The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename all Timrollpickering (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming All subcategories in Category:Society by country

Nominator's rationale: After Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 2#Category:Society by nationality, this is the logical next step. I propose to rename all subcategories of Category:Society by country for consistency reasons. Balkovec (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, there is no reason to use a denonym. This is about country, not about nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was reverting edits by the globally blocked sockpuppet Balkovec and mistakenly removed CFD tags on some categories that I have now replaced. I'm not sure of the procedure to follow at CFD for large nominations made by sockpuppets, whether this should be closed or allowed to proceed since there is support for the nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - it is indeed the logical implication of the cited cfd 2016 September 2#Category:Society by nationality. Oculi (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support down with the tyranny of demonyms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename using "Transgender" as nominated. A minority of editors suggested new sub-categories for transsexual people, but these should not be implemented without further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, because several of those participants are new WP:SPAs and some have already been blocked. Another minority supported using "Trans", but did not address how to distinguish the topic categories e.g. Category:Trans men from the set categories which are nominated here. – Fayenatic London 21:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual people to Category:Transgender people
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual Jews to Category:Transgender Jews
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual Muslims to Category:Transgender Muslims
• Propose renaming Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual characters to Category:Fictional transgender characters
• Propose renaming Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual women to Category:Fictional transgender women
• Propose renaming Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual men to Category:Fictional transgender men
• Propose renaming Category:Lists of transgender and transsexual people to Category:Lists of transgender people
• Propose renaming Category:Cultural depictions of transgender and transsexual people to Category:Cultural depictions of transgender people
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual men to Category:Transgender men
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual men by occupation to Category:Transgender men by occupation
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual men musicians to Category:Transgender male musicians
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual male actors to Category:Transgender male actors
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual women to Category:Transgender women
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual women by occupation to Category:Transgender women by occupation
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual actresses to Category:Transgender actresses
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual women musicians to Category:Transgender women musicians
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual female models to Category:Transgender female models
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual female adult models to Category:Transgender female adult models
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual people by occupation to Category:Transgender people by occupation
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual academics to Category:Transgender academics
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual actors to Category:Transgender actors
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual artists to Category:Transgender artists
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual clergy to Category:Transgender clergy
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual computer programmers to Category:Transgender computer programmers
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual DJs to Category:Transgender DJs
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual entertainers to Category:Transgender entertainers
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual comedians to Category:Transgender comedians
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual writers to Category:Transgender writers
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual sex workers to Category:Transgender sex workers
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual scientists to Category:Transgender scientists
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual politicians to Category:Transgender politicians
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual models to Category:Transgender models
• Propose renaming Category:Brazilian transsexual adult models to Category:Brazilian transgender adult models
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual media personalities to Category:Transgender media personalities
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual lawyers to Category:Transgender lawyers
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual military personnel to Category:Transgender military personnel
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual physicians to Category:Transgender physicians
• Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual sportspeople to Category:Transgender sportspeople

Nominator's rationale: "Transsexual" is a largely outdated term and maybe even borderline offensive to some. Transgender is the contemporary, broadly used umbrella term for all trans people, including people who call themselves transsexual. Even most articles concerning individual people on Wikipedia, such as List of transgender people or List of transgender political office-holders, do not include "transsexual" in the title. Renaming these clunky categories is long overdue. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors: User:Marcocapelle, User:Funcrunch, User:Anomalous+0, User:*Treker, User:Irn, User:Samantha Ireland, User:Slivicon, User:Bearcat, User:Gebu, User:Amakuru, User:Steel1943, User:PC78, User:Mathglot, User:WanderingWanda, User:-andreas, User:Crossroads, User:Pyxis Solitary, User:Ribbet32, User:SMcCandlish.

Thanks but FYI I never got the ping because pings have to have the editor's signature after them to work (that's what I was told anyway). I saw this from the WikiProject posts. Gonna hold off on commenting for now. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try pinging once more:

Pinging editors:User:Funcrunch, User:Anomalous+0, User:*Treker, User:Irn, User:Samantha Ireland, User:Slivicon, User:Bearcat, User:Gebu, User:Amakuru, User:Steel1943, User:PC78, User:Mathglot, User:WanderingWanda, User:-andreas, User:Crossroads, User:Pyxis Solitary, User:Ribbet32, User:SMcCandlish. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, an obvious counter argument is that some people in these categories self-identified as transsexual, but that argument is not strong enough for me to oppose this proposal. Nominator has a fair point too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Support – per nom. This is generally fine, especially wrt umbrella-ness of the term transgender. For a possible sticking point, see the second paragraph of Transsexual, but I don't think that should override this for the purpose of Categorization. Mathglot (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not sure why I have been pinged. I have nothing to add. Steel1943 (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The current naming scheme gives the impression that transgender and transsexual are separate things, which I don't think many would agree with these days. If there are enough people today that identify specifically as transsexual then there could be a childcategory for them.★Trekker (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I concur with ★Trekker.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. At the time this tree was first developed almost 20 years ago, the typical usage of these words was somewhat different than it is now — there was more of a distinction applied in the past between "transsexual" (people who had actually transitioned) and "transgender" (all forms of gender-variant behaviour, including drag and Joan of Arc, even if it was purely situational and temporary), but that's definitely not the way the words are used today and Wikipedia should keep up with the evolution. Renaming them is indeed long overdue; the only reason I've been avoiding listing them for renaming myself is because of the sheer daunting size of the batch job involved, so I thank the nominator for taking it on. I have, however, made one small adjustment to one of the nominated categories; as formulated when I saw this, it was proposed to rename Category:Transgender and transsexual lawyers to Category:Transgender and transsexual lawyers, i.e. to do absolutely nothing, instead of the clearly intended Category:Transsexual lawyers that would actually fit the rest of the proposal, so I've modified that. Bearcat (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There definitely are still some holdout old school self-described transsexuals who aren't fond of the "transgender" label, but "transsexual" is still normally understood to be a subset of "transgender" (for instance, it appears there is consensus at transsexual that we can describe it that way), or sometimes even an outdated word not to be used. Either way condensing the category name down makes sense. Endwise (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Amended below[reply]
• Support just "trans", largely per Tamzin and the similar compromises we've made at trans woman and trans man. Endwise (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While we're here, shouldn't Category:Brazilian transsexual adult models actually just be deleted? It only has one entry, Patrícia Araújo, who is already in Category:Transgender and transsexual female adult models. Endwise (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "transgender", oppose just "trans". I oppose the idea that "Transsexual" is a largely outdated term. But it looks like redundant. Sharouser (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why not simply trans? If they are distinct concepts, then trans is inclusive of both. If they are two terms for the the same concept, then trans is a shorter term that means the same thing. It's already widely used and understood as shorthand for transgender: for example, when you type it into dictionary.com, that's the definition it gives.[1]. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @JasonAQuest: While I like that idea and use it for myself, I think for Wikipedia purposes we need to spell the word out fully, as "trans" can refer to a number of other things. Funcrunch (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreeing with Funcrunch here; otherwise, one ends up with counter-proposals of "trans*" and possibly others. Mathglot (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with a recommendation that a note be put on the top-level category that some people in this category identify (or identified if no longer living) specifically as transsexual. As others have noted, the term transsexual is still favored by some trans folks. Funcrunch (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Having read the various arguments for simply using "trans" I would now also be OK with this option, with a note on the category page explaining that it is an abbreviation that can mean either "transgender" or "transsexual". But I think a new proposal/CfD would need to be posted for discussion on this option. Funcrunch (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – but with a caveat: erasing transsexuals from the gender dialog has become commonplace, and it doesn't take a psychic to see that there's no way to prevent their existence from being removed from these categories; so the caveat is what User:Funcrunch has suggested: include a note that "some people in this category identify (or identified if no longer living) specifically as transsexual". If transsexuals cannot be acknowledged with a notation, I withdraw my support. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We would probably want to go with "may identify [...] specifically as transsexual" as some/most of those categories probably contain zero such people. But I would support a disclaimer like that. Endwise (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am also in support of this. Transgender encompasses people who use the term transsexuals. This avoids the medical gatekeeping of saying in order to be trans you need to be a transsexual and in order to be transsexual you have to have already gone through a full transition. Considering those people are transgender along that entire span of transition, it makes sense to use it as the umbrella category. All transsexual people realize they are a different gender before they transition. For reference I'm a trans woman, I am on HRT, but my insurance is a nightmare and I can't currently afford to become a "true transsexual". I also understand for many the word transsexual is a point of pride to have survived fully transitioning, so including the disclaimer is great. ZonKonigin (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well no, that's not how I see it. I see transsexual as the diagnosis. I'm a 19 y/o preop. That being said, I have sex dysphoria and so I am transsexual, I am undergoing the process to change my sex. I am not and never will be "transgender" because this is not and never has been about "gender". Transsexual, to me, is defined by the diagnosis, not by the treatment being done. FlowerGirl246 (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Great suggestion. I wholeheartedly agree. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I oppose exclusion or complete deprecation of the term "transsexual" throughout Wikipedia, though. We have separate Wikipedia articles, transsexual and transgender, so both terms have valid uses. I recognize that transsexual is becoming a dated term in the English speaking media environment but it was an activist term of choice in living memory for the Western world, and is still a term used for some communities. I agree with others that if we remove the term "transsexual" it is because we are making the assessment that nearly people identifying as or said to be transsexual people also meet definitions of transgender. When appropriate, the biographies of anyone with this category may clarify that they used a different label. Errors are okay to acknowledge and discuss when they occur. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Responding to ping, nothing to add. –Aνδρέας ^{talk | contributions}
