main reason against my proposal(s) is size. Whereas my main reason against your proposal(s) is neutrality. They don't seem like equally weighted reasons. StAnselm (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
So... do you want to do an RfC? StAnselm (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

──────────Per RfC I've started a discussion at the project who is chiefly responsible for the integrity of the template, discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Link dispute (another anti-gay hate group one) on Template:LGBT. After discussion has died down we can move forward. Per WP:EGG and WP:LINKCLARITY I've moved the link to List of anti-gay hate groups since it's a list and not an article solely on anti-gay hate groups. Insomesia (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 July 2013[edit]

Please remove the text "Whether or not LGBT people actually openly identify themselves as being so may depend on they live a discriminatory environment or not, as well as the status of LGBT rights where one lives" and replace it with the text "Whether or not LGBT people actually openly identify themselves as being so may depend on whether they live in a discriminatory environment or not, as well as the status of LGBT rights where they live" (for grammatical sense). 211.26.45.166 (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that text in the template anywhere. RudolfRed (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{LGBT}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --ElHef (Meep?) 23:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutrois[edit]

I've moved neutrois from "Sexual orientation identities" to "Gender identities" where it belongs. It's a gender identity that has nothing to do with sexual orientation. --Shikku27316 (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed "Neutrois" from the template completely: it currently fails to meet the notability criteria: see the two AfD's for the neutrois article. -- The Anome (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Gender/sexual identities[edit]

May benefit from being replaced with a transcluded form of this template: {{Gender and sexual identities}}, which seems to be more comprehensive. Please ping me if you are responding. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This would seem appropriate to me. Thanks for suggesting it. Trankuility (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
LT910001 (Tom), I'm not sure what you are asking for regarding Template:LGBT, which is a different matter than Template:Gender and sexual identities. Flyer22 (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes I suppose you're right. But for future editors, beware there's significant duplication so both templates may need to be updated if you're adding an article about a gender/sexual identity. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
LT910001, Template:Gender and sexual identities notes the duplication matter and that the templates should be updated to be consistent because of that. Perhaps a similar note should be placed on Template:LGBT. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Please change [[Boi (sexual slang)|Boi]] to [[Boi (slang)|Boi]] per page move. Thanks. 82.132.234.79 (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done NiciVampireHeart 16:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2015[edit]

In the template under "Gender identities Sexual identities" Object sexuality is listed. I don't really think that that belongs here. It has nothing to do with gender and I would more likely call it a paraphilia than an orientation. *Treker (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 21:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Crossdresser under gender identities?[edit]

I don't think there is much basis for putting crossdresser in the list of gender identities. This is not saying I'm against crossdressers or trying to start an argument over trans purity; it's just that if someone asks a crossdresser their gender, they are likely to say "male" or "female" rather than "crossdresser." Crossdressers can be cis men, cis women, non-binary people, and it's not even completely unheard-of for trans people to crossdress to their assigned sexes, though it is uncommon.

On an unrelated note, the phrase "gender identity" is redundant and should just be changed to "gender." Jan sewi (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Jan sewi, I'm not sure about removing "crossdresser." I guess it was added to that portion of the template because it is commonly listed as an identity under the transgender umbrella.
As for changing "gender identity" to "gender," I disagree. We have a Gender article and a Gender identity article and they are not WP:Redundant forks. "Gender" is the broader category while "gender identity" is specifically about what gender one identifies as. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Whether crossdressers fit under the "trans* umbrella" is a matter of tiresome and pedantic debate, but they are in no way a gender identity, and I don't think any of them would even argue that they are. Crossdressers are normally either cis men or cis women, though they are sometimes trans people crossdressing as their assigned sex. Jan sewi (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
To put it another way, crossdressing is an action, sometimes even a profession, or habit, but not a statement about a person's gender. People might identify as crossdressers the same way they identify as a political activist, but being a crossdresser or a political activist says nothing about your gender. On the other hand, being a trans woman, a cis woman, a non-binary person, etc., is a clear statement of gender identity. Jan sewi (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Jan sewi, you can ask WP:LGBT to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposing that 'crossdresser' be moved out of 'gender identities' to 'Culture'[edit]

I think 'Crossdresser' would fit better under Culture than under gender identities, and would like to move it there if no one objects. Jan sewi (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding: if you notice, "drag king" and "drag queen" are already part of that section, and these are simply professional forms of crossdressing. Jan sewi (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd be okay with that. And while we're on the topic, I don't think that "gender neutrality" really fits in the Gender identities section. Sure, it concerns gender identity, but the topic of identifying as "gender neutral" is covered at the Genderqueer article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I was going to disagree, but then I saw the article in question, and I completely agree. It's not talking about a gender identity. And people are way more likely to identify as "agender" than "gender neutral" anyway. Jan sewi (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

To keep the "gender neutrality" issue on the sideline for now, I am really not sure how to feel about moving Crossdresser in this manner. I think it's really 50/50, as someone who has met people who identify as a 'crossdresser' specifically. I don't have any particularly strong feelings about it, though, and even when people identify specifically as a crossdresser, this is more so as a "woman who crossdresses as a man" or vice versa rather than a specific gender identity. I, uhm, don't think it matters too much. Now if the article was called "Crossdressing", it would be pretty clear what to do. ~Mable (chat) 09:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Right, a person who identifies as a "woman who dresses as a man," they are specifically identifying as a woman, even if they might identify with the act of crossdressing as well, or even list it as their gender sometimes. Inherent to the idea of being a crossdresser is that you consider yourself a member of one gender but dress as some other gender, which makes it vastly different from everything else subsumed under gender identities, where the article is specifically about people considering themselves (or others considering them) to be members of a specific gender. Jan sewi (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I was trying to communicate, yeah. Whether this means 'gender identities' or 'culture' is more proper is subjective, I think. I'm fairly neutral on the topic. ~Mable (chat) 11:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
It's as subjective as anything else that relates to language I guess, but "woman," "man," and "non-binary" all refer to single and specific genders that people identify themselves as members of, whereas "crossdresser" refers to someone who considers themselves a member of one gender (which may be woman, man, non-binary, etc.) but dresses as another. The second is not the same as the first by any stretch of the imagination. Jan sewi (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how "non-binary" can be a "single and specific gender". The plural phrase "non-binary genders" is often seen. Equinox 19:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I meant to say that every non-binary gender is a single and specific gender; I'm sorry that it wasn't clear. It's really not the point anyway. The point is that non-binary genders are all genders, and crossdresser is usually not a gender.
When someone says they have a non-binary gender, they are making a statement about their gender identity, whereas when someone says they are a cross-dresser, they are just saying that they don't always dress like a member of their gender identity.
Similarly if I said I was gay, that would say nothing about my gender identity; you can't read anything about my gender into the word "gay" whatsoever. That's because being gay doesn't say anything about your gender; it just says you like members of your gender. Crossdresser is closer to this than it is to a gender identity; both are carried out as a function of gender identity ("if man and gay then attracted to men"; "if man and crossdresser then dresses as non-man"), but are not gender identities in their own right. I hope that makes sense. Jan sewi (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

Maplestrip, you stated, "Now if the article was called 'Crossdressing', it would be pretty clear what to do." But the article is called "Cross-dressing"; so I take it that you more so meant how the article is listed on the template? In any case, Jan sewi made the change. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Moving "gender neutrality" out of gender identities[edit]

As pointed out when we were talking about crossdressing, gender neutrality is not really a gender identity; it's being confused I think with agender and other non-binary identities. Even if some people might list their gender identity as "gender neutral," that is not what the article is about; it's about inclusive language and other anti-discriminatory practices. I suggest moving it to "LGBT rights topics" under "Rights / Legal issues." Jan sewi (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Wikified "gender neutrality" Jan sewi (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about it being listed under a rights issue; I mean, the bathroom topic is complicated, and even a number transgender people don't agree with other transgender people on matters such as that. But, yeah, feel free to make the edit. It is sometimes a rights or legal issue, after all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)