Talk:LGBTQ rights in Texas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

POV tag

The following template

was added four days ago without explanation. Since I have received no reply to my query of the editor who added it, I am removing it from the article, which I see could use some tweaks but doesn't appear to have neutrality problems on a large scale. Rivertorch (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Re-added tag. Biased languages included references to Texas' discrimination against homosexuals. Whether that is true is not the question, but rather the fact that is a matter of opinion. Please stay unbiased and state the facts without color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theseus1776 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

One of your edits removed the entire lede, which summarized the body of the article. Perhaps it could have summarized it better, but it's generally inadvisable to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so I have undone that edit. I've left your tagging in place, but you really need to be a lot more specific in your complaint about the wording. What is fact? What is opinion? How would you word a lede more neutrally? Rivertorch (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

My bad. The LGBT community in Texas is the largest in the Southern United States and is protected under hate crime legislation. The people of Texas chose not to grant it marriage rights: is that discrimination per se? I don't think so. I think the article reflects a pro-gay attitude, rather than a neutral one. I will try to rephrase the opening to be more neutral. Help is requested.Theseus1776 (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the main substantive change you've made is taking the assertion of discrimination out of the lede. Aside from the lack of marriage equality—and of course that's discrimination—there's the lack of protection against discrimination in employment and housing (and an entire section devoted to that, so it seems like it should be in the lede). My available time is short just now, so I've left a note over at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies in the hope of getting some more eyes on this and working towards a solution. Rivertorch (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If you read just the first paragraph of the article it leaves you without a doubt that Texas indeed discriminates against gays. I'd like to see that restored to the lede in some form. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The article needs some work, such as expanding the lede, and perhaps some reorganization and rewording to cast it a more neutral tone. I will try to help with this in a while. In response to Theseus1776, I would add that the people of Texas voting to deny marriage rights to some of its people based on an immutable characteristic of those people is a classic example of tyranny of the majority and will likely be ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court at some point. Also, do we really need two POV tags that essentially say the same thing? - MrX 12:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll turn the public opinion section into a table since i think the results could be made clearer. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I started with some general cleanup, largely for the sake of readability and neatness. Much of the entry still needs an upgrade to encyclopedic prose.

I agree that this entry has POV problems. I'd suggest removing this entirely:

The constitutionality of refusing to recognize a lawful marriage performed in another state remains in dispute. Generally, the Full Faith and Credit Clause found in Article IV, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution would prohibit a state from doing this, but some discretion has also been given to states in certain matters. The clause also gives Congress the power to "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

This entry is about current status/rights/protections, and not the place for back and forth about constitutionality. And in this case it's just the back without the forth.

I see someone has done this now. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd eliminate the "Politics" heading entirely. Worst is this: "Its 2012 party platform contained numerous statements dismissive of LGBT rights." The citation is to the platform and the word "dismissive" is supplied by a very POV editor.

Meanwhile I may come back and just work on the prose a bit more. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I moved the content in what is now 'Politics' to the lede, and I see that you moved into its own section. I think the three sentences should probably be copy edited and integrated into the first section 'Laws regarding same-sex sexual activity', because I think it establishes context for the remainder of the article. I agree that the word 'dismissive' is POV. - MrX 14:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Does Note 9 have to be so big or is that someone's POV they're trying to highlight? Done the table by the way. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It's shorter now. This entry has altogether too much citing of primary sources/statutes and could use more secondary source citations. Nice table, too! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I also think the notes section is being co-opted as a quasi-references section, and probably need some additional maintenance. - MrX

Thank you very much =] ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ooops. Those arrows are way to strong and get in the way of anyone trying to just read the numbers. And the direction from poll to poll isn't valid unless the polls are all by the same organization without any change in methodology. In fact, the table could use another column for the polling organization if you're so inclined. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

How about now? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to remove "Public Policy Polling" from the polls to establish an upwards trend in favour of Gay marriage support amongst the other results (all by University of Texas). Take a look at the table and then give me your opinions. Note the poll organizers. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the arrows are still unhelpful. As for dropping a poll that doesn't match the others, that's totes unacceptable. We have no reason to prefer one polling organization to any other. Let the facts speak for themselves. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not my sole motivation. Take a look at the table. The University of Texas does a poll every year and we have 4. We also have a duplicate for one year from a polling organization for the same year. You were the one that talked about a direct comparison weren't you? Well if we remove that Poll we have adirect and comparable comparison between 4 years. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 21:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Direct comparison is the ability to look without the distraction of an editor pointing. Data that doesn't fit what you believe to be a pattern is not a distraction, it's just more information for the reader. Trust the reader.

The labels indicating the polling organization would be better at the left. See Maine_Question_1,_2012#Polling for a good example. You could also list the polls from one org as a group and then the poll(s) from the other org. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I see, i misinterpreted your last point on this. Never-the-less do you see anything interesting about the results? The University poll consistently gets higher support for marriage and uncertainty, whereas the Public polling organization gets higher who are hardline homophobic wanting no recognition and being sure about it. That's exactly as always publicised when they claim the younger generations are more in support. Also i find the arrows beneficial and uninvasive than just the numbers. These show changes faster than reading the numbers. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Further polls

I haven't figured out if these can be used yet but i'll list them here. Poll 1 ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think those polls are specific to Texas, but I was thinking that a chart similar to the first one might be a good way to graphically show how public opinion (Opinion polls section) has shifted over the past several years. - MrX 13:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't reproduce a search for the one from Gallup so i have removed it, but the other is specifically for Texas. I'll re-search for the Gallup one. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right, the Gallup one isn't Texas, it just mentions Texas and Rick Perry. I found some more though and included them. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

All much better now. I just changed the heading from "Support for legal recognition of Gay and Lesbian relationships" to "Support for legal recognition of same-sex relationships". I think that's the term we used consistently, and we certainly don't want to pick just two words out of the title for upper case.

But I wouldn't hide it. After all that work? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to add a couple more polls since most of these include multiple same-sex questions, including morality of it, agreement for legal rights and spousal rights etc. And i don't like forcing big tables on casual observers. They're free to unhide and view what they want this way. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Opinion polls section

This section, as is, isn't terrible helpful. The information could be summed up in two sentences comparing the earliest comparable ones to the latest comparable ones demonstrating none or some differences. I think a chart is needless and even distracting. Insomesia (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That eliminates the point of multiple polls and we'd lose all of the historical information in the middle. I have 8 references i'm trawling through to create another poll for that section and so i don't agree at all. Especially because each polling organization is also polling differently in different places - as is clear from the consistently higher university results for S-S-Marriage and unions. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The level of detail will help some readers more than others. Any summary will blur the detail that someone else may want. I'd say it's fine as is. 68.162.221.100 (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Polls can't just be compressed into prose, since the point of them is showing differing opinions over different years from different polling organizations and hence different demographics. Prose will cover almost nothing from that and draw conclusions the reader should draw themselves. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

marriage itself illegal?

"effectively though unintentionally making marriage itself (being identical to marriage) illegal in the state of Texas. In practice, marriage between heterosexual couples is still legally recognised."

This claim is not only in need of a citation, it's nonsense. It ignores the first half of the amendment, which defines marriage. The state cannot create a second status identical or equivalent to the one that has just been defined in the first half of the amendment. The text above represents a willful misreading.