• Support Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Simpler and more in line with the current usage of the terms. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In light of the discussion and disruption since I !voted I'd just like to clarify a few things about my !vote: I still support the original proposal. I lament the disruptive and seemingly dishonest behaviour that has rightly led to some SPAs being blocked. I am neutral on the categories being renamed to "trans" instead of "transgender". I don't see the need but if it helps keep the peace then I don't object. I do oppose the creation of separate categories named "transsexual". I think that some, but not all, of the advocacy for the term "transsexual" seems to be intentionally disruptive. Ignoring that, even when advanced in good faith, I don't think the argument for separate categories is persuasive. The transsexual article says "The term transsexual is a subset of transgender" and I think that this is enough to prove a second set of categories unnecessary. I have no objection to a clarifying note being placed on the categories to acknowledge that they may include people who identify as transsexual in addition to, or even instead of, identifying as transgender. DanielRigal (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I am NOT okay with MY identity being declared "outdated and offensive". It's offensive to erase me like this! Dakota Allie L. (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: blocked user. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As a transsexual I am strongly against this. For many people transgender and transsexual mean different things. Transsexual is a medical term and a term that has been used historically by advocates pushing for transsexual rights and to see that be erased would be a truly saddening thing for the transsexual community. Please think twice before sweeping our community under the rug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qqroads (talk • contribs) 22:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC) — Qqroads (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Qqroads - I understand that you have personal thoughts and feelings behind this discussion and proposal, but we need do our best to put our personal feelings aside, discuss this in a fair and neutral mindset and tone, and only take into account as to whether or not this proposed change improves the encyclopedia. Remember what we are here to do; personal feelings and emotions only degrade such discussions from being able to conclude successfully. Please know that I am not trying to be dismissive or insensitive to your feelings in any way. I don't want to even give the impression that I might be implying that your feelings are not important and that they do not matter; this is absolutely not the case. All I ask is that you perhaps re-evaluate your response, or perhaps consider stepping back if you don't feel like you can discuss this neutrally. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ~Oshwah~ - Thank you, it is easy to get passionate about things personal to one's life experiences, so forgive the overly emotional vote. in order to take a more neutral stance, I did some additional research into the usage of these terms and I would like to bring up that the distinction between the usage of Transsexual or Transgender is largely a demographic one. In addition to the fact that the term Transsexual is more common among older generations, there are certain regions where Transsexual is more commononly used than Transgender. Brazil for example has significantly more Google searches for Transsexual than Transgender. However, I did also find that in nearly all countries the usage of the term "trans" in Google searches vastly dwarfs both the terms transgender and transsexual. Therefore I propose if the changes are to be made to shorten the titles of these articles and yet remain as accessible as possible in terms of SEO, I believe replacing the phrasing "Transgender and Transsexual" with "Trans" would do a better job of satisfying both goals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qqroads (talk • contribs) 05:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am echoing Qquroads who said, As a transsexual I am strongly against this. For many people transgender and transsexual mean different things. Transsexual is a medical term and a term that has been used historically by advocates pushing for transsexual rights and to see that be erased would be a truly saddening thing for the transsexual community. Please think twice before sweeping our community under the rug." And am adding this link to an essay to explain that there is currently a political effort to erase transsexual as a category and silence transsexuals as a population, so as to privilege non-gender-dyphoric people who wish to be considered transgender and non-binary https://sillyolme.wordpress.com/2020/09/14/the-silent-transsexual/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisplayGeek (talk • contribs) 22:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This article does not deny that the term transgender is currently used to include people who identify as transsexual, it merely regrets that the term is also used for people who do not belong according the author. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, we've basically got an unwanted word forced on us. I feel much the same about "queer" (a legit slur). Dakota Allie L. (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  DisplayGeek - As I said above to Qqroads, we need do our best to put our personal feelings aside, and discuss this proposal in a fair and neutral tone. Does this proposed change benefit the encyclopedia? Does it improve the quality of the encyclopedia? These are the things we should be discussing... Anything outside of that only degrades the discussion and makes it harder for participants to stay focused as well. Our personal opinions and feelings, and why this proposal does not align with them, is not going to determine whether or not the proposal improves Wikipedia. All I ask is that you perhaps re-evaluate your response, or perhaps consider stepping back if you don't feel like you can discuss this neutrally. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I am a trans woman who experiences dysphoria and I've undergone hormonal, social, and surgical transition. The term Transgender is intended to encapsulate the experiences of Transsexuals, not be different from or exclusive of them. Susan Stryker's Transgender_History_(book) contains a history of the term and the broader trans community accepts its use. The use of transsexual over transgender (insisting you are a transsexual and not transgender) has a political element, as above user DisplayGeek notes. The purpose of this use is to delegitimize some trans people, including people who undergo hormonal, surgical, and social transition, by claiming they're not truly transsexual, just engaging in transvestic fetishism. DisplayGeek is the author of a book & blog that attempts to do that (which she linked). I would advise not paying mind to people who say they are transsexual, but not transgender, as they don't reflect the larger consensus of the community, and largely try to draw said distinction as a way to invalidate the identities of others. Evilagram (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A Twitter thread posted on April 10 called attention to this CfD and tagged a number of people, saying "Let's band together and protest this unjust change!" (I already !voted on this, just pointing it out.) Funcrunch (talk) 06:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this absolutely must be, then mayhaps we can settle on "trans people". If that, then I will give my support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakota Allie L. (talk • contribs) 09:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oop, forgot to sign this. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Transsex/Transsexual is a medical term, while Transgender is largely an umbrella term and/or a social movement. Erasing the term Transsex/Transsexual erases the lives and experiences of those who use it, and applying the term "Transgender" retroactively to those who did not use it or even strongly opposed its use is honestly a bit offensive. Memories of (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've alerted WikiProject LGBT Studies to this discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support partially. Move to Trans people. The "Gender" and "sex" is extra; it's understood.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; Neutral. Support using Trans man/woman where possible. The current titles don't strike me as problematic. I'm perfectly happy to let transsexual go the way of the dodo (alongside Asperger syndrome and mental retardation, and other such DSM-isms), but it is nonetheless a label that a handful of biography subjects in this category insists on (only example I could find was Buck Angel). Including both terms avoids that controversy, at the expense of slightly obtuse category titles. There is apparent consensus for describing subjects (both transsexual and transgender) as trans people, so I would support changing the set of categories which specifically use the phrase "Transgender and transexual men/women" to use "trans" instead (e.g. Category:Trans women, Category:Trans men musicians). RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 20:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm also Asperger and as well dislike how my OTHER condition has also been deemed "outdated and offensive". The woke world truly just won't stop merging me with other things in hopes of making more deviant people seem acceptable...

