Talk:LGBTQ rights in Texas

Page protection

@Snokalok @Ymblanter there is no disruptive editing on the page and Snokalok I seriously have an issue with the way you worded the protection request. I am not disruptive, I am not a vandal and there has been no difficulties on this page since the SOCK of LMharding was blocked. If you look at any of my edits, they are constructive and they have valid edit summaries and for support of the PP you said I was hiding behind WP:BRD when the edit clearly has an untrue statement as stated in the source. [[1]] Another editor has since reverted this crazy edit and another editor thanked me for the edit on my talk page.[[2]] The only person disruptive here is @Snokalok I expect you to WP:AGF and if you disagree with a change, state so on the talk page as is clearly recommended in WP:BRD which was the exact policy that should be used. I have answered every question posted here and have come to many encyclopedic compromises. I am really not okay with any of this and would appreciate a response. 2600:1700:1111:5940:59BE:3B53:6C12:6CE (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay first, I've never assumed bad faith of you, as I'm sure you'll find if you read more closely.

Secondly, I, genuinely can't tell for certain which editor you are because the IP address listed here doesn't match the ones in the edit history, but assuming you're the one that was citing BRD, as I said in the revert, you can't simply make an edit, and then when an editor reverts it for legitimate reasons, revert that reversion and say "WP:BRD". That takes the "discuss" out of "Bold, revert, discuss", and just becomes you edit warring. Snokalok (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

To add on, disruptive editing can occur in good faith, that doesn't make it not disruptive. Snokalok (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

First, is this not your edit where you claimed edit warring?[[3]]. There is no edit war on this page other than the one you just started. Second, I have an IPv6 network, my edits all start with 2600:17000:1111:5940:::: that is how IPv6 works when a user is not logged in and if you don’t understand how IPv6 works, you should be more careful because this pattern is very normal and not evidence of any abuse or avoidance. WP:IPv6 Last, I didn’t revert and just say WP:BRD there is a discussion on my talk page that reviewed the edit, I already linked to it above, so I won’t do it again. That is only one edit and you reverted other stable material with versions of I don’t like it, with no attempt at discussion on the talk page. I am not and have never been disruptive and I don’t appreciate you continuing to put in vague aspersions about -good faith can be disruptive-. Without something else to back it up, that is nonsense. What specifically is wrong with my edits and how am I possibly disruptive for reverting with WP:BRD a clearly false statement, also linked above? If you don’t have anything to discuss, please self-revert and ask for the page protection to be removed. I would also still like a response from @Ymblanter This is all highly improper. 2600:1700:1111:5940:59BE:3B53:6C12:6CE (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to look at the content, this is not my role, There was disruptive editing and edit-warring, the page is protected. Ymblanter (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Why would you protect the page if they are not going to look at the content? How did you determine there was edit warring, if you made no content review? I would like a review by an uninvolved admin. There was no edit warring and this should be easy to settle. 2600:1700:1111:5940:59BE:3B53:6C12:6CE (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

If this is easy to settle, settle this at the talk page. This is exactly why I protected the article. This is not the admin's role to perform independent content review. Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I am to try and settle any disputes in a reasonable way rather than escalate, I have asked you to review your protection and I have asked for an uninvolved admin review. I ask you again to review your reasoning for protection or have an uninvolved admin review before opening a WP:XRV as you leave me no alternative. I am obviously not a vandal and obviously not editing in a disruptive manner. My edits are here for anyone to review. 2600:1700:1111:5940:59BE:3B53:6C12:6CE (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved admin, and I have placed the protection. You may of course take it to WP:AN and ask to review my action, but please do not misrepresent things and do not claim I was in any way involved before the protection. Ymblanter (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

You are involved, you made a finding of "persistent disruptive editing" [[4]], then said you did not review the content. This would be reasonable to be reviewed as a misuse of administrator tools at XRV. What you wrote above portrays that @Snokalok asked for page protection and you used admin tools to place the article in page protection without any content review. Additionally, you only applied semi-protection which limits IP editors and ignores that the only disruptive editing has been reverts on the page from Snokalok. Again, either you protected and did not review the content or you preferred Snokalok's reverts and protected the page to limit only IP editors, either is a misuse of admin tools. Also, you will notice that Snokalok, the disruptive party has still not defined anything problematic with the edits they reverted and has not engaged in any way on the talk page to discuss content, and I am still here. Additionally, the garbage edit that was used by Snokalok as reasoning for requesting page protection has been reverted by another editor as clearly being untrue to anyone who read the source. Why is this so difficult? 2600:1700:1111:5940:F0AE:9317:7692:A707 (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

To your point about my not engaging, A. It's been 12 hours, I do have things to do irl. B. If you'll look at the edit history more closely, you'll notice that I absolutely did mention content grounds for edits of yours that I've reverted, and C. Assume good faith.