Note as well that the state has not "created" a status identical to marriage. Marriage exists per the constitution in the preceding clause, not by any state action, but by popular vore to amend the constitution. If the legislature tried create marriage it might be in trouble, but it hasn't and won't. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Montana

Montana no longer criminalizes sodomy per:

• http://sdgln.com/news/2013/04/19/montana-eliminates-obsolete-sodomy-law
• http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/04/montana-governor-signs-bill-to-strike-down-obsolete-sodomy-law/
• http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/montana-lawmakers-repeal-states-unconstitutional-sodomy-law (anticipatory)
• http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/04/17/sodomy-laws-remain-on-books-in-17-states-including-md-and-va/ (anticipatory)
  • Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Not yet. What people don't realize is that because Senate Bill 107 (the bill amending the definition of "deviate sexual relations") has no specified effective date, it will take effect October 1, 2013. AfricaTanz (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Fundamental problems with text in the Opinion polls section of this article

The insurmountable problem with the text (and with the sources cited for that text) is that polling margins of error are not discussed. This proves a fundamental lack of understanding about statistics generally and sampling more specifically. Without knowing what the margins of error were, there is no reliable way to say that such-and-such opinion in such-and-such age group is changing faster than in any other age group. Therefore, the text needs to be deleted in its entirety. AfricaTanz (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Be Bold. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Two of us already have, only to be reverted. Check out the history of this article. AfricaTanz (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD, start a discussion with the reverter or attempt a consensus with more people. It sounds like what you are attempting can only be a good thing, but without knowing the reason for the revert i can't comment more than that. Good luck ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is Houston listed as having a gay rights ordinance?

Houston does not have any employment or housing non-discrimination ordinance for gays and lesbians. It never has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.40.53 (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

adoption

Citation for the claim that 2nd-parent adoption is legal? — kwami (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

This is biased

"Jenova" or whatever his name is seems to think that it is ok to stalk all the pages about states that just have normal religious laws and thinks that since hes gay (lol) that he can stay on here and try to get everyone to change it and make it forced against religious people. I think you get it.71.35.61.117 (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you make a specific point about the entry's text? What do you find problematic? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Nullified by religious freedom bill

These additions are unsourced. I am not a legal expert, but I think it may be drawing a long bow to say in this black-and-white way that all these prior protections, including federal law, are simply "nullified" by the 2019 Texan bill. Such far-reaching claims require extraordinary evidence. In addition, when you removed the changes I made, you deleted multiple citation improvements, such as returning full-param citations back into bare url formats.

@Lmharding, the source you have cited and repeated separately multiple times (which I had rolled into one in proper CS1 format) is silent on "nullifying" all the previous legal protections. It does indeed express serious concerns on the erosion of LGBTQI rights, but not more. It says:

The original version of Hughes' proposal prevented government retaliation against an individual based on that “person’s belief or action in accordance with the person’s sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction, including beliefs or convictions regarding marriage” — language advocates feared would embolden businesses to discriminate against gay Texans. The revision, which Hughes made on the floor, outlaws government retaliation against someone based on his or her association with or support of a religious organization. That revised language is largely duplicative of existing protections for freedom of religion and freedom of association. [Emphasis added]

If sources exist that directly identify, for example, that protection for "sexual orientation and gender identity federally since 2020" has been "nullified by the 2019 Religious Freedom Act", then please cite it in the article. (BTW, your cited article does not even say the bill has been passed into law, merely that it passed the senate. If citing at all, then the article should have a source that actually says that.) AukusRuckus (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello there are now sources with mentions of the religious freedoms blocking out possible enforcement of protections although more can searched for and as it seems to be a more popular perception that the "far reached" view you claim. Also, with consideration to this bill and what it allows, it seems like a viable and reasonable conclusion this law can be brought up and used as a defense to protect those with values that do not coincide with the LGBT movement. The law does state it protects those with a conscience whose religious freedom has been burdened. That's a pretty broad exemption with very few restrictions. As for the formatting reverts, they were removed and I added back in. Also, you did not seem to read the source for the IVF, the source clearly says the law bans IVF for lesbians which no plans for this law to be removed in the future. Thanks. Lmharding (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Religious protection bill

Thank you, @Lmharding I really appreciate you taking the time to find extra sources, and for replying to me with civility. However:

• Where you say: "this bill and what it allows, it seems like a viable and reasonable conclusion this law can be brought up and used as a defense to protect those with values that do not coincide with the LGBT movement. The law does state it protects those with a conscience whose religious freedom has been burdened. [emphasis added]"

that is not our judgement call to make, here on WP. I do not disagree that it is likely to be detrimental to aims of the LGBT movement, but that is not what your claims are saying, and it's not what the sources are saying. We need a reliable source with a published opinion that states that these pre-existing protections are "nullified" by the 2019 law. By "far reaching", I mean that "nullify" implies that previous protections will have no effect now. No-one is saying that. And it would be strange if they could "nullify" federal law altogether. I am not a lawyer, though, and that's just my opinion ... but citing one (or articles that canvass them) should be the only way we can say this in WP's voice. I am going to put back the IVF change, and change the bare URL citations to the correct format (which did not get changed back). However, for the other things, I will wait to see if anyone else wants to weigh in. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What was wrong with the version where I edited to say: "In some cities and counties; may be affected by the 2019 Texas Religious Freedom Act and "Both sexual orientation and gender identity federally since 2020; uncertainty over effect of the Texas 2019 Religious Freedom Act"?That seemed to be meet the case as it stands? (And I based it on my reading of the source you @Lmharding supplied, too. I left two of your identical claims in the table and tagged them, "In some cities and counties, but nullified" by the 2019 Religious Freedom Act" (along with a detailed edit summary) but you did not respond to overtures to collaborate. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah the religious freedom bill was basically a non-starter symbolic bill. It did not affect any laws or statutes in Texas under U.S. Federal law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.192.196.154 (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Still waiting: "nullified" claim

Right now it could be used to block rights against protections in the few areas tha exist. There are no sources you can provide saying this isn't being done, I vote to leave the tags as controversial as you might call them now and see what other community consensus is. Two users is not enough to consensus to remove it. It is already heavily noted that this have your scrutiny and this will have to suffice for now.Lmharding (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: Please make an argument that addresses what I said. No "vote" needed, as we are required to follow WP policy.

"Right now it could be used to block rights against protections in the few areas tha exist". So you say, but reliable sources do not, or not in the article, anyway.

"There are no sources you can provide saying this isn't being done." I am not required to do that, as you are the editor wishing to insert the claim. But just as start, how about the one I provided above (with a quote). AukusRuckus (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

"I'll discuss this tomorrow. Too tired of your nonsensical stalling tonight and it's too late in the night for me to put together a response/ Lmharding (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)"

@Lmharding: Why the need to be so rude?