  Personal grievance aside, I'd well support the decision to just list it as "trans". "Trans" can still be shorthand for "transsexual", so that wording would not be offensive. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Dropping the largely outdated "transsexual" term is appropriate, per others above. Zaathras (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My condition is not outdated. Not all TS are genderists and gender ideology supporters. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your opinion is noted. Good luck. Zaathras (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The Oxford English Dictionary is pretty up to date for those of you who want more solid footing than unilateral assertions. Quoting from "transgender". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.), last updated in March 2022:

On transgender as an adjective (sense A1):

Designating a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond to that person's sex at birth, or which does not otherwise conform to conventional notions of sex and gender.
Although now typically used as an umbrella term which includes any or all non-conventional gender identities, in wider use transgender is sometimes used synonymously with the more specific terms transsexual or transvestite.

On transgender as a noun (sense B1):

A transgender person; (sometimes) spec. a person who is transsexual or transvestite. Also occasionally (with the and plural agreement): transgender people as a class.

JBchrch talk 00:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not terribly relevant, and unless you're on-stage Doing the Timewarp Again "transvestite" is at best obsolete, at worst derogatory. Zaathras (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the glossary of terms in the GLAAD Media Reference Guide is a better source of definitions for this topic. Funcrunch (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They act like all transsexuals are comfortable being called transgender. They act like we all support genderism. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not all transsexuals have a "gender identity", nor do we all believe in "gender", so the "umbrella" kind of falls flat. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that there is an "umbrella term" does not mean that it covers 100% of the people, it just means most. Your strident opinion seems to be a bit out-of-step with how sources out there treat and cover this topic area. It's perfectly ok to hold an unpopular opinion; it isn't fine to think you can impose it on others. Zaathras (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My unpopular opinion is backed by neuroscience. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion is not about science, but rather about language/terminology: which term is commonly used? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A lot of current terminology is changed to appeal to activists and social justice warriors. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just using "trans" has been mentioned a few times as an alternative. However that would be too colloquial and ambiguous imho. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Reliable sources I've seen seem to be consistent about transgender being an umbrella label that includes transsexual. If there are reliable, due sources that distinguish it, I would consider changing to Oppose. Other reasons shared for opposing seem to drift into righting great wrongs or even the fringe anti-gender movement. Using "trans" instead would also seem fine to me. It may not be used as commonly outside of LGBTQ+ communities, but we can fairly easily explain that on the category page, and we do have pages like trans woman that explain the term. Politanvm ^talk 14:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Most people who consider ourselves transsexual do so BECAUSE of our viewpoint that "transgender" is insulting, inaccurate, and political, and that our issue is that of a medical condition not one of "identity". Therefore to include us under the "umbrella" is not correct. Yes, I'd be fine if we just agree on "trans". I think the context makes it obvious what is being said.

  And yes I'm against "gender" because it doesn't exist, it was made up by John Money to keep transsexualism as a psychological illness and to support nurture over nature theory. I don't think this viewpoint is fringe. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As someone who does a lot of work on Wikipedia writing about the doctors and conversion therapists who were involved in the early history of trans care, I very much understand your disapproval of John Money (I updated his page to detail some of the awful experiments he carried out) and the concept of our "gender" changing instead of our body/sex changing to match our internal sense of self. However, in terms of babies and bathwater, John Money also created the term sexual orientation. You're absolutely correct his original idea was that a person's "gender identity" was a purely social construct based in nurture, that could be shaped and changed with parental/sociological input, but that was disproved by his own experiments and all later ones, which showed that despite his attempts to change a person's "gender"/"gendered sense of self" (as with Reimer), a person seems to be born with a "gender" which will cause them dysphoria if misaligned with their body/sex. While gender, like race, is a social construct (an arbitrary divider we create based off observable features and stereotypes) and we're all simply human, social constructs are still real and we feel their consequences in the real world. Gender became an important analytical tool of feminism since it gave a language for shared humanity not based on seemingly permanent innate divide between "types" of people but between cultural constructions of them. While "female" and "male" sexes exist for simple example (no time for a full intersex accounting), the simple maleness/femaleness doesn't cause sexism or oppression, but how we group people into categories based on their assigned sex at birth as "gender." More than that, different genders exist across different cultures anyways, often more than our 2. With trans people, while we may biologically be who we are just as much as cis people, also just like everyone else we are pulled into gender in some way or another and have to grapple with it. We're more than medical diagnoses, while there are biological causes for trans, intersex, and cis people being most comfortable in a "male" or "female" body or anywhere in between, we still see the effects of that in the world as gender. As a trans woman, I was born a biological/neurological woman and I'll die one, the fact the wrong chromosome got swapped and the doctors said I was a boy notwithstanding. Who I was internally didn't change, I just stopped hiding her and soon after started hormones. While I used to be gendered as a boy I'm now gendered a girl because that's how people see/read and treat me based off my appearance. My internal sex and sense of self, the various chromosomes and genes involved with it that made me a woman, never changed, I just got a little help with a hormone problem. TheTranarchist (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep my internal self never changed. Therefore no "gender" ever changed. Transsexual. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My internal sense of self never changed, my sex/genes didn't change, but how people gender me changed. I've always been a woman, the only change was in people recognizing it. Therefore, no biology/sex ever changed. I'm transgender, you're transsexual, we're both trans and trying to dunk on the "not really trans" doesn't help anyone. TheTranarchist (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dakota Allie L.

  This seems like a linguistic misunderstanding of how the pre-fix trans is used in both transgender and transexual. Yes trans means on the other side of, but it does not imply the action of change.

  Transgender (meaning of the other gender) provides a distinction of who the person is comparative to their at birth sexual characteristics . In other words you are a different gender than what was expected considering external biology (ie gender assigned at birth). Transsexual, the way that you are using it currently, used to refer to the same situation, but just swap the internal representation (gender) and the external representation (sex). However transexual has been adopted to mean those who have "changed their sex". However sex is similarly loosely defined when compared to gender. Sex can refer to a brains sex hormone preference (often contributing largely to gender), brain sex characteristics (which are often mosaic even in cis people), primary sex characteristics, secondary sex characteristics, hormonal makeup, gonad production, and chromosomes. The majority of these factors are not binary, though they tend to be bimodal. A person (cis, trans, or non-binary) might have any combination of these. What distinguishes a trans person (including non-binary people) is an acknowledgement of the mismatch between the brains expectations for how their body should be and/or how they should be perceived conflict with how their body is and/or how they are perceived. This conflict, and its possible associated pain is what we refer to as dysphoria. Body conflict causes physical dysphoria, perception conflict causes social dysphoria. When we use the phrase 'identifies as' (although I hate this phrase myself) what we are saying is this person is acknowledging their brains internal representation, which is encoded into them biologically. They are not 'choosing' to identify as a given gender, what they chose was to come out and be clear of who they are, just as you probably did. There is a clear distinction through using the word transgender, as it allows acknowledgement of the internal representation, instead of having to 'earn' its acknowledgement.

  I understand why people who use the term transsexual get upset. Y'all often, though not always (especially because gender became an American 'culture war' topic), had to fight to get that internal representation acknowledged and/or accepted probably through surgical means (though I'm not sure especially considering your age). I applaud your victory over that. I'm still fighting an antagonistic medical system to try to get bottom surgery myself (to finally exile myself of my crippling bottom dysphoria). I get why getting to the other side of a tough journey of trying to get people to see who you are would make it frustrating for others to have an easier time being accepted. It sucks that trans people have had to deal with this awful nightmare of transphobia and dysphoria, but I think we should appreciate (as jealous as we may be) that those coming after us will have an easier time.

  This is all not to mention that transexual is not a scientific term, and has just as dubious origins. It does not legitimize your cause, because its based in fitting a mold.

  If a trans person is born with looks that are strongly associated with their birth sex, and/or can't get access to or afford hormones, hair removal, sex reassignment surgery, and/or any other 'gender-affirming' surgeries/treatments would you still call them a transexual?

  What if they couldn't dress the way they wanted or come fully out of the closet due to imminent danger?

  If you were in that position, would you expect people to acknowledge you as a transexual?

  What are the rules that you are using to distinguish a transexual person from a transgender person?

  If a person was under any of the above circumstances they can still be called transgender. I have sincere doubts that they would be called transsexual.

  How do you know that you are transexual?

  If your answer is gender dysphoria (the official psychological term in the DSM-5, the most well-renowned of psychological diagnosis guides), the same is true for all trans people. While dysphoria can be used to mean pain associated with that brain conflict with body and perception, it also refers to the conflict itself. Sometimes dysphoria, especially in more conservative circles, in used to only refer to pain associated with the physical disconnect. However dysphoria manifests differently for everyone, sometimes its only through its positive cousin euphoria when acknowledged for who you are on the inside, sometimes it waxes and wanes, sometimes its focused only on specific physical characteristics and not others or certain social characteristics and not others. Are brains are complicated, and being trans, like every psychological illness, condition, profile, trait, etc. manifests differently in different people based off of genetic factors, in utero factors, and social factors. Even with a set biological genotype, there are a large range of possible phenotypes. Not everyone who is autistic or has ADHD has the same strengths, weaknesses, and quirks, not everyone who has a genetic predisposition for muscle growth will have the same levels of growth or same rates for each muscle. Biology is so diverse at both the macro and micro level, and while we can group people together, there are countless factors that guarantee that the uniting factor does not manifest in the same ways.

  In conclusion, humans are diverse, being trans is diverse, transgender is well defined in common tongue, transsexual is restrictive in nebulous and arbitrary ways. ZonKonigin (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @ZonKonigin:, just FYI, the user you are replying to was banned over a month ago. Zaathras (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as per above mentioned sources and general shift in usage, I support the shortening change to 'transgender' with the note about how transsexual people may not consider themselves transgender, or 'trans' since that also works as an umbrella. In my experiences (and historical analysis), "transsexual" is largely used by older trans people while "transgender" is more often used by the younger ones. Similarly, older gay/lesbian people sometimes use homosexual while younger ones use gay/lesbian. Even with with the historical associations with the medical community, arguing whether transgender (identity term) and transsexual (original medical term) are fundamentally different feels like arguing about whether people who call themselves gay (identity term) are really homosexual (original medical term) or vice versa. And with both gay/homosexual and transgender/transsexual, there isn't going to be anything fundamentally different about the people who choose either term, as there are underlying biological bases for who we are that don't disappear due the choice of term. Of course, for public figures who explicitly called themselves transsexual as opposed to transgender we should include and respect that in their articles. Honestly, it's just sad to see trans people fighting over just terminology when we get treated the same at the end of the day (accounting for race, class, gender, etc). Final note, for the sake of cleaning Wikipedia a little and shortening those overly long links, we should simplify them while trying to remain inclusive. TheTranarchist (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist[reply]

  I'm 19 years old. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And no, it isn't really the same underlying biology. Perverted transgenderists who grow boobs and keep their penis aren't the same as transsexual women. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep it civil. Politanvm ^talk 18:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright. I still think fully-transitioning transsexuals and "non-ops" should be acknowledged as different categories. Because they are. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Gay" and "homosexual" are essentially literal synonyms. But "transgender" is "inclusive" of drag queens, part-time transvestites, "non-binary", queers, crossdressers, nonconforming people, non-ops, she-males, etc. Whereas transsexual quite literally only includes people with Harry Benjamin Syndrome (neurological condition). These are certainly not the same category nor synonyms. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a lot to unpack here:

  1) FYI, I'm an 18 year old trans/transgender lesbian saving up for bottom surgery. If I was born in a different time and place, I may have called myself a transsexual lesbian, or a transvestite since that was the term for trans lesbians (not "true" enough transsexuals).

  2) I consider myself nonbinary in the sense that gender roles are a social construct I don't need to hold myself to, and also a woman since that's how I'm read and how I experience life and frankly want to fully transition.

  3) I consider myself queer in the sense that it's an umbrella term for LGBT people and I'm two of those.

  4) In terms of gender noncomformity, do I suddenly stop being a trans woman the second I put on jeans and a flannel shirt? Are cis people who are gender noncomforming not actually their gender? Butches actually men? Twinks actually women? Someone can have a gender and still not conform to all the societal expectations placed on their appearance...

  5) We should both know trans people historically found safe havens in drag culture. Even today, one of my best friends is a trans woman and a drag queen since she's got bills to pay.

  6) Last I checked, transgender doesn't actually include cross-dressers, unless you're a trans person cosplaying as your assigned gender at birth or something.

  7) Literally only ever heard she-male being used ironically by trans people. It's used as either a slur or a porn category by cis people.

  8) A brief look at Transsexual shows that Harry Benjamin began to use the term gender identity. The page also contains information about the syndrome, it's criticism, and more modern coverage of biological markers.

  9) I know a lot of trans people who are comfortable with various bodily configurations. The idea that a person must "fully" transition to be valid is just the same the idea that aesthetic intersex surgery for "normal" genitalia is humane or necessary. Given your understandable feeling on John Money, I don't think you believe the latter the case. I know a lot of people who use transgender, and a few who use transsexual (usually trans elders), and the commonalities far outweigh any differences. TheTranarchist (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I think it's vital that identity categories be used for people that actually identify with those labels. As far as I am aware, folks who identify uniquely as transsexual are a minority within a minority, but they do exist. I think the spirit of WP:CATLGBT applies, though (the shortcut name not withstanding) it's written specifically about sexuality and not gender. The benefit to the renaming seems to be concision, but concision outside of the actual bodies of articles is not a major concern. The tradeoff in terms of precision and offense is not worth it.
  I would support splitting each category into a Transgender X and Transsexual X category, with both likely to be under the parent LGBT X category.
  Please do not interpret my !vote as an endorsement of the vitriolic attacks on transgender people presented above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "trans", oppose just "transgender". Discussions like this inevitably turn political, but it doesn't matter who's right or wrong in which identities. What matters is not miscategorizing anyone. Some trans people identify as "transsexual" and not "transgender". Some people may meet the academic definition for "transsexual" but not "transgender" (although that's rare). Our articles trans woman and trans man work around this nuance by using the shared abbreviation for both terms in their titles. These categories should do the same. Splitting the category isn't the worst thing in the world, but for most trans people the transgender/transsexual distinction isn't important, so I think that would be more trouble than it's worth. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If this is the decision we make, I would be fine with it. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above is a good point and if the categories and articles were reorganized to recognize that transgender is an umbrella term that contains in it Transsexual, and all other forms of gender nonconformity then I'd fully support this. The problem is it likely will not be as many up and comming people feel that the term transsexual is offensive and even call those of us who use it "transmedicalist" or "Truscum". --Hfarmer (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Transsexual is a term for how a great many people identify what they are separate from being transgender. IF this was going to go with a overall overhaul of the Wikipedia on this then it might be fine. This however is Wikipedia it doesn't work that way. Every article has people who keep an eye on it and most of them have attained a sort of meta-stability. It would be very hard to change that stable state, and if we upset it the result might be worse. Ideally category transgender people would contain subcategories Transsexual ( for medical transitoners anyone who has had surgery and hormones), Transgender (for those who have not), non binary etc. The PROBLEM arises in that since many youngsters feel that transsexual is offensive it will become about having a specific source where the person who is trans says "I am a transsexual". Since of course we would not want to put something pejorative in there. This change in point of view would be a slow death of the term transsexual before its time. Maybe in 20-40 more years their point of view will rein. By then generation double Z will find their terms offensive. --Hfarmer (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support transgender and transsexual can be interchangeable sometimes, I don't find transsexual offensive or a slur, however I see transgender is an umbrella. And I also supporting using just "trans..." where possible (trans men, trans women). I'm a bit neutral, I like both ways, but a change is also nice. Tazuco (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If we move it to just "trans", I'd be okay with that. However, once again erasing transsexuals by forcing us under "transgender" is not okay in my book. This erasure has consumed enough of modern politics. FlowerGirl246 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC) — FlowerGirl246 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Oppose I think its important we keep medical terminology intact for those of us that prefer it. Not all of us desire to be lumped under political "identity" terms. Transsexual is a medical term, transgender is a political identity. "Transsexual" remaining in use is necessary to acknwoledge those of us who treat being trans as a medical condition and not as an identity. FriskyTGirl60 (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC) — FriskyTGirl60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Support - Using both "Transgender" and "Transsexual" in one category name is redundant. I agree with the point made by ★Trekker. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 22:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This category rename should have been done a long time ago, honestly. Transsexual hasn't been a term in common use for a number of years outside of some very specific scientific/medical circles. Any needed usage of the term as a category would be more useful in its own separate category anyways. Also, I presume from the large number of SPAs showing up in this discussion, including those with entirely new accounts solely for commenting here, that this CfD was linked to somewhere else on the internet? Silverseren^C 23:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, only look me a moment to find one of the sources of new account canvassing. Silverseren^C 23:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Silver seren: I posted a link to that Twitter thread awhile back FWIW (easy to miss with the volume of discussion here). Funcrunch (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been tempted, after reading the discussion, to tag the more obvious spa/canvassed editors. Primarily those who have only commented on this CfD, and whose account was created shortly after that Twitter thread. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I considered this as well, but I figured most of the SPA comments are from Dakota Allie L. (talk · contribs) and they pretty much speak for themselves (she was indeffed today as a result). Funcrunch (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    She was certainly the most active SPA, but I have counted at least three or four others who were canvassed by her. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "Trans" per Tamzin, or if that fails "transgender". The current state of the redirects is overly verbose. Trans is an umbrella term that encompasses both transgender and transsexual. Arguably transgender also is an umbrella term in its modern usage, though there is as has been demonstrated here a minority who disagree with that and consider it erasure. Using "trans" instead of "transgender and transsexual" or "transgender" has the benefit of being more concise without losing any precision. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Trans" per others. I don't mean to offend anyone, but "transgender" is my second choice because it is the umbrella term and "transsexual" is very controversial in the LGBT community today. Pipenswick (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Transgender and Transsexual are used interchangeably, and using both in one category name seems redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reesequillian (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC) — Reesequillian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Neutral I came into this discussion thinking that "transsexual" was an outdated term, but comments to the contrary above have convinced me that there is a visible minority that may feel erased by its subsuming into the umbrella category "transgender." Would support "trans" as an inclusive catch-all term whose capaciousness seems likely to encompass future changes in language around this issue as well. HappyBear5000 20:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. FlowerGirl246 (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note As the last contribution to this discussion was over a week and a half ago, and due to the SPA/canvassing concerns, I have requested an closure from an experienced closer at WP:CR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for all the reasons above, but in addressing the other concerns raised by Dakota Allie L., Qqroads, DisplayGeek, Memories of, Hfarmer, FlowerGirl246, and FriskyTGirl60, I think separate new categories should be made for strictly transsexual people and fictional characters where relevant after the split has taken place, as I see Firefangledfeathers also directly proposed above. Lashana Lynch (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I support creating other transsexual categories apart from transgender after moving — Tazuco 20:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I support this wholeheartedly. FlowerGirl246 (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Finding it mighty suspicious that several redlinked-name "new" users have found their way to this discussion. Zaathras (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are two main options: split the category into separate transgender and transsexual categories, or rename to just transgender, possibly with a note to the effect that some people in the category may identify as transsexual. A less-discussed option is to rename to just trans, as an umbrella term meaning both transgender and transsexual.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now, this may be why you and I have problems here. I consider my transsexualism a material reality, being on estrogen and hoping for surgeries soon. I consider what someone "identifies as" to be very meaningless. FriskyTGirl60 (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Splitting is a really bad idea, it would largely mean splitting people of older generations from people of newer generations because of a shift of terminology in the course of time. Ultimately I think keeping the categories and doing nothing is probably the best solution.Marcocapelle (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm 19 and call myself transsexual. I refuse to use the new-age terminology. There are also many younger individuals who call themselves transsexual (e.g. Blaire White). So no, not necessarily. FriskyTGirl60 (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support transgender, second option trans. The status quo is not an option. As per glaad "Do not use transsexual to describe a person unless it is a word they use to describe themself." - so per WP:BLP we should not be putting a category with "transsexual" in it on a trans person's page unless they specifically identify as such. We can add a node re "transsexual", or create a subcategory if there's enough demand for such. I think trans is a bit informal and may be confusing by itself for a general audience. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be incredibly offended to be called "transgender". I don't think what GLAAD says is proper speak for every trans person in existence. I prefer to be called transsexual. FriskyTGirl60 (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There are a few exclusive same-sex attracted people who reject the labels "gay" and "lesbian" as well, but Wikipedia refuses to use the term "Homosexual people" in categories so I doubt you're doing to convince editors here to reject the majority nomenclature in this case either. You're an exception and transgender is the WP:COMMONNAME.★Trekker (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support transgender, as the current category names are bound to cause more confusion than less. I understand the urge to use "trans," a word I prefer, but in order to avoid people requesting the category be changed to trans* in the future, using "transgender" makes more change. GLAAD, of course, has a good information on this topic, and as ★Trekker notes above, "transgender" is the common name, NOT "transexual". In the past, that was different, but we are in 2022 now, not 1992. I am not at all surprised by the drive-by editing on here by red-link accounts who likely never contribute on here beyond this discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment'. Regarding Category:Transgender and transsexual women to Category:Transgender women, can we also merge it with Category:Trans women? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: The Trans women category seems to be generally about subjects relating to transgender women, while the "Transgender and transsexual women" category seems to be for individual women, as it has Trans woman as its main article, but I understand its a little confusing with some of the child categories.★Trekker (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StarTrekker If you think they should be separate, can you add/improve their category descriptions? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support transgender or trans. These are both widely used as umbrella terms and have been for quite a long time. Treker's arguments above are also compelling. Rab V (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support though "Trans" is my first choice especially given ngrams like this [2][3]. I did see transgender still seems slightly more common in front of person.[4]. PaleAqua (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Villages of the Livonian Coast. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Villages in Livonia to Category:Livonian villages

Nominator's rationale: Livonia is a wider region than the Livonian Coast, which is the only place still inhabited by ethnic Livonians. The proposed name fits in a better way the category's scope. Super Ψ Dro 15:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, it could also be renamed to Category:Livonian Coast, as the Livonian Coast's article is also within that category. Super Ψ Dro 15:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename either way, the current name is too imprecise. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe Category:Villages of the Livonian Coast would be the clearest (combining the two alternatives offered by nominator). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename Timrollpickering (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Plays about The Holocaust to Category:Plays about the Holocaust

Nominator's rationale: Technical rename per other categories like this, t is not capitalized in 'the'. (ex. Category:Poems about the Holocaust, Category:Works about the Holocaust). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:C2A, should have been speedied. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: result Timrollpickering (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Delete[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Leeds and Grenville County Roads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category that consists solely of a list and six redirects to that same list. This is not navigationally useful; the list could legitimately be added to Category:Transport in Leeds and Grenville United Counties (which I have now done), but we don't need a dedicated subcategory just for a bunch of redirects. Bearcat (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the category suggests there is quite some content while in fact there is not, that is merely frustrating for anyone who wants to know more about the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename Timrollpickering (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Rajput Princesses to Category:Rajput princesses

Nominator's rationale: Should fit under C2C and C25? I don't actually know this process at all, but the person who made it mistitled it, put in a malformed request, and since then the only person to edit has been me. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was supposed to be a speedy request, but either Twinkle doesn't handle those and I forgot to check or I just forgot to click a button somewhere. I'm about to fall asleep, so I'll deal with this tomorrow if nobody else has. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I initially made the request after I realized I made a mistake in the title. Since I was new at the time, I probably wrongly categorized it. I hope the title is changed and matched with other pages. Manavati (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - correct capitalisation. Recommend speedy closure. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.