Open main menu

Comments:London Pride organisers apologise after protestors interrupt parade

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.



Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Still no separate category for Transgenders. smh513:02, 16 July 2018
Should of been no apology315:08, 15 July 2018

Still no separate category for Transgenders. smh

This is one of the classic examples of having a separate category for transgenders, which includes (T union LGBT+), while the Pakistani Transgender (protection) Act was for specifically for (T - LGBT+). Yet there is no action taken for having an independent sub-category. Redirecting "Transgender" to "CAT:LGBT" is incorrect. Some news is for both the categories some are very specific. Transgenders are transgenders regardless of their sexual or romantic interests. And they should have an independent category of their own.

103.254.128.86 (talk)23:47, 11 July 2018

The unregistered group who disrupted this parade would presumably approve of having a separate category.

I'm inclined to take a practical organization-of-articles approach to the matter. The single category is manageable; perhaps an arrangement with one-or-more more specific categories would also work, though we'd want to work out the details and be sure of what we were doing before moving on it.

Pi zero (talk)23:54, 11 July 2018

I don't know what that group would have wanted, but transgenders receive more backlash than any other community, for those things they could not choose. There are so many cases of discrimination against transgenders and then, sometimes, fortunately, rights in protection of the act. Unlike what the group wanted, T should receive more attention, after all, it has nothing to do with their sexual orientation.

•–•14:08, 15 July 2018

I wouldn't be comfortable with Wikinews making a structural decision based on a fractious contention about who gets more backlash. We shouldn't be making calls like that.

Pi zero (talk)06:09, 16 July 2018

Barring me to rant on the rant page?

Why have categories like Jammu, and Kashmir when "Jammu and Kashmir" exists? If you have a good reason for that, this is a no-brainer. There are enough articles to create Transgender category, and the "backlash related information" just strengthens that, it is not a dead end category.

•–•07:10, 16 July 2018

Thank you for motivating me to look up Jammu.

Pi zero (talk)13:02, 16 July 2018
 
 
 
 
 

Should of been no apology

How dare they apologize like the group should be ashamed for sharing their opinion. I personally agree that people should be honest and if you have a penis you're a guy.

LordFluffington454 (talk)14:00, 15 July 2018

So, if you had an accident, or let's say you were shot in the dick, and there was no other option, than to chop off your dick, are you no longer a "man"? Think about this in your head, dickhead.

•–•14:12, 15 July 2018

This is normal for every 'progressive' move. History will tell whether the group is right or not. It's just like the abuse some Saudi women faced when their ban on driving was lifted.
On the flip side, while I'm unfamiliar with Wikinews, I'm a bit unsure whether colourful language is encouraged here or not.

Leaderboard (talk)14:23, 15 July 2018

@Leaderboard: We require our articles to be neutral (a concept that some Wikipedians have trouble with, because news neutrality is not the same as enyclopedic neutrality), but our comments space is a place to express opinions. We sometimes refer to our comments space, informally, as "trollspace". There are situations where things get out of hand, and we have occasionally struggled with whether we should have been more aggressive in removing hurtful comments, but we seek to avoid censoring views. The classic thought experiment in this is, if we publish an interview with a neo-Nazi —and we have done so, in the past— and someone were to express a negative opinion about neo-Nazism at the comments page, it certainly wouldn't be fair for us, having interviewed this neo-Nazi in the first place, not to allow neo-Nazis freedom to argue for their positions on the comments page.

That said, I personally prefer to be soft-spoken, even when expressing strong views. However, that's my style and preference.

Pi zero (talk)15:08, 15 July 2018