Comments:London Pride organisers apologise after protestors interrupt parade
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Still no separate category for Transgenders. smh||5||13:02, 16 July 2018|
|Should of been no apology||3||15:08, 15 July 2018|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: 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.