The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more transgender people. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Some people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBTQ+ WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration, gender, sex, ap. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration, gender, sex, ap at the Reference desk.
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 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 United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
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 within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2025.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Support. I think that the proposed change is fine but am open to other suggestions. But persecution must be changed as it both violates NPOV and is not reflected by reliable sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And it is our job to cover said usage and reflect fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Attempting to 'counter' the POV of RSes is exactly what we are not supposed to do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The use of term below appears to be in the context of people's feelings. Wikipedia does name articles based on quotes from people. Unless the reliable sources actually call it a persecution, which the sources listed at the bottom of the page don't except in the context of quotes, we should not use the term. Esolo5002 (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
which the sources listed at the bottom of the page don't except in the context of quotes, we should not use the term. There is only one quote in that list below. Are you confused about the use of quotation marks in the notes? They're there because we're quoting the sources, not because the sources are quoting individuals. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Initially this started as a comment, but as I quickly searched for "trump trans persecution" and found countless hits and had more time to read a bit of them, this becomes an oppose on several factors. First of all, this is about transgender people as it documents acts act against a population of people, humans. Not just paper policies about a park, so removing the word people is a non-starter ((I assume it was just an oversight). A Wikipedia article that is written to document acts against a population need to name the population in the title, so it needs to contain transgender people as humans in it. We don't want to contribute to the active efforts of dehumanization and objectification by removing the word people from the title, that is by itself going to be part of this article (e.g. Here are all the ways people are disappearing from government websites (NPR), Trump Administration Moves to Reject Transgender Identity, Rights (Human Rights Watch), and the related plethora of research by sociologists on objectifying/dehumanizing language and its effects. E.g. [1]).
It has also rapidly moved, much more so than the general 2020s anti-LGBTQ movement in the United States. Also pointing out the related Article split discussion there from a month ago, which we couldn't quite settle yet, and should probably actually do so (though it likely will stay to be a parent topic to this, since while many policies are targeting transgender people in particular, some also are about the broader LGBTQIA+ community).
That being said, there are also quite a few sources picking the word persecution and given that media tends to be timid when it comes to certain things, that is giving us a hint of the direction it's going. I added a second box up top for some sources discussing and using the word persecution.
The article is also still in its building phase (as the giant construction banner that Tataral placed at the article upon publishing states), so this discussion might be premature, given that this Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration#Genocide debate section is half the article and is not only about listing policies and I could see that as soon as the article was renamed per the proposal people would be like "This article is only about policies, so this isn't due" and it gets erased.
Similarly, based on just the quick handful of articles I had the time to go through, we likely will have a pretty big section on Asylum, which will discuss two aspects -
1) treatment of transgender assylum seekers who appear to be suffering due to changed policies in US immigration handling, and
2) American transgender people fleeing and seeking asylum elsewhere, whether that is to sanctuary states within the US, or to outside the country as some of the articles have talked about with some people having already requested asylum in Cadada and Europe.
I don't have more time right now, so I'll leave it for someone else to go add more sources as I only grabbed the first handful from the past week or two, but there's more. Raladic (talk) 05:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "genocide debate" section is only half about a "genocide debate" and only sourced to one think tank. I'm not necessarily opposed to a brief mention but it should not be given as much weight as it is. The other half is sourced to one article, also should be trimmed, and is comparing Trump's policies to Nazi policies.
Yes, if you seek out sources about trans persecution, you will indeed find a few that use that language, but using that search term is cherry picking. The vast majority of sources that are about the topic of this article do not. I invite commentators to do their own searches with neutral language to see for themselves. (t · c) buidhe06:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the article is under construction as Tataral noted, so I think the RM is premature. We don't even currently have a section on Asylum yet as I pointed out and yet, I just added a bunch of them down there in the sources. So, you should have given the article a moment to actually be built out before trying to move it to some place that may require an immediate follow-up RM as the proposed title is a much different scope than this current article is. Raladic (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The asylum section you propose would be half about Trump's policies and half about reactions to his anti-trans policies. Worth noting that to date no court has recognized a risk of persecution of trans people in the United States. Even if it does occur rulings are not necessarily the same between jurisdictions. IMO it is not our place to take a position on this legal dispute. (t · c) buidhe06:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, while hopefully it won't take 79 years, it probably will take a dutch court more than a week since the filing of an appeal to respond to it.
