Talk:Pakistani parliament passes bill for transgender rights

Category:LGBT
For now that is the umbrella category that we have for such articles. Even if we do add Category:Transgender it would still be a subset of LGBT because that is what the 'T' stands for. It is a proper subset. I have seen a little of what Acagastya has said on other talk pages and edit summaries, and it seems to me there's some axe grinding going on. --SVTCobra 10:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * T is a proper subset of LGBT, but this bill is exclusively for T - LGBT in terms of set -- when homo/bisexuals are clearly excluded, it may have very less to do with the other three, which, by the way are illegal in Pakistan. They aren't getting any rights with this bill, or are even mentioned in the article. In any case, a separate category is a must. •–• 11:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that is how we deal with all categories. The bill only applies to Pakistan, but we include the article in Category:Asia. Cheers, --SVTCobra 11:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * LGBT rights does not exist in overwhelming majority of Asian countries, and this is exclusive for T, which is not dependent on a partner, unlike L, G or B. They are alienated in this case. •–• 12:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The LGBT category can deal with rights or the lack thereof. Just like Category:Human rights can deal with human rights being protected or abused. The article fits within the scope of the LGBT category, regardless how you feel about the partnerships or alienation of the constituent groups that it covers. It is not a formal organization. --SVTCobra 12:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * protection or abuse of rights for LGB is not even discussed in this article. LGBT category should be used only when the article focuses on homo, bi, and trans; if it is individual, then prefer individual categories, especially when trans deals with ones own identity and not whom one wants to have relation with. 103.254.128.130 (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Category:LGBT is a union category, not an intersection: it is inclusive of anything to do with any of the subtopics.  The article belongs to Category:Human rights, as would any article that deals with any aspect of human rights despite whatever aspects it doesn't deal with.  The general principle suggested for categories is that they exist for someone who is searching for articles related to a topic: if somebody is looking in our archives for articles related to "LGBT", they would want to know about this article.  --Pi zero (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * -edit conflict- It is the overarching category that covers this subject. If we have enough articles for Category:Transgender or Category:Transgender rights, such categories can be added, but LGBT should not be removed. --SVTCobra 13:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

When writing the story about something happening in Tel Aviv, one would first add that category, and then add Category:Israel -- not doing so just seems weird -- (and since this is so overdone, I find it odd, and this is led to disagreement so many times) is just weird. It is a different scenario if we did not have category for Tel Aviv. It is a completely different story if there weren't enough articles for that category -- and I have always stressed upon doing things now rather than leaving it for future and now we have enough articles for the transgender category so it should be done.

I am still not convinced of having Category:India for a truck accident in Andhra Pradesh (the veterans will tell me otherwise) and the same applies for my views on LGBT or any category for it to be inclusive, (not exactly a mathematical intersection, but something that is not alienating/excluding others), -- there should be an exclusive category for transgenders. •–• 13:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I do not find your argument to be consistent. Tel Aviv should be in Israel, but Andhra Pradesh not in India? LGBT does not excludes/alienates Transgender? I am utterly confused. --SVTCobra 14:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you did not differentiate a generic case with a specific example. An accident in Yerpedu is not big enough for having Category:India -- that is my personl opinion -- don't mingle it with the generic example of what is happening on enwn. •–• 14:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But you were the one that commingled the generic with the specific. Either use two generic examples or two specific examples. Either way, this "big enough" concept seems unworkable to me. How many must die before it is "big enough" to be included? There's no way to ascribe these value judgements. --SVTCobra 14:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If I might offer some broad perspective.

