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.
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.