I don't know what you're trying to say with "on this legal dispute"? Are you suggesting that Wikipedia considers human rights a simple matter of a legal dispute?
We're not taking a position in a legal dispute, we are following Wikipedia's principles in building an encyclopedia on human knowledge, grounded in the WP:PILLARS, and working against the principles of the UCoC and ToU, which affirms that Wikipedia supports human rights principles. So, since we're not taking the position of denying transgender people their human rights as that would go against Wikipedia's principles, which position are you suggesting we take? Raladic (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The legal dispute over whether trans people are at risk of persecution in the United States as a matter of asylum law, which surely should be treated as a dispute as it is the subject of ongoing court cases. (t · c) buidhe12:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article already covers a broader topic than Trumpist policies regarding transgender people. This move would narrow that scope, requiring multiple forks to disperse what could clearly be a single article into multiple ones. This would make reading and understanding the topic harder. In addition, this seems to be a shift away from a neutral POV, watering down the language used to describe what is quite clearly (and -contrary to the assertion in the request- frequently described by RSes as) a persecution of people. WP:SPADE applies here.
Note: I've added a few sources which use "persecute" or "persecution" to the list below. There are more which I haven't added and which weren't already there. The word "persecution" is extremely common in this coverage. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to oppose based on above. This name is fine and fits the convention for other nations. The USA is subject to the same scrutiny and standards as other nations; we don't get any leeway. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)16:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - the proposal is now moot as it fails WP:PRECISION. As i had already pointed iut above, it was premature as the article is under construction and now also discusses not just actions by the Trump administration, but also various newly introduced state level actions targeting transgender people introduced since the inauguration of the second Trump administration. Raladic (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - If this page only lists Donald Trump’s government actions against transgender people, it should be renamed to reflect that. But Trump’s words and behavior show that his persecution goes beyond policy. He has publicly said there are only “two genders, male and female,” and he often calls transgender rights “transgender lunacy” or “insanity” in his campaign speeches and rallies. He has mocked transgender athletes and promised to “keep men out of women’s sports,” which his crowds cheer for. In interviews and media, Trump attacks political opponents by saying they are “heavy into the transgender world” but never explains what he means by that. Trump’s anti-transgender position comes through not just in his policies but also in the way he talks about transgender people in public speeches and campaign messages. However, the current version of the page does not show this, and it should. Myotus (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this should be included, but negative political rhetoric does not fit under the definition of "persecution" either. (t · c) buidhe05:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^For decades, people fleeing persecution have sought safety in the United States. Now, in a striking reversal, dozens of American citizens are seeking asylum in Europe — in the Netherlands in particular.
^The new reports undermine the U.S.’s credibility on human rights issues and leave asylum-seekers without key evidence that they’re fleeing persecution, former State Department officials said.
^Hannah Kreager, a transgender woman from Arizona, in June filed an asylum claim with the IRB on the grounds that she has a well-founded fear of persecution in the U.S.
^"The IND generally states that discrimination by authorities and fellow citizens can be considered an act of persecution if it is so severe that victims can no longer function socially and societally," LGBT Asylum Support said in a statement.
^Bridget Crawford, director of law and policy at Immigration Equality, said the abuse is especially harmful to a population that routinely flees to the U.S. to escape anti-LGBTQIA+ persecution and state violence across the globe.
^"She would likely be very likely to be persecuted on account of her gender identity, an identity that is very much innate and has characteristics that she just she cannot change," Robinson said. "And so the likelihood of persecution is going to be even greater."
^"Donald Trump is already making good on his promise to persecute trans people zealously."
^"Donald Trump’s promises to take these discriminatory policies nationwide should be unthinkable, but it is nonetheless a future we’re prepared for. Transgender people are no strangers to government persecution, political slander, or the criminalization of gender nonconformity."
^"Fears rise among trans people under political persecution"
^"Angel Jenkel, who is non-binary, fears they will face persecution and discrimination if deported back to the U.S."(photo caption)
^"“In the first 24 hours after Trump’s re-election, we received 1,177 requests for assistance from the United States. Fifty-one percent of these requests were from trans people: 35% from trans women, 16% from trans men,” says Timothy Chan, spokesperson for Rainbow Railroad, an NGO with offices in Canada and the U.S. that helps LGBTQ+ people experiencing persecution and violence start a life in another country."
The section alleging that trans people are subject to genocide is referenced mainly to the Lemkin Institute, a completely unreliable activist group that promotes conspiracy theories and misinformation, such as the BlueAnon-style claim that Elon Musk will usurp power from Trump (obviously, this did not actually happen). Therefore I have removed it as a BLP violation. Groups that are actually subject to genocide do not experience rapid population increase. There is absolutely no evidence of any intent to commit a genocide against trans people in any Western democracy. There is nothing to even discuss here. It's just demonstrably wrong. Partofthemachine (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary of your last edit was a blatant falsehood. The comparison is made explicitly and obviously by the source. If you cannot be bothered to read the sources, then please do not presume to tell us what they say.
In addition, your claim that the section was sourced "mainly" to the Lemkin Institute is transparently false, there were 4 sources in the content you removed, only one of which was the Lemkin Institute. I see no evidence of what you accuse them of wrt to Musk, either. I suspect there may not be any evidence that they insisted such a thing would happen.
Your logic regarding 'rapid population increases' is worthless: You're trying to suggest that changes in numbers of people who identify with a group between 2015 and 2022 somehow proves that a regime in 2025 is not trying to reduce those numbers. That's wildly irrational. I made one revert, but after reading this, I'm going for a rollback. I don't trust any of your edit summaries, given the argument you're using to justify them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.03:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MjolnirPants. Based on the false edit summary they used to blank two sections with a variety of sources, I already reverted that editor, and based on their comments, it's clear they're WP:NOTHERE to build an article in a constructive manner. Also, considering how this is a new article in development, the sensible thing to do with any content seen as lacking in sourcing would be to ask for additional sources on the talk page. But the reasoning above cannot be taken seriously, as MjolnirPants points out. --Tataral (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For all the arguments that can be made, and are made through RS on the idea of transgender genocide, you chose not to bring up any of them, and instead argue that such sources do not exist, alongside claiming genocide requires certain things to exist which aren't even included in the Convention, let alone any of the frameworks used in genocide scholarship. And to top it off, it isn't a BLP violation. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section on “State level actions” has nothing to do with the Trump administration which this article is about, both nominally and in the introduction. These are policies independently proposed by state governments without any connection to the federal government—as I’m sure those would’ve been the same whoever the President was. If you intend to widen the scope to all ”persecution of trans people” during this period in history, then the article needs to be retitled.
These are policies independently proposed by state governments without any connection to the federal government—as I’m sure those would’ve been the same whoever the President was.[citation needed]
That's literally an impossible premise to prove, and it's also wildly irrational to assume that a broad anti-trans agenda among Republicans is entirely independent and coincidental to the Republican party leader's own anti-trans agenda. In any event, the first source explicitly compares Texas' efforts to Trump's. So it doesn't matter what you're sure of. We follow sources, not editor's beliefs.
If you can write about the clear connection between the actions of state governments and the Trump Administration—the title of the article—then I believe it would be within the scope of the title.
I agree the Texas news source mentions a parallel. But the Alaska one makes no mention of the Trump administration or the federal government. And we should follow the sources no? ArguedOyster (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can write about the clear connection between the actions of state governments and the Trump Administration—the title of the article—then I believe it would be within the scope of the title.
Sources have already done so. If you can't understand it, that does not put the onus on me to explain it to you.
I agree the Texas news source mentions a parallel. But the Alaska one makes no mention of the Trump administration or the federal government. And we should follow the sources no? There is no reliance upon the Alaska source to establish that Trump is responsible for the phenomenon. That is well-established by other sources used in this article (and many other sources not yet used). Here's PBS making it explicit. These sources are trivially easy to find. If you're unwilling to do the legwork of finding them, then simply sitting here on talk arguing from your own willful ignorance that such a link doesn't exist is a disruption to the process of editing this article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MjolnirPants—I’m pointing out what I think are flaws in the article as currently written which is one of the main uses of the Talk Page.