The single most awkward thing about our category hierarchy is this question of whether articles in a child category ought to belong to the parent category. In some cases, yes. In some cases, not necessarily. So here we are, with a simple system that, despite its imperfections, benefits hugely from being simple. --Pi zero (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In the case of geocats &mdash;as we have long done things&mdash; the reason for putting all articles of the child into the parent is so that when generating a DPL, one can use the parent as a union of its descendants. Very often one wants to be able to specify such a union.  The driving force here is that DPLs only directly support intersections of categories, not unions.
 * Each DPL also only supports up to six categories. On Wikinews it takes at least two of these just to specify that you only want published articles: Category:Published and negation of Category:No publish, leaving only four discretionary categories to play around with in the DPL.  So there's no practical way to ask for articles in a parent category and then specify, individually, to exclude each of its children; there'd usually be way too many children, as well as the set of children being not fixed over time.  Also, just because an article belongs to a child doesn't always mean it's not also directly relevant to the parent.
 * On English Wikibooks, we have a subject hierarchy (now being revamped as a "shelf" hierarchy, btw) that allows both at once: Each book is explicitly listed as belonging to certain subjects, but not usually to the ancestors of those subjects.  For each subject there is a "subject category" containing only books that explicitly list themselves in that subject, and then there is also an "allbooks category" containing every book that explicitly lists itself in either that subject or any descendant of that subject.  For example, for b:Subject:History there is b:Category:Subject:History (atm it has 55 books), and then there is b:Category:Subject:History/all books (atm it has 153 books).
 * The allbooks categories are populated automatically; however, this requires a certain amount of discipline on the books, a great deal of discipline on the subject pages and the various categories, and rather a lot of semi-automation. It's not quite as easy to manage subjects for a book as it is to manage ordinary categories for a wiki page, and the system itself is not easy to revise (the subject hierarchy can be changed, books can be listed under different subjects, but any fundamental change to the way the system works is insanely difficult to implement).  It wold be tricky to adopt such a system on Wikinews, because page structure is less inherently disciplined, and I would be very worried both about the ease of management and the rigidity.
 * As soon as one starts dabbling in this sort of thing, there's a powerful temptation to relate it to the distinction between an article that centrally involves a topic, and an article that peripherally involves that topic; and that leads to a staggeringly more complicated task of categorizing articles. I sometimes find myself, as I struggle to decide whether an article is closely enough related to a category to be categorized in it, half-wishing to be able to indicate it's "peripherally related" &mdash; but I don't really wish for that, because it would only make the problem worse by introducing more gradations of options to have to choose between.
 * (Yet to read Pi zero's remarks, replying to SVTCobra): I did not mingle -- both of them are in different paragraphs, and if you can not differentiate it, well may be you should. I don't have a problem with the number of deaths -- it just does not speak for the entire country -- that article has a state-level importance (with the sand related scandal involved), but not a national level importance, and definitely not freaking Asia. •–• 17:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding your specific example: Maybe it is not even a state-level importance, but only for Munagalapalem. Who is to make this subjective importance level decision? I noticed recently that you think individual Bundesliga match reports are important for all of Europe as you made numerous Add-Cat requests. Why would a nominally meaningless sporting event in Germany be important to all of Europe? We cannot have such a value-based judgement system or we would spend all our lives fighting about categories. We need a simple and unambiguous system, and I think we have it.
 * At this point it amounts to a fundamental change in how we use categories, so I suggest formulating a proposal at Water cooler/policy if you are serious about changing this.
 * Cheers, --SVTCobra 06:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thatid for staying consistent with the ongoing way of categorising. I remember in 2015, I mockingly said, “Why not add Earth’s category for all the events happening on earth?” •–• 08:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You would not be the first. That discussion was up for Category:World. But essentially, the consensus was it was redundant.--SVTCobra 09:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Support of having a separate category for transgender not under the umbrella of lgbt
Hello everyone, I don't contribute to Wikinews so I might not have that much of a say in things here. Nonetheless I wanted to support Acagastya as I recently received more insight into the whole topic of transgender rights. For people not involved in the topic it seems like transgenders "belong" to the group of lgbt. For example transgender women might be classified as gay men that want to act effeminate. However a lot of transgender people just really feel like their "biological" sex is not the sex that they want to live as. This is about how a person identifies themselves. It has nothing to do with their sexual orientation. lgb are all sexual orientations. T however is a gender identity. Thus there have been efforts from official organisation to not use the word "transsexual" anymore and instead of that switch to transgender or transidendity or simply trans. Having trans people constantly mushed in with lgb people sexualizes trans people even if they don't want to. Image for example you were born with chimerism having both male and female sex organs however one of those were removed at birth. When you grow up you come to find out that you did more identify as the one that was removed. Now people classify you as gay or lesbian and throw all those labels at you even though none of this was your fault and all you want to do is just live an absolutely "normal" life as a person with the sex that you feel most comfortable with living in. I hope that I explained why being thrown in one pot with lgb is not what trans people generally want. I hope that over time the general population will gain more insight in this and more understand. --Sparrow (麻雀) (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * NOTE (for other Wikinewsies) There was a related discussion in Wikimedia LGBT+ telegram group, where an editor pointed out that en:w:Transgender was not linked to any of the articles on frwp. The "closest" article that editor could find was fr:w:transidentité which was linked to en:w:transsexual. That discussion was going at the same time and I really think we should consider reading those messages for the other angle. •–• 12:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a historical fact that the original LGB community opened op to include issues of gender identity. And ever more so, with a veritable alphabet soup being added to to the acronym. I do not have any specific statistics to throw at you, but it seems quite clear that a majority of Transgender people, as well as Intersex people and Asexual people, have been happy to join with LGB and support each other as they fight for their rights. The commonality shared in being discriminated against, sometimes by law, has led these diverse communities to come together. They march together, they support each other. These are facts. Now I am equally sure that there are some, such as you two, who don't share this view. I wonder what the root cause for your dissent is? Are homosexuals offensive to you? --SVTCobra 13:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It goes further than that. Certainly in the context of things like the Stonewall Riots, a better description would be that trans people were part of a unified movement with LGB people from the start (see Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Rivera) and gender non-conformity has been part of the gay movement since the start (watch Paris Is Burning, or go see a drag show). The idea that transgender folk were just added last week as an afterthought or something is historically inaccurate. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * As I've said at Category talk:LGBT, I don't have a problem with having a transgender category, but I broadly agree with the idea that the LGBT category is a union category, and the trans category should be part of it. See aforementioned talk page for my full comments. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Talking to different trans people, this is a frequently expressed 'peeve'. Gender rights and issues are separate from sexuality and orientation rights and issues. The umbrella of LGBT+ is convenient for many, however in practice this can lead to the loudest voices holding the stage. Though we are unlikely to see an immediate change in top level categorisation, where there are opportunities to give trans topics a distinct space, this would be both a sensible and respectful approach. --Fæ (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)