This is the centralized talk page for Template:Transgender (appears at bottom of articles) and Template:Transgender sidebar (appears at side of some core transgender topic articles). Except for the sidebar containing less content, changes to one template should be reflected in the other as well. If your message only relates to one of the templates, please specify sidebar or footer.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transgender topics template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
LGBTQ+ studies This template 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

It's not acceptable to remove relevant links over personal objections (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) to sourced content. The link to trans-exclusionary radical feminism clearly belongs here, in the same section as the anti-gender movement, with which it is closely linked (or a subset), as discussed by sources in the target article. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the link is relevant in this template, but placing it under the "Discrimination" heading was an absurd violation of NPOV, and the parentheses serving to imply it is another name for, or subset of, the anti-gender movement were also editorialising that goes beyond what the GCF article itself says, and certainly far beyond what there is consensus for at the GCF talk page. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly, I have moved the link to the See Also section. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The target article clearly supports it being included in the same section as the anti-gender movement. Those are two political movements or ideologies that are defined by their opposition to transgender rights, and countless academic sources discuss trans-exclusionary radical feminism as a subset of the anti-gender movement, or at the very least closely linked to it. Having anti-gender movement in one section, and the TERF movement in another, is absurd. Why is Catholic opposition to trans rights discimination, and not the anti-trans ideology that started as a fringe movement in radical feminism? Readers will expect to find these two closely related phenomena next to each other, not in entirely separate sections. Indeed, both articles very prominently mention the other, including in a hatnote. But we could remove the parentheses and include them as separate entities. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a violation of WP:NPOV to place Gender-critical feminism under the "Discrimination" category. From the article: Gender-critical feminism [...] is an ideology or movement that opposes what it refers to as "gender ideology":^[1] the concept of gender identity and transgender rights, especially gender self-identification.

The ideology/movement opposes transgender rights. The article is included in Category:Discrimination against transgender people. If you dispute that, discuss at Talk:Gender-critical feminism. Otherwise, please stop. This is disruptive. Wracking ^talk! 23:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the removal was wholly inappropriate and unjustified. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When using the Dark mode gadget, the colours of the trans flag on the Transgender Sidebar template get messed up. Not really a major issue but worth noting. The blue and pink are duller, and the white becomes black. Mittzy (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked using the official dark mode instead of a custom gadget and in the official one, everything looks fine, so I think it’s a bug in that gadget.

You could try to use the official dark mode instead under Pteferences -> Appearsnce -> Color Raladic (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]