I waited patiently. You ignored. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

"I'll discuss this tomorrow. Too tired of your nonsensical stalling tonight and it's too late in the night for me to put together a response/ Lmharding (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)"

Will wait for as many "tomorrows" as needed, provided there are no more reversions of legitimate edits in the interim. If I edit properly, using sources and explain in edit summaries, I do not expect to be threatened again, as you threatened before. I could also do without your insulting remarks; if you use them again in discussion here, I will know assuredly that you are not attempting to discuss in good faith. As I know I am editing in line with WP policy, and you have made no attempt to actually build consensus here, I do not think other editors will take as dim a view of me as they will you, when I just continue my constructive editing, and decline to continue to "discuss"" with you. It is clear who is making the effort to collaborate. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

A probably ill-advised attempt to catalogue the saga, seeking endpoint

Lmharding: I am still waiting for you to address the concerns I have raised. As I asked before on your page on 26 June, what would be a reasonable amount of time for me to wait, with the erroneous and wholly unsupported claim: nullified][dubious – discuss] by the 2019 Religious Freedom Act protecting "person with respect to whom a substantial burden on 5-14 the person's free exercise of religion has been cured"[disputed (for: Unsourced & quote not applicable) – discuss] still in the article, would you say? There's a long effort on my part to reach some consensus. You responded on 14 March by reverting my article edits again, saying on the talk page: "Also, with consideration to this bill and what it allows, it seems like a viable and reasonable conclusion this law can be brought up and used as a defense to protect those with values that do not coincide with the LGBT movement. The law does state it protects those with a conscience whose religious freedom has been burdened. That's a pretty broad exemption with very few restrictions." I pointed out later the same day, that would be WP:OR. You did not respond on the talk page again (but made further unsourced changes to article) and reverted several other editors who modified this part, preventing any attempt to correct article (not complete list of your reversions to other editors making corrections): [1] [2] [3] [4] edited out by me, with extensive ES, 15 April 2022 Your removal of my edits on 17 April with the ES saying bullying is not the way, talk in the talk page to change this. You said to take it to the talk page, even though you never responded to my post of 14 March: "Where you say: "this bill and what it allows, it seems like a viable and reasonable conclusion this law can be brought up and used as a defense to protect those with values that do not coincide with the LGBT movement. The law does state it protects those with a conscience whose religious freedom has been burdened. [my emphasis]" that is not our judgement call to make, here on WP. I do not disagree that it is likely to be detrimental to aims of the LGBT movement, but that is not what your claims are saying, and it's not what the sources are saying. We need a reliable source with a published opinion that states that these pre-existing protections are "nullified" by the 2019 law. By "far reaching", I mean that "nullify" implies that previous protections will have no effect now. No-one is saying that. And it would be strange if they could "nullify" federal law altogether. I am not a lawyer, though, and that's just my opinion ... but citing one (or articles that canvass them) should be the only way we can say this in WP's voice...but you did not respond to overtures to collaborate. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)" You said I was "bullying", even though I waited a long time for you to answer, and you are the one that insults editors and ignores discussion or consensus. When I asked you to withdraw your rudeness, you refused: it was the way you felt, and you would not go back on it. Even though I asked you to reply here on the talk page of the article where you cast the aspersion, you decided to do so on the Sri Lanka page for some reason. Then, you told me not to "harass" you when I asked for an explanation. I said on the talk page on 15 June 2022: Misunderstood use of an irrelevant quote from the Religious Protection Bill SB 1978 about: any "person with respect to whom a substantial burden on the person's free exercise of religion has been cured" (which continues: "...by a remedy implemented under this section may not bring an action under Section 110.005"). This provision is to disallow legal proceedings by persons who have already had their problem resolved under the bill. It says nothing about "Nullifying" other protections, city, state or federal. (Discussion opened above 15 March #Nullified by religious freedom bill and maintenance tags on the page.) You continue to ignore these and yet block anyone's attempt to change it. — talk page, 15 June 2022 Again, you did not respond. When I made the edits to correct the article, you not only reverted them, you made a claim on the talk page saying: I did respond. Look up". This was on 23 June 2022, 2 hours after you reverted my edits. You must have known this was a misleading claim. Especially as you tried to get the article protected, saying " Request for this page to be protected temporarily at least since a lot of edit warring keeps happening even while I'm trying to discuss it in the talk page." Lmharding (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC) To recap, I posted on 18 March and 15 June, before I made the edits to article on 22 June. You reverted my edit on 23 June, and then claimed you were "discussing" the edit: "(the tags cover this discretion discussion is still pending talk in the talk page I'm here to discuss it)", so I should not have made the change. After this reversion, you posted on the talk page: "Right now it could be used to block rights against protections in the few areas tha exist. There are no sources you can provide saying this isn't being done, I vote to leave the tags as controversial as you might call them now and see what other community consensus is. Two users is not enough to consensus to remove it. It is already heavily noted that this have your scrutiny and this will have to suffice for now.Lmharding" — talk page, 23 June 2022 Your latest uncivil and dismissive post, made on 26 June on the talk page: "I'll discuss this tomorrow. Too tired of your nonsensical stalling tonight and it's too late in the night for me to put together a response/ Lmharding (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)" Who is "stalling"? You continue to ignore my posts, yet block anyone's attempt to change it. So, again, I ask you: How long should I wait? Until hell freezes over? AukusRuckus (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The quote from SB1978 Bill

@Lmharding: Please indent your posts.

"this precedent legally can block the protections if used as reasoning" No it cannot. It does not say that. Anyway, we are not supposed to use "reasoning" as WP editors. We need a (preferably secondary) source that says what we are claiming.

It is irrelevant because it is about stopping people from suing the state, not about protecting their religious freedom. That is covered in a different clause, elsewhere in the bill.

1. "any person with respect to whom a substantial burden on the person's free exercise of religion"... = The person who claims or may claim a government agency had infringed their religious freedom
2. "has been cured"... = has had satisfaction, so that their religious freedom is restored, unburdened
3. "by a remedy implemented under this section"... = it has been fixed by this section of the bill
4. "may not bring an action under Section 110.005" = is no longer allowed under the bill to take any legal action for restitution, (the "remedies" provided in S110.005)

That is the full quote you have used. It means just what it says, and nothing else. Nothing about "services and goods, housing, and education".

If, as you say "Anyone who has their freedom of religion burdened could be able to avoid providing services and goods, housing, and education." then please provide a quote that says that from a secondary source. The bill does say it protects people having their religious freedom burdened by government, but it is in another part of the bill, not in your quote. It does not say it nullifies city, county, or federal law - because that is impossible.

The quote is not misquoted, just as I did not say. It is misinterpreted, which is why WP:RS prefers non-primary sources for matters like this. As I have said numerous times, the quote you selected is about banning persons from taking legal action under the act. It is not a quote "proving" what you think it does. You need to select a different quote from the Bill. And a primary source is not enough for your claim anyway, but I have been trying to give you leeway. (Although doing so is not good for the article.)

If you do not understand what I am saying, then please ask for clarification.

If I behaved the way you do, I could simply remove this, as a primary source is not good enough by WP:PRIMARY. I try to be respectful and collegial, though. Updated/refactor AukusRuckus (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Will change the quote

So you admit that later in the bill religious freedom is permitted to refuse service, housing, accommodations, goods, and other services to LGBT. In that case, I vote to leave it for now and later today I'll change the quote. Then you can leave it as correct. Lmharding (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

1. Please indent your posts. Please indent your posts. Please indent your posts, @Lmharding
2. "Votes", no; "following WP policy", yes;
3. "So you admit that later in the bill religious freedom is permitted to refuse service, housing, accommodations, goods, and other services to LGBT." Which reply were you reading? Please provide a quote here that shows such a provision. As I have said all along, elsewhere in the bill is where they talk about protecting religious freedom. That is what I have tried to get you to understand this whole time. (Still, in the whole bill, none of those things—housing, services, goods—are mentioned.) In any case, the claim is going to require a SECONDARY source. The bill is a PRIMARY source.
4. If you do not show even basic courtesy by indenting your posts, I cannot keep discussing with you. I have a serious vision disability, and your lack of indents and the chaotic way you reply makes it almost impossible for me to follow. AukusRuckus (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll discuss this tomorrow. Too tired of your nonsensical stalling tonight and it's too late in the night for me to put together a response/ Lmharding (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I vote for an extra source needed tag to be added then to remind me to find it and then leave it for now. 11:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

No. That won't do. There are already several sources cited in the article saying the exact opposite of your claim. Please produce a source, or the "nullify" statements will be removed. You have reverted other editors, as well as me, who have removed this unjustified and unsourced claim. It simply does not hold up, because it's not true. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Sources for adoption law

Firstly, LMHArding, thanks for placing a source that confirms the Religious Freedom bill passed, instead of the ones predicting it would pass.