Additionally, though, since we're here, in the edit of yours that was partially restored, one section that was *not* restored was you saying the LGBT rights in Texas had improved in recent years which was uncited, unsupported by the page, and as anyone who's been following the news (or even just the updates to this page) over the past few years can tell you, untrue. Snokalok (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Sigh, I didn’t make that edit. Go look. 2600:1700:1111:5940:35F6:EBB0:9FD4:AAAF (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

2600:17000:1111:5940::::

That's you. You said so yourself. Snokalok (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Being an editor requires WP:Competence, this edit added the language [[5]] and this edit changed the wording [[6]] neither of which was me. Lol 2600:1700:1111:5940:4C70:D82E:D510:B32 (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I see. You are right, and everybody else is wrong. Go ahead, sure, it is good that you can not edit the page. Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

not very nice, but I get the message. Nice tone too. 2600:1700:1111:5940:35F6:EBB0:9FD4:AAAF (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Bemused

The above discussion is incredibly disheartening. As an editor who struggled on, week after awful week (see e.g #"Nullification" edit warring: unsourced OR content), battling a clearly disruptive and ill-intentioned sockpuppet, largely alone, I can't but see this intervention as unnecessarily heavy-handed. Where was this hair-trigger before?

What exactly constitutes the edit warring here? The IP seems to have misconstrued WP:BRD, if I am reading things right –not even sure of this– and needs to be advised so. Perhaps they could phrase things in a more diplomatic manner. FWIW, some of the edits the IP reverted were as POV as those of the banned sock whom I was countering (although maybe coming at it from the other end of spectrum!) And, yes, I understand the admin's not going to look at the content wars, but I can't really see that a mild "pull your head in" first, would have hurt. The IP responded to a post on their talk page, after all.

Blocking all IPs from editing, especially indefinitely, seems extreme, especially if viewed in the light of the shocking distortions and outright lies allowed to live on this article for months. These were inserted and maintained through edit warring by a registered account, lately identified as a blocked user, and rectified, in part by the IP. Proportionality, anyone?

AukusRuckus (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Striking mistaken time frame. Updated: AukusRuckus (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It has been a few days with no response so I want you to know that I appreciate you saying something on my behalf, but it is not going to change anything in regards to WP’s biases. You have to get used to it or find another hobby. 2600:1700:1111:5940:A964:1000:C288:B169 (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I was on the verge of the latter option (find another hobby!) when I read that earlier section. <Sigh> My heart sank. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

State protections

For the 'Discrimination protections' parameter, the infobox says "Federally protected; some more limited statewide anti-discrimination laws; additional protections in some cities and counties" Similarly, the lead says: "LGBT people in Texas have some protections in state law ..." It is not clear from reading the article what these limited state protections are. Can anyone enlighten, please? Are they sourced? Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The second paragraph has an example in that there has been a hate crime law that includes sexual orientation since 1993. There are other protections in state law for sexual orientation, but anything added becomes a battleground because they don’t include gender expression. Texas is not trans friendly, most commentary, legal action and disputes, even in this article, are only regarding the Trans portion of the LGBTQ community. Texas has many active gay communities that are thriving. Check out these WP articles and compare it to the bleak, nonsensical writing in this article. [[7]] or [[8]] 2600:1700:1111:5940:903A:57E8:F7F5:74D (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I take your point about the hate crime law. That does come under the wider description, "some protections" mentioned in the lead. I guess I'm confused by the infobox referring to "more limited statewide anti-discrimination law, so I was looking more for specifically antidiscrimination law. Which are they? (Which state ones, that is).

I will take a look at those articles you linked. It's likely that the quality of this article has been really hit hard by the persistent socking. I know that I, for one, wrote in this article in what I would call a "defensive" way, trying to counter that abusive editor: Not the best method for high quality outcomes. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Characterizing Texas in lead

I removed this recent change as it seemed subjective and debateable. ("people in Texas are considered to be socially liberal and have progressed significantly since the 1990s. Nonetheless ...") Still present is the perhaps similar, but longstanding: "Though Texas is a socially conservative state..." Never noticed it before, but now it strikes me as just an opinion, also. It seems a reasonable, probably widely-held, view, but even so, can we say it without citing a source? (The source used atm is only for the public opinion research quoted.) Any thoughts? AukusRuckus (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Anything stating “People in Texas are socially…” is a comparison and there is both a missing source for the statement and the other entity for comparison. In comparison to Saudi Arabia, Texas is ultra liberal. Compared to Sweden, Texas is ultra conservative. Compared to the rest of the U.S. Texas is likely middle right, but I think the poll that most Texans support gay marriage says enough by itself to remove other social labels unless they are even handed and well sourced, but just my opinion. 2600:1700:1111:5940:903A:57E8:F7F5:74D (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks IP 2600; that's pretty much my take, which you've expressed very cogently. It seems Firefangledfeathers agreed too and made the change, for which my thanks to them, also. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Along the same line of thinking, this is also problematic “but may face legal and social challenges not faced by others”. According to whom and compared to whom? If we compare this to the LGBT rights in the U.S. article which says “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights in the United States are among the most socially, culturally, and legally permissive and advanced in the world” surely many of those benefits convey to Texas from federal law. I would assume the editor who made the initial add was making a comparison to other U.S. states, but that is not clear from the text and would need a secondary source to support the claim. 2600:1700:1111:5940:5DC1:3467:5CB4:962F (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm reading it as a comparison to non-LGBT Texas citizens, and it's a solid summary of the article. Could we say "... not faced by other Texans."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I was only noting it as looking a bit odd. I like “faced by other Texans”, but there is no need to do anything. Just something to consider if a need arises to update the lede at some point in the future. Thanks for the feedback. 2600:1700:1111:5940:5DC1:3467:5CB4:962F (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Washington Post driver's license report

A few days ago, a new section titled "Registration" was added detailing the AG's request for data on changes to license gender markers and on other state documents. It included some mistaken conclusions, at least on my reading. Specifically, that a list of 16,000+ names were extracted and forwarded. Luckily, this sinister development was thwarted by the DPS's inability to easily determine which records were changed specifically for reasons of gender change. Hurray for slightly inefficient data storage systems!

I rewrote the section to reflect what I understand the WaPo report to say. If anyone thinks I have it wrong, please let me know, and we can discuss what needs to be altered. I changed the section name to "Gender change records sought by Attorney General". Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Changes to "Trans people in performance art"

I expanded the subsection about the pre-filed bill. I agree with the change by IP 2600, where they bring it back to the drag show aspect, but I also wanted to include some extra detail about how broad the language in the bill is. I'm a bit uncertain of it actually, but I was really uncomfortable with the original "and all restrictions and criminal penalties thereof" language. I did not understand what was being conveyed at all, until I read the sources. So, my take is in the article now, but of course, happy to discuss, or have it improved. (If the bill does not proceed, or changes form, the par may not even be needed, so I'm hoping we won't need to expend much more effort on it until it's known where the bill's going; if content's going to be on the page in the meantime, though, I do want it to say something readily understood.) Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I like your edit. I feel it brings more clarity to the various issues and ambiguities while noting the bill author's intent. I also agree that it is an area where we shouldn't expend much effort since it is just a bill. Most bills never pass WP:NOTNEWS. 2600:1700:1111:5940:FD25:7ED0:725C:6213 (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the changes made overall, however I maintain that the “to criminalize minors attending” part in the beginning not only buries the lede that the law applies regardless of if it’s a drag show or not, but is also redundant regarding the intent as said intent is stated more in detail later on. Snokalok (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The intent of the law is what is most important and the lede is not buried because that intent is the lede in the two stories up front. Both are high quality sources and both specifically say to criminalize minors attending drag shows. Nobody would be talking about drag shows in Texas if kids were not attending them. Some people don’t like it, some politicians want to pass new laws to make it a crime. That is the whole story. I liked AukusRukus’ edit because it was clear why they are looking to pass the law and why it may be unwise, have unintended consequences and be unfair to those targeted. I don’t have a position other than to be reader friendly and factually correct and clear. If you want to propose an edit of the first sentence, I am likely to be open to any change as long as the bill’s intent is not buried under 5 sentences of “they want to make drag shows SOBs” which isn’t the point and isn’t the problem. They have had drag shows in Texas for decades with no problem and not as sexual oriented businesses. Kids attending drag shows is the political and legal issue being debated. It is in the news all over the U.S. We should just be clear about it and align prose with reliable sources. 2600:1700:1111:5940:883E:2E51:6938:FA81 (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

The intent is *not* what’s important, the actual text of the law is what is.

The only way intent would be more important than text is if there was a court case regarding it, which, there isn’t, but otherwise the only reason drag shows are even being targeted is to drive a further wedge against gender noncomformity in general - which is what the law actually punishes, and is thus more important to mention. Snokalok (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm on mobile, so the UI is less friendly to towards reply threads. Anyway, the point is, it'd be like saying that a law which mandated the death penalty for all drug offenses was less important than saying that the stated intent was to catch drug dealers. "To criminalize minors attending drag shows, all trans people are banned from performance art" at best sounds like the writer is trying to preemptively defend the law by making it sound far reaching but necessary. "To keep drug lords from running their gangs from inside prison, all prisoners in the US must have their tongues cut out and their hands chopped off". The intent there, is far less important, than the law itself which goes far beyond that intent. Snokalok (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you that in the real world that is how things work, and maybe should work everywhere, but on Wikipedia it is not how things work. What you or I believe to be true about what a WP:Primary source says, does not hold the WP:Weight of what WP:Secondary sources say about the primary source. I don’t doubt that the intent of the law could be that drag shows are being targeted “to drive a further wