Talk:Transgender genocide

Background section contains a lot of SYNTH and off-topic content

Looking through the rather large "background" section, I noticed there are a lot of sources that do not mention transgender genocide, and are basically WP:SYNTH of published sources. For example, this on Charlie Kirk and this on MTG.

Using sources about people being transphobic in general to construct a "background" section is just turning the article into a WP:COATRACK of bad things. This article should focus specifically on the topic at hand. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah... the paragraph starts Statements made by American right-wing media figures regarding trans people have been criticized as genocidal which does relate to the topic of this article, and does apply to what Michael Knowles said. But, as far as I can see, none of the other sources relate the statements of Matt Walsh/MTG/Charlie Kirk to genocide, so the entire rest of that paragraph is synthesis. Endwise (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Lack of criticism

This article is very one-sided. I support transgender people, but a "genocide" going on is an idea that definitely does not have full consensus. I think there needs to be a section in the article for criticism of people using this phrase and why other people do not consider there to be a genocide. It is undeniable that transgender people have been subject to hate crimes and discrimination from the government, but there is certainly controversy over whether this constitutes a "genocide".

Sentimental Dork (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I see that there is criticism in the "History" section, but the whole article is just organized in such an odd way. I think the first few paragraphs should have some different perspectives on use of the term, and the "History" section should be heavily reworked or deleted: it has little to do with the article subject. "Transgender genocide" is not used to refer to LGBTQ people during the Holocaust.

Sentimental Dork (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:Criticism. Criticism from various people is woven into the text at various points throughout the article. If you believe more should be included, please bring sources.

To the history section, despite your claims that it has little to do with the article subject, the multiple academic sources that discuss the genocide of transgender/other gendered peoples that each section is built from directly shows that the terminology is employed in these matters. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Accidental deletion

@Cdjp1 Hey, I saw you restored the sections of expert opinion I deleted a couple of weeks ago. I want to apologize for that and express my thanks to you for fixing it! I didn't intend to delete those sections; I was editing on mobile and had been experiencing a glitch where my keyboard deleted entire paragraphs of text without any visual change on my screen. It happened so often I had to install a different keyboard application so I could continue editing on mobile...anyways,

Doomhope (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah ok, I'd just assumed you disagreed with their inclusion, and I was willing to argue the point should you disagree with the revert, but if it was just an accidental removal, then there's no need. I understand the struggle of editing via mobile, so my condolences for being tripped up by it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

An understandable assumption! Thanks for your patience :) Doomhope (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2026 (UTC)