I would like to keep the discussion civil and easy to follow, so will just address the disputed sources for Adoption law for the moment, and move on to the other issues at a later time, when I have the energy.

Texas Law Help is a joint network of Legal Aid law firms in Texas. It has significant expertise in Texas law; it is administered by the Texas Legal Services Center, an expert non-profit that joins major litigation in federal cases where there is potential to help impoverished Texans. Bodies such as Texas Court Appointed Special Advocates and Texas Access to Justice Foundation use and distribute their opinions. They are sponsored by organisations like the State Bar of Texas and Texas Bar Foundation to produce the legal education and advice material. It cannot be characterised as a "blog". Even if SPM, it qualifies as a RS, as it is EXPERT. Of course, I would be happy to check with the noticeboard if you are not satisfied with this explanation.

The other source [edited to add: (You deleted two supporting sources but only commented on your objections for one. It was clearly marked here, as a cited ref at the end of next sentence)] you object to, I have no idea where to start...Could you expand on why you consider it unreliable, please? <-----HERE [underlined addition AukusRuckus (talk)] AukusRuckus (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

A self expert is not the same as one rant by a self made "organization" leader. You'll have to be more specific which other source you're referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmharding (talk • contribs) 23:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: Please indent your posts.

That one source that you object to fits with the policy under WP:RS as expert in the field, and as cited by others.

I suggested a solution above in case you did not agree with my explanation. Please take that option up, if wanted.

The other source was the other one you removed at the same time, shouting: "TEXASLAWHELP IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE, BLOG ALSO REMOVED EDITORIALIZING". It was also cited above where I asked my question, for your convenience. You removed that second new source also, in that same edit, but made no comment on it. As you did remove it and the statement it was sourcing, I naturally assumed you had checked the source out and had a valid reason to disregard it, before reverting the edit. Please look back at that specific revert (linked above) of yours and you will see (to remind yourself). AukusRuckus (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Adoption law redux

@Lmharding: I note that you have reverted and re-reverted edits by @Martinevans123, saying "your edit is unsourced provide a source allowing adoption". As there are already sources for this on the page, this is unwarranted. [You need to self-revert immediately. Already undone.]

It is especially poor form that you did this, as I have been patiently waiting for you to respond to the discussion #Sources for adoption law, started above 5 June, following your shouting in the edit summary and incorrectly saying TEXASLAWHELP IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE, BLOG ALSO REMOVED EDITORIALIZING. Your advice in edit summaries is often to "take it to the talk page", but I am still waiting to hear from you on several problems I have raised. In addition to the adoption sources, also awaiting responses shown below (#Outstanding matters: AukusRuckus (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

References

IVF

Why do you keep deleting the "yes and no" for "Lesbian access to IVF" in the summary table? The second time around, there was even a detailed explanation with a cite. Same for the Birth certificates...if there is something unacceptable about the sourcing, or what it says, please say so, rather than just deleting. My hope is to make the article as accurate as possible.

I will be requesting comment from other editors. In the meantime, I would be grateful if you would please restore my citation amendments. Thank you. AukusRuckus (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, you did not seem to read the source for the IVF, the source clearly says the law bans IVF for lesbians which no plans for this law to be removed in the future. Thanks. Lmharding (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding, I do not understand what you are saying:

• Your view re access to IVF above: "the source clearly says the law bans IVF for lesbians which no plans for this law to be removed in the future."

That is not what the source says. It says

Title 8 of the Insurance Code requires health plans that include pregnancy-related services to also cover in vitro fertilization. However, the requirement doesn’t extend to lesbian couples. The law states that insurance plans aren’t required to cover in vitro fertilization unless 'the fertilization or attempted fertilization of the patient’s oocytes is made only with the sperm of the patient’s spouse,' and 'the patient and the patient’s spouse have a history of infertility of at least five continuous years' duration.' ... No bill has ever been filed to repeal the Texas law.[emphasis added]

That does not say lesbians are "banned" from access to IVF. It is undeniably biased and unfair, but banning it would mean "illegal". It is not. Did you mean some other source? Maybe I'm reading the wrong one, but that's the one I used for the claim. Both here, and in your "that's a pretty broad exemption with very few restrictions." judgement above, it might be a little bit WP:SYNTH and even WP:OR ... maybe? Could that be a possibility? (And we should most definitely should not be going by what "seems to be a more popular perception"! I mean: at all, ever. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Accusation in edit summary

@Lmharding My apologies if I have not pinged you correctly in my past comments on the talk page. That is the only explanation I can think of for your otherwise baseless comment. My understanding is that:

1. I have been engaged in talk page discussions in good faith, both here and at Talk:LGBT rights in Sri Lanka § Need for sourcing. In fact I initiated the discussions. It's hard to have a discussion all by oneself
2. Editors are not generally supposed to removed maintenance tags per WP:WNTRMT as you did

I request that you voluntarily withdraw your comment.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I will also place this message on your user talk page, but I would prefer that if you respond, you do so here, if possible. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It got taken back.Lmharding (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding :When exactly? AukusRuckus (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Further comments re aspersions

You could have just simply manually removed the tags @Lmharding Did you really? Just to remove 3 x {{not in source}} tags and restore old wording (which I originated) in the infobox, you undid all that formatting work? When you could have just manually removed? How is that fair? Why would you even ... You did not even restore page to what it was before my edit but put back hidden comments on things that have already been resolved. Why? Please restore the formatting, which was to make it easier to read, improving accessibility. I cannot read that university section the way it was, and you have now returned it to, and neither could many other people who have visual problems. AukusRuckus (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC) Some formatting ha been reinstated, but that tag is overkill, we need this to be as clear as possible as you stated so a bunch of contradicting and unhelpful tags will not be easily to understand. As for the statement about the feeling that you want to bully your way into having edits done your way, I stand by it as you seem to refuse any compromise even when I try to discuss why I feel like we need to have edits done and before I can have a few moments after I revert your unproductive edits so we can discuss it you revert it. It does not seem like you are not trying to WP:COMPROMISE. Now stop harassing me to answer you. Thank you. Lmharding (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC) I have made compromise after compromise - to the detriment of the article. I came here to advise the reasons for the edit I just made now, only to find you had made the above reply, and I cannot go into what I was going to say now. I do not understand you, @Lmharding I am not sure what your intent here is, but if it to shut me up, you have been quite successful, until now, as I have been too worried to continue editing here. But what you have said above is just too much; I can't just let you say such awful and completely baseless things... can you really think your characterisation is in any way true? I can be wrong in my edits, but "unproductive"? I challenge you to supply chapter and verse on what has been unproductive, (as opposed to you "WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT"). It is only your opinion that they are unhelpful and contradictory. Tags are actually the way WP improves its articles. As for this: ...even when I try to discuss why I feel like we need to have edits done and before I can have a few moments after I revert your unproductive edits so we can discuss it you revert it. I'm having trouble following it, but it seems you might be saying you have tried to discuss edits? Well, the page history (article and talk page) just does not bear that out. You do not discuss. You dismiss other views. (Not just mine). You revert constantly. (Not just my edits.) The only way I ever got you to respond to me at all on the talk page was going ahead and making the edit. Otherwise you did not respond. Ever. There was absolutely no bullying going on. I have not edited in any way outside WP policy. I do not accuse others of conduct on such paltry grounds. Asking for an explanation is not harassing. (Two requests on your talk page, both politely phrased.) In what way does that constitute harassment? That I keep arguing, using facts from sources and WP policy - is that what you see as bullying and harassment? That I was concerned at being unfairly accused of something? (There is no way that pointing out that your sources just simply do not support your claims is in any way "bullying", and I resent your accusation. Please consider withdrawing it, as it is just untrue. Can you really, examining your conscience in all honesty, truly think that is what I did. Really?) You are putting misleading information into the article. The tag is not overkill, as the cites you provided simply do not state what you contend they do. (I used tags to avoid being overbearing - it was my way of inviting you and other editors to look at what the sources actually said—or provide better ones. I thought it a gentler way than just removing your incorrect edits.) Of course, you are completely within your rights to disagree, but so am I, and it is against WP policy to remove tags that have not been dealt with. I have not accused you of anything untoward, as you have done to me, although I believe there is plenty of evidence to warrant it. But I'm here to build good articles − nothing else. AukusRuckus (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Houston nondiscrimination protections

@Lmharding Thanks for adding the source regarding Houston. As it says, that wide-ranging ordinance had been repealed in 2015, but your change to the table is not correct. (Changed from: "City employment and city contractors" which is still current; to: "No protections".)

Unfortunately, that source doesn't say there're no protections as you have now placed into the article. It says the very high level one for residents and visitors was repealed. Sources show Houston has protections for City employees, just as the table already said before your change. I will leave you to put it back the way it was; or I can do so in a few days. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

My undo got reverted talk to the codetalkr guy who undid my edit.Lmharding (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Outstanding matters

Drawn out discussion engendered by a now blocked sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lmharding: No responses about the following unresolved: Misunderstood use of an irrelevant quote from the Religious Protection Bill SB 1978 about: any "person with respect to whom a substantial burden on the person's free exercise of religion has been cured" (which continues: "...by a remedy implemented under this section may not bring an action under Section 110.005"). This provision is to disallow legal proceedings by persons who have already had their problem resolved under the bill. It says nothing about "Nullifying" other protections, city, state or federal. (Discussion opened above 15 March #Nullified by religious freedom bill and maintenance tags on the page.) You continue to ignore these and yet block anyone's attempt to change it. Requests for sources for other unsourced material you placed Please remove the extra information from the infobox. It belongs in the summary table. (And provide a source for it there, as requested by maintenance tag: otherwise it is liable to removal.) I have now come to believe that you are using instructions in your ES to "take it to the talkpage" as a way of steamrolling over others to get your own version in. You seldom appear on the talk page to discuss, and when you do, others are often subjected to insults and accusations, if they stand up to you. (I will not be tolerating any further unfounded allegations.) These matters are becoming stale. I await your response. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC) When did you respond? I did respond. Look up. Not irrelevant this precedent legally can block the protections if used as reasoning. There was no misquoting it. You just don't like that I was correct about this source being able to remove protections. Anyone who has their freedom of religion burdened could be able to avoid providing services and goods, housing, and education. That is what the quote reads. You are the one who misunderstood and misread it. I'm not steam rolling anyone take that back, you're going against WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Lmharding (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC) @Lmharding: Yes, you did respond, after I made the change, and you reverted yet again, against policy. Statements like this are why it has become harder to WP:AGF with you. @Lmharding: Please indent your posts. Update AukusRuckus (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Comprehension and collaborating Part of following discussion titled, "Not trying to gain consensus" moved to User talk:AukusRuckus  – More appropriate venue @Lmharding: You see, your response above is, in part, what worries me. It has taken me many talk posts, numerous tags, and several ES, to try to get you to understand that you were using the wrong part of the bill. You ignored all my messages and all tags until your edits were removed. Then after all that you finally, at long last, say: "later today I'll change the quote." Although a different quote will be more relevant, it will not prove: "this precedent legally can block the protections if used as reasoning" It is still clear from your above response that you do not understand all of what I am saying, though. I am not talking here about agreeing with me; I mean that you do not seem to recognise what points were even being made. And then you do not discuss anything until someone changes your edits. That is not a way of editing that makes improving articles or reaching consensus easy. It's the opposite. Also, when and where did you withdraw your "bullying" accusation? AukusRuckus (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC) @Lmharding: Again: When and where did you withdraw your "bullying" accusation? AukusRuckus (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC) I have expended my very last ounce of patience on your edits and behaviour; you are the last person to lecture on AGF: of all the nerve. You have more front than Bourke Street. AukusRuckus (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Update AukusRuckus (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC) I disagree, I'm just trying to put in info you want to shutter out of censorship I'm here to improve the article.Lmharding (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC) I wish to build a better article. Why would I wish to censor anything? Your source does not say that the SB1978 "nullifies" other antidiscrimination law, so the statement is inaccurate. As you refuse to indent your posts, and I have practically begged you to do so on many occasions before, even explaining the great difficulty this causes me due to a visual disability, I will no longer be able to read or acknowledge any discussion posts you make that do not comply with Talk guidelines: Non-compliance. I will be following the advice there: After you have been alerted to specific aspects of these guidelines (such as indentation, sectioning, and signatures), you are expected to make a reasonable effort to follow those conventions. Other editors may simply ignore additional posts that flagrantly disregard the talk page formatting standards. Also: When and where did you withdraw your "bullying" aspersion, as you claimed above? You said "look up; I did respond", but you not did do so until 23:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC), which was some time after my article changes and your reversion of my changes. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Broken notelist

@Lmharding: You have broken the efn note template in the summary table. It is emitting an error. (See bottom of page.) Please fix it. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Got it. Lmharding (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Labelling of others

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lmharding, that was an unkind and provocative thing to do. In particular, labelling my response that you collapsed as "Hostile discussion" was uncalled for: It was one of the more temperate, article-focused of all my points on this page! This action seemed designed to taunt me with the fact that you do not responsd to my overtures to discuss, and seemingly have no need to: you reply by making disputed edits. When the page fills up with my increasingly tetchy responses, does it feel good to you? It feels lousy to me.

Be that as it may, your attempts to tidy, or provoke, or end the discussion, or cover the fact that you do not seem to discuss past your first response (or whatever this was), is not really in line with WP:TPO or WP:COLLAPSENO. Your choice of heading borders on WP:UNCIVIL. Please do not do this again. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

"Fully conduct-focused" or not –which conclusion I now have serious doubts about– this long-removed post is being restored. Although its removal was kindly meant, and indeed, almost certainly helpful at the time, I have become convinced it needs to be here. (Well, it'll be archived soon, I s'pose.)

At this point, the 10-year run of the particular LTA-ing sock is in, what will probably prove to be, only a temporary, lull. The last unfettered disruptive spell lasted from 2019–October 2022, with another reemergence just days ago. (And blatantly sweeping away others' inconvenient TP posts was once again prominent behaviour.) [With my apologies to the wonderful Firefangledfeathers]. So disruptive to these pages and, I believe, went on so long in part because there was no record kept in a relevant, accessible place, associated with the pages where the damage was being done (damage that was kept in-article all that time!)

These LGBT pages seem to be an unfortunate combination of low numbers of active editors, and very likely to attract POV-pushers. I am voting with my keyboard for the 'heads-up approach'. The history of relevant behaviour, with examples, needs to be visible, or easily tracked down. The above is such an example – a salient one. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rewording of the lead

This sentence in the lead is problematic “Even though federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, there is no statewide law banning anti-LGBT discrimination.” While I understand what the writer wants to convey, this is worded in a way that contradicts a general understanding of the US legal system. If a federal law prohibits something, a state law is not needed, ever. If federal law prohibits individuals from owning nuclear reactors, Texas does not need to pass a law that prohibits individuals from owning nuclear reactors. If federal law bans travel to North Korea, Texas does not need to pass a law banning travel to North Korea. You can apply this to innumerable federal laws with no state laws. I think the theme or intent is factual, but I would word it better maybe “Texas had no statewide law banning anti-LGBTQ discrimination prior to the federal prohibition on employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.” The -even though- start of the sentence is especially poor. Likely to be controversial, so bringing here first. Thanks! 2600:1700:1111:5940:DD1E:2A21:9AE4:36FA (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. The lack of protection until federal stuff happened is interesting history, best left to the body of the article I think; if we don't remove it, I prefer your phrasing. If we remove this from the lead, I think we should also remove it from the infobox. I'd prefer to hold off on the change for a little while to see if others chime in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That is much better phrasing: It makes it clear that federal law provides protection in the state, while still communicating that Texas itself had no state protections. If others judge that it's better to be moved into the body, I would go along with that, too. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably has been long enough to be WP:BOLD. 2600:1700:1111:5940:356F:1AE:3BD9:73F2 (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring, disputes, and etiquette

As an outside observer who has just stumbled across this whole thing, it is evident there is a large dispute between two editors over the content of this page. Based off the above talk, it appears that dispute has been going on for months. The two editors are clearly not gaining consensus in a two part debate, and in fact, do appear to be largely just arguing personally at this point, with accusations of bullying, obvious attempts to bludgeon with sheer comment volume, lack of civility, and some of this is clearly bordering or infringing upon personal attack territory. Looking at each of the involved editor's talk pages, I see more of the same. I am legitimately considering blanking most of this talk page, citing the policy on removal of personal attacks. I urge both editors involved, who are clearly not gaining consensus between the two of them, to SEEK A THIRD OPINION. Open a request for comment about some of the substantive disagreements between the two of you in terms of article text and sourcing. I don't think the above dispute reaches the level of requiring an ANI, but if you don't seek a third (and beyond) opinion, it will eventually get to that point. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @FrederalBacon: Thanks for your input. I can see the "discussion" is getting nowhere; it is not, though, as far as I know, disrupting the project (only my peace of mind). I have added an (overly long, sorry) comment regarding your post on my talk page. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I have collapsed the long post and (own) unneeded content, that belonged elswhere. Hope that helps? AukusRuckus (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Transgender sports ban changes

@Lmharding, I am wondering if you could please provide a reason for reverting the edit by Aliengeometries? It seemed a useful rephrasing of text that had contained a confusing sentence and it updated the citation which contained a dead link. A repetitive par was removed. The edit was well-explained in the ES.

There may be a good reason for having done so, but without an edit summary, it is hard to see what that might be. I find following WP:EXPLAIN policy helpful to other editors. It's a practice especially recommended when reverting: WP:REVEXP. I would like to reinstate the edit, if you do not have any strong objections. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I would also like an explanation from @Lmharding for this. Specifically, I want to draw attention to the exact phrase that was reverted. "Transsexual individuals who undertake gender-confirming medical treatment will likely have the masculinizing effect of androgenic hormones suppressed" is about as accurate as "a fair coin will likely come up heads," since trans people assigned male and assigned female seek treatment in approximately equal numbers. If it's not true for half the population, then to say that it's likely for the population as a whole is misleading if not counterfactual. This is not about a political position or some kind of gotcha, it's about giving a well-informed view of the trans population. Texan trans men athletes such as Mack Beggs receive harassment for their perceived testosterone levels as well.

This is why I specified feminizing hormone therapy and anti-androgen medication, rather than "transsexual... medical treatment." This is why I cited sources that mention specific factors of transfeminine physiology such as decreased muscle mass. The dead source does not convey this information. (Saying that testosterone increases muscle mass is not equivalent to saying anti-androgens decrease muscle mass.)

If you still believe it was right to revert my edit, please explain to me what was wrong with what I said. Aliengeometries (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I will reinstate the link, the source does not need editorializing and one perspective editing from you "thinking one quote is incorrect". Stick to source quotes please. Lmharding (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I have indented your above post, @Lmharding. I ask you to kindly, please, always try to do so. Is there some problem you have with it? I really would try to assist you, if I could. The unindented posts make understanding talk pages really hard when using devices like screen readers or similar. As I mentioned before, I have a worsening low-vision condition. Bluntly, I am going blind, nearly so now. This embarrasses and humiliates me having to disclose this publicly, to try to get such small favour. And it is such a small thing. Please follow the etiquette.

On the substantive editing matter, could you please write on this page, just what you believe is "editorialising"? As @Aliengeometries has re-explained, their edit has removed the accidental implication that any and all gender-confirming treatments tend to be feminising. That is absolutely not the case, and not even what the original text intended to say. But it's what the old version said. Aliengeometries has cleared away that strange ambiguity.

Can you please specifically quote here the phrasing that you see as the problem? With thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I support Aliengeometries' version over Lmharding's. Unless I'm missing something, the status quo version includes an obvious error and is sourced to a hormone.org page that does not verify the content at all. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Not seeing engagement on this question from the one dissenting voice, so I'm editing back to Aliengeometries' version. Lmharding, as a quick summary: we're most interested in what exactly your "editorializing" concern is. Until consensus on this shifts, please do not restore your preferred version. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I was concerned the source wasn't being directly quoted without extra personal input of the editor I reverted. I will be checking the source to check for this. Lmharding (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock.

Hey @Lmharding I've indented your post for you. It makes it hard to follow if you don't do that, and I feel the need to point out you've been asked to do this previously in this very conversation. In the source this is done with adding more colons in front.

I would appreciate an answer to this question: What is the "personal input" you would like me to corroborate? Please be specific; I am happy to provide citations or reframe if the conflict is made clear to me, but I cannot respond to a claim I don't understand and I do not understand this claim. Aliengeometries (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has been stable for a while now, but Lmharding recently reverted back to their preferred version, and I re-reverted. My thoughts on Lmharding's version:

• The sentence on transsexual individuals is not verified at all by the cited source
• The important part of the sentence on possible advantages is not verified by the cited source, and the part about healthy muscle is a copyright violation
• There's the obvious error mentioned above: it's not true that trans people undergoing gender-affirming treatment "will likely have the masculinizing effect of androgenic hormones suppressed." Not all gender-confirming treatment involves hormone therapy, and the goal of hormone therapy in trans men is nearly the opposite of what is stated
• This version unnecessarily duplicates language in a previous paragraph

We haven't heard back from Lmharding about what their specific issues are with Aliengeometries' version. "extra personal input" is not an actionable complaint without more details. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Lmharding: There is no "discussion by editing". Unbelieveable! AukusRuckus (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Summary Table

I have made additional edits to provide clarity to the summary table based on sources. It is unclear what is being communicated here “Access to transition related healthcare for people with gender dysphoria” = No. Is this claiming there is a state law prohibiting these services in Texas? I highly doubt that is factual. If I have missed the point, which happens, could someone help me with what Texas law, or lack of law, supports this table entry? Thanks! 2600:1700:1111:5940:356F:1AE:3BD9:73F2 (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

To understand what you are asking please cite the source that confuses you. Thanks.Lmharding (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Lmharding there are no sources for the material mentioned above. That is why I asked the question. It needs a source or should be deleted. If you would like to discuss any of my other edits, I am certainly open to do so with an open mind. A massive revert is not going to make any friends and I have been engaging editors here on the talk page. 2600:1700:1111:5940:6981:4A73:C9A6:4D9B (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Posts from a blocked sock, with good faith responses from others. Overall, though, moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Basically for minors with gender dysphoria afflicted people there is no mandated law that says people have to be provided with hormones and surgery in fact that is not allowed with attempts in House bill 1399 to punish doctors who attempt to give this to children and the attitude in Texas that this treatment for children is "child abuse". Lmharding (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Well then the answer is “yes” and make a note that minors are excluded from gender affirming treatments by HB1399. Texas absolutely provides gender affirming services to adults. 2600:1700:1111:5940:6981:4A73:C9A6:4D9B (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC) The Texas attorney general made a statement that he will not allow it. That might be a little clearer~ I'm prepared to cite it.Lmharding (talk) The attorney general’s statements clearly state that it is only applicable to minors. I am very aware of what HB1399 does and doesn’t say. The entry in the summary table does not apply only to minors, you do understand that? 2600:1700:1111:5940:6981:4A73:C9A6:4D9B (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Lmharding Also, you made a big revert of me taking out the Military from the summary table. Texas does not have a military and including this in the summary table has no meaning in U.S. law. The military is managed at the federal level by the U.S. Department of Defence. 2600:1700:1111:5940:6981:4A73:C9A6:4D9B (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Yes I am aware of that but that information is still listed in every state as a matter of clarity and uniformity even though the state don't get a say. Your revert does not also address why you changed a bunch of other edits where I clarified discrimination laws, added a few sources that mention the employment laws being blocked in Texas, and reverted my blood restriction laws which are always listed as yes/no since there is a time limit that LGBT must wait after their last sexual encounter before donating. Lmharding (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC) It doesn’t matter that it is listed this way in every other state. This article is about Texas and you agree that the entries in the summary table don’t apply, so can we assume that the Military entries are closed now? Blood restriction laws are also federal and not laws of the state of Texas. Can we close that argument also? I am certainly willing to update or revert any edits I have made that are incorrect about employment protections. Those protections are also federally protected and the source you link to were the findings of a FEDERAL judge, not a Texas judge. Texas was the plaintiff and I have no problem adding material that Texas was a plaintiff in a lawsuit to overturn LGBT rights. If you don’t mind I would recommend something like “Texas filed a lawsuit to overturn federal employment protections for LGBT individuals on constitutional grounds.” And link to the source in the employment discrimination section, not in the summary table. 2600:1700:1111:5940:6981:4A73:C9A6:4D9B (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC) The edits for military, blood restriction should both be taken to the LGBT WikiProject. LGBT studies if you still aren't satisfied with them. They can give a WPTHIRDOPINION but for now I think they should stay as is. The suggestion about your wording for the employment laws sounds suitable enough. I'll change the wording to that right now.23:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Feel free to take them, Texas doesn’t have a military and for comparison I looked at states in Spain and they don’t have military in their summary table, [[5]] as they also don’t have a military. Just like Texas. Also note, than none of these much better articles have both no and yes check boxes. 2600:1700:1111:5940:6981:4A73:C9A6:4D9B (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC) According to WP;BURDEN you're responsible to do this. Also, stop writing WP:NOTTHWRE aS a reply 1. that's not a clear edit description 2. breaks WP:PERSONAL ATTACKS also do not change this until they give consensus which again according to WP:BURDEN YOU are responsible to have the starting discussion and get the consensus. Wait and talk there FIRST. Thanks —Lmharding (talk • contribs) 00:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC) I said what I said, I gave valid reasons for my edits and am willing to compromise. Your only compromise is to continue pushing your own preferred version, even when you know it is not true, as in the military summary table edit. Most, if not all, the edits I have made are to clean up the mess made with your own edits without consensus so you have more burden as the person who inserted the garbage. You only need to scroll up on this page and answer previously requests for building consensus. Otherwise, people will continue to assume you have no interest in making a quality encyclopedia or you lack the skills to do so competently. 2600:1700:1111:5940:6981:4A73:C9A6:4D9B (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC) There are no messy edits on my side here, you delete employment and other citations which I reverted but as a sign of good faith and good will I changed the wording to how you preferred. Now those segments even if some summaries in the talk page seems irrelevant to you are needed as a summary overall as federal laws do apply and do affect each state as well, hence why military and blood laws should stay as they are. I am editing in good faith but it stands to see whether or not you're STONEWALLING or actually trying to collaborate. I'm trying to do my part but somethings are major issues that are a template that each state has. Those need LGBT studies discussion to revert as you would have to get consensus to remove that from all fifty state articles, which is a moderately large undertaking. Lmharding (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC) I have been working with other editors and collaborating on this page since September 27th. Your faiths are not good faith, not my preferred wording and you just reverted again after a 3RR notice. 2600:1700:1111:5940:6981:4A73:C9A6:4D9B (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC) September 287th you say? That's strange your edits only show you doing edits from October 7th onwards? Are you an alt account? Why would other edits not be in your history? Please elaborate. And again, I'm going off what the sources have been say9ing I even left out the military summary table section you were against to show I'm trying to find middle ground. But the minor additional wordings we have yet to find a version we both think fit what the goals of the article are with both of us seeing the other's edits as incorrect. Le's discuss in the talk page some more and I'll be happy to see what we can do to find a edit we both agree to. Lmharding (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC) See Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1111:5940:6981:4A73:C9A6:4D9B/64 for this IPv6 user's contributions going back to the 27th. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC) So far the differences between your last edit and my last edit are these with my edit segents put in asteriks for clarity: discrimination_protections- Federally protected for employment only *Texas rejects this ruling), some* statewide anti-discrimination laws and additional city and county protections Extract of article "Summary table" with proposed changes Equal age of consent (17) */* Still excludes same-sex relationships from Texas' "Romeo and Juliet law". This exclusion is yet to face a post-Obergefell constitutional challenge. Anti-discrimination laws in employment / Both sexual orientation and gender identity federally since 2020, but Texas filed a lawsuit to overturn federal employment protections for LGBT individuals on constitutional grounds and claimed it will not enforce any federal ruling with protections. MSMs allowed to donate blood */* (Since 2020; 3 month deferral period, federal policy)}} These are the only small edits ;eft, if we can resolve them then I'll happily leave them if yo change them to this new version after I address all concerns about why I feel they are important. —Lmharding (talk • contribs) 03:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

There are a few different disputes folded into one here. I'm numbering them for convenience:

1. "Discrimination protections" in infobox: should it say "for employment only (Texas rejects this ruling)"
2. "Discrimination in Texas" in the body: should we have a paragraph about this Williams Institute report
3. "Equal age of consent" in summary table ( discussed above)
4. "Anti-discrimination laws in employment" in summary table: "Yes" or "Yes/No" with a mention of the lawsuit
5. Blood donation in summary table: "Yes" or "Yes/No" and some debate over how to frame the deferral period

I agree with IP 2600's edits on 1 (no), 2 (no), and 4 ("Yes"). I like AukusRuckus' suggestion on 3 above that we separate out into two lines, but I'm reviewing the sources more and may change my mind. I agree with Lmharding about blood donation, with two caveats. First, we should be consistent with how other state articles are handling this, as the deferral period is federally mandated. Second, as IP2600 points out above, this "Yes/No" business is not great, and it would be nice if we settled on a "?" or "Partial" or something similar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

One last edit issue this ip takes offense to mentioning laws about military and other groups not allowing LGBT due to federal law vs Texas law but every other state has that same style and it 1. would be inconsistent and 2. is Texas law by proxy since federal law forces Texas to have those laws. Thoughts?Lmharding (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC) blocked sock

I favor restoring it and having a wider discussion about how to handle these entries. I'm likely to support removal from all the state articles. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I obviously agree with 1, 2 and 4 as I wrote the changes. I will agree with the Romeo and Juliet split out. It at least is more encyclopedic and clear. (Though it ruins the argument against all states having to use the same template.) On the last two, military and blood donations, I am generally going to reject any arguments formed along the lines of “I agree this is wrong, but it is a lot of work to fix” I fixed it right here. The path to a better encyclopedia starts by improving it one edit at a time. If we keep the military and blood donations, we can start an RFC for it and hopefully fix it in every state.

I really don’t like the yes and no boxes both checked in the summary, partial is not as good as yes or no with a footnote, but a vast improvement on both yes and no checked. Lmharding Would you agree with us having consensus on these 5 items?2600:1700:1111:5940:6981:4A73:C9A6:4D9B (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

You're either misunderstanding or characterizing my point on 5 and 6 (military), but let's agree to disagree for a moment and see if we can stick the landing on the majority of the items. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

it was a reply to LMharding, I apologize for the lack of clarity in a response to your post. I understood what you stated and “keep” from me meant keep it in the article and fix it with the community, which I believe was your point. Not a fan of boxes being checked with both yes and no, that is unencyclopedic. Yes, with a footnote or no with a footnote is better. Texas either has a law or it doesn’t. Color can be added in the note. 2600:1700:1111:5940:6981:4A73:C9A6:4D9B

II still think yes/no is acceptable as long as that stays and is not changed for 4 and 5 I think that will suffice. Lmharding (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC) blocked sock AukusRuckus (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Just on the possibility of separating out the R+J law and inserting its own row into the table: Although I said above that it would be non-standard, today I discovered that it is a separate row in the table at LGBT rights in the United States § Summary table of LGBT rights in the United States. It is labelled: "Romeo and Juliet laws apply equally to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples" (third row in the table). Not that we have to necessarily go by what's in related articles, but it's nice to have a precedent if it's decided to structure Texas this way. AukusRuckus (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

IP2600, @Firefangledfeathers and Lmharding: I too find the use of both "yes" and "no" pictograms, confusing, even jarring. I get that there are parameters that may be less straightforward, but to me placing both a tick (a 'check mark' for USA-ians) and a cross is the least useful way of dealing with such cases. As IP 2600 said, it is basically a yes or no if the laws, for example, exist. Then you deal with any uncertainty or contradictions in a note, addendum, or add colour-code, or another symbol. (And such nuances should be fully dealt with in the body of the article already, of course). I'm sure something suitable could be thought of and agreed upon; but / only as the very last resort. AukusRuckus (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

3O Response: This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion, however since being listed there a third editor has commented, meaning a third opinion is no longer needed; 3O is intended for discussions between only two editors. If further outside resolution is needed, consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC) Aoidh

Sources

Can we move on with improving the article? We have a group of editors that are willing to reach consensus and seem to generally agree. The edits made by Lmharding have no support and I have gone back to the version before ANI. Can we split out the Romeo and Juliet summary line? I think that was supported by all editors including LMharding. 2600:1700:1111:5940:109A:75C3:EDA6:AFC0 (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep the article about Texas tryng to overrule the employment protections, that is still pending and leave the part of discrimination provisions as employment only, as I just reverted partially and I think I'm satisfied to move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmharding (talk • contribs) 21:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock

Glad to see we are making progress. Every other editor who has responded has noted their aversion to both the yes and no boxes being checked at the same time in the summary table. It is very unencyclopedic and hard for the readers to understand. Could you just pick yes or no for the employment protections in the table? I won’t change it, regardless of your choice though I have made it clear before that federal protection usurps any and all state laws. To see why we don’t follow lawsuits and the ever changing political landscape to prefer long time stability see WP:RECENTISM and WP:PRESENTISM just for some policy background. Thanks again! 2600:1700:1111:5940:109A:75C3:EDA6:AFC0 (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The lawsuit and pending action, just like anything else is currently blocking is enforcement. I'll pick to write no for now and change it to just an X and then we wait for the legal system to take its course. I'm not budging further until the lawsuit is handled. —Lmharding (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock

You don’t need to budge as far as I am concerned. I told you that I would accept your choice and I do accept it. We will see how things play out over time. My arguments were not to push a particular point of view, my arguments were to get to an article that is factually correct and reads like an encyclopedia. 2600:1700:1111:5940:109A:75C3:EDA6:AFC0 (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Unneeded housekeeping discussion with blocked sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi @Lmharding: A small housekeeping query - What's started to go wrong with your signature recently? It's appearing as the date and time only. Are you perhaps accidentally using 5 tildes (~) (WP:5TILDES), instead the standard four, per WP:SIG? I have added a few {{Signing}} templates for your posts where your username / link was missing. AukusRuckus (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC) Not sure maybe it's a glitch. Let's see if it works now. 03:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC) Note I've typed 5 squiggles and it's still not showing my name, not sure why. 04:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC) @Lmharding: Ah, yes that'll be the prob: You need to type in four squiggles, not 5. (Five does only the timestamp, like so: -- " 05:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC) "; four does the time, date and username: -- " AukusRuckus (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC) "!) AukusRuckus (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Something else

Deflection by blocked sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Firefeather take back your comment on the talk page, this IP is vandalizing and doing unconstructive edits and so that is unfair to this against me when I reverted and talked here to undo vandalism and then seek a middle ground or compromise which is what you want we to do correct. Why should I try if you go out of your day to make my life when I'm doing what the guidelines say and you still complain. Cross out your inappropriate comment. —Lmharding (talk • contribs) 17:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC) There is no vandalising whatsoever going on from the IP. No matter how much you believe they are wrong, or how strongly you view their editing behaviour as against WP policy, it is clearly not vandalism. Please retract your untoward comment; please also read WP:NOTVANDAL. Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC) According to WP:BLANKING "Under normal circumstances, Wikipedia articles should not be blanked. If you think an article has no useful content, then either fix it, or else leave it in its present state and propose it for deletion." That is unusual and harmful editing. —Lmharding (talk • contribs) 22:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC) I did not blank the article, I blanked a section which is perfectly acceptable under the right circumstances, re-read what you just wrote. Understanding these guidelines is important. Sections and articles are two different things. 2600:1700:1111:5940:109A:75C3:EDA6:AFC0 (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC) Have you read WP:NOTVANDAL? If you have read it, you'll know that is not one of the instances of vandalism. This is a legitimate concern that needs an on-topic response from you. (As with the never resolved WP:CRYBULLY thing on this very article, such free and easy accusations are not good. They make for a very uncomfortable editing environment, even when directed at others. To clarify this, what I mean is: 'uncomfortable', even for those not the target of the accusation. --AukusRuckus (talk) 06:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)). AukusRuckus (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

LMharding is blocked as a sock. I would close many of these talk page discussions and restart to build consensus. I believe we had general agreement on many of these items. 2600:1700:1111:5940:659C:13B3:E6ED:7CB3 (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. AukusRuckus (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)