Talk:Transgender disenfranchisement in the United States

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles LGBT studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Acano9.

Above undated message substituted from

I found only 513 mentions of "transgender disenfranchisement" in a Google search query, and most of them are from

Would "Disenfranchisement of transgender people" be better? It gets slightly more hits. There doesn't seem to be a '

descriptive title, which are allowed to be "invented specifically for articles". -sche (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I think at the very least we need to have a lead for this important topic that has a citation and doesn't have two tags casting the whole subject into doubt. Right now it's Transgender disenfranchisement is the practice of creating or upholding barriers that keep transgender individuals from voting and therefore restrict the principles of universal suffrage. And two tags swiftly follow: [citation needed][neologism?] It just looks downright odd. In fact, I'm just going to remove those tags. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone who put the tag there please come out and explain why it is relevant and necessary for this article? Thanks. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

----

This article is laden with political polemics and no source material.

Some examples,

the Republican Party tried to position voter fraud as an important issue in American politics, to be solved by schemes for voter identification.[5] It has never been established as a substantive problem, despite Republican rhetoric about it as an issue.

This is a political smear with a poor citation and it's own conclusion.

Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002. This resulted in many states passing similar voter identification laws, which generally result in reducing the vote among poorer or immigrant voters.

No citation

Many policies related to changing an individual's gender on identity documents in the United States emphasize surgical status and require the individual to produce evidence that they have undergone surgical sex reassignment surgery. Such procedures are often extremely costly and rarely covered by health insurance companies

No citation.

of the people who identify as transgender, only 21% have been able to update all of their IDs and records with their correct gender. Some 33% have not updated any of their IDs or records.

No citation.

While the Social Security cards themselves do not list gender on them and therefore provide a hopeful option for transgender voters

Encyclopedia articles are not about hope and change nor political stumping.

In accordance with the Help America Vote Act, some states allow voters to use two forms of identification that only list name and address, such as a utility bill.[6] While this generally alleviates the issue of having to change one’s gender on a document, it poses another issue as the transgender community struggles with the homelessness of many of its members.

This reads like a political pamphlet.

It is estimated that by requiring voters to present a government issued photo ID at the polls, over 25,000 transgender people in these states will face substantial barriers and be disenfranchised from voting in the November 2012 election.

How did the author predict a transgender will face discrimination? This is a concern borne from ideology.

Incarceration rates are relatively high within the transgender community, which prohibits many transgender individuals from voting.

...

This high rate of transgender incarceration greatly disenfranchises the community, as that means approximately 16% of transgender people had lost their voting right at some point in their lives.

This is a short polemic implying unfairness in voting laws due to disproportionate affect. Such opinions are for other articles.

JamesThomasMoon1979 08:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then rather than tag it, why don't we simply delete the uncited material? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed from the article a lot of material that was unsupported or entirely uncited. The problem in the first instance is greater: it was just information that had been collected and placed in the article. No attempt had been made to actually explain how those things added up to transgender disenfranchisement. There is far more of this material in the article now. Before I get my shears out again, I just want to provide fair warning: any material that is unsupported is liable to be deleted. That could make the article something of a stub, but at least it will be a solid stub. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please shear Cleopatran Apocalypse. If others are interested in the old version they can review the old versions.

JamesThomasMoon1979 07:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there is much more to it. I'm concerned that actually taking a critical eye to the content on the page would require more deletions. I will need to do some independent research to add more information, I suppose. The problem so far is that a lot of the information on the page does not have a stated or clearly expressed connection to the topic - it's just... There. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a second "shear away!" Your concerns with this article are reasonable, and you've given plenty of time and notice to anyone who wishes to step up and substantiate the uncited claims or rewrite the unencyclopediac portions of this article. Even if you pare it down to a stub, I don't think you have an obligation to replace the information you remove; our policy is explicit that

"[i]nformation should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful."

Again, thank you!

—  Rebbing  talk  17:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all,

I tried to clean up the citations, but it's a bit jarring of a task. This article could use a bit more contributions to source material to refer people to (editors and readers alike). Also, my apologies in advance for the multiple edits, it happened that way because I would take another look after I submitted the edit and find I missed something else.

Also, props to everyone who's contributed so far! You've done a mighty good job!!

Goldguy81 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see much more substantiation for the information in the lead.

Let's focus on the last sentence:

They may also be unable to obtain IDs if they are homeless, as a disproportionate number of transgender people are due to discrimination in housing and employment.

I cannot find that statement supported in either of the sources that are provided.

There is information about homelessness (2% of transgender people report being homeless, which is double the rate for cis??), there is some info on identity:

Of those who have transitioned gender, only one-fifth (21%) have been able to update all of their IDs and records with their new gender. One-third (33%) of those who had transitioned had updated none of their IDs/records. • Only 59% reported updating the gender on their driver’s license/state ID, meaning 41% live without ID that matches their gender identity. • Forty percent (40%) of those who presented ID (when it was required in the ordinary course of life) that did not match their gender identity/expression reported being harassed, 3% reported being attacked or assaulted, and 15% reported being asked to leave.

But this doesn't really substantiate the above.

Thoughts???Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one dissents? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]