Sources have already done so.
Language within the article should establish a clear linkage between the Trump administration and the new policies in individual state. (1) You shouldn’t have to read a buried paragraph in the news source to understand why this information is within the scope of the article and (2) Because it’s good information to have in the encyclopedia—state policies are imitating federal ones.
I think it’s best done on a case by case basis, but if your strategy is to draw a broad link between new state anti-trans laws and Trump, and then just list a bunch of new state policies—well that hasn’t even been done.
This article is about persecution of transgender people in the United States as a country, in the era of the Trump administration. Who technically implements which policies at the domestic level is irrelevant. Trump also claims to be the leader of the Republican party that implements persecution of trans people at sub-national and local level. The article is not about the Trump administration and it’s not narrowly focused on policies at a specific level ("federal", "state" or local) within the country it covers. It covers all persecution of trans people in that country in that political era.
Even in the Soviet Union a lot of persecution was delegated to regional and local authorities; Stalin didn't have to sign off personally for it to be covered in our articles on persecution of Christians or other groups. --Tataral (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tataral. There’s a misunderstanding as to the point I was making, but I can accept I didn’t explain it very well. This is not a content issue, this is a WP:OOS issue.
I.
The article is not about the Trump administration[…] —Tataral
The title of the article is Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration. “Trump administration” is literally in the title. It’s not “Persecution…during the Trump Administration” (which would still be improperly named as the information's irrelevant—see 2020s anti-LGBTQ…) It’s not “Persecution…in the United States.” It’s not “Persecution…by the Republican Party.” If you want to address those and broaden the scope, then discuss moving the page.
II.
Here are fragments from the introduction. Other than the disputed State level actions section, the rest of the article largely fits.
[…]that removed federal recognition of transgender people. —first sentence, first paragraph
The Trump administration's actions targeting transgender people[…] —first sentence, second paragraph
III.
Regarding your Soviet Union reference, the articles in question are:
These are not titled “…under Stalin” and the comparison is a moot point. If they were, then it’s possibly a question of historical naming convention. In any case, the structure of political power in the Soviet Union isn’t the same as the U.S. ArguedOyster (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First off, please use wikilinks, not external links when linking to redirects.
The title of the article is Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration. Do you not understand what the word "under" means?
“Trump administration” is literally in the title. And "Democratic" is literally in the title of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. That does not make the nation a democracy.
It’s not “Persecution…during the Trump Administration” So you don't understand what the word 'under' means. Or else you don't understand how the US government works. (Or perhaps you don't understand governments at all? I'm trying to AGF here, but the choice is between ignorance and maliciousness, given the nature of your arguments).
It’s not “Persecution…by the Republican Party.” Trump is the Republican leader who brought anti-trans issues to the foreground. Prior to his rise, the Republican party did not care about trans issues. This is extremely well-documented.
Other than the disputed State level actions section, the rest of the article largely fits. The only dispute stems from arguments denying a well-established fact.
These are not titled “…under Stalin” Those articles cover the SU in general. Not the SU under Stalin. This article covers the US under Trump, not the US in general.
In any case, the structure of political power in the Soviet Union isn’t the same as the U.S. How anyone could append that sentence to the end of that argument and not implode from the irony is baffling. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MjolnirPants—
You don’t address the actual issue which is Wikipedia:OOS.
Or else you don't understand how the US government works. Or perhaps you don't understand governments at all?
The U.S. is a federalist republic where political power is subdivided on many tiers. Not everything state governments do is at the behest of the President. If the Texas state government legalized marijuana, that’s not “Drug policy under the Trump administration.”
Trump is the Republican leader who[…]the Republican party did not care about trans issues.
The article is nominally not about the Republican Party. Not everything state Republicans does (on trans issues) belongs in an article titled after the federal government.
Those articles cover the SU in general. Not the SU under Stalin. This article covers the US under Trump, not the US in general.
.svg){kind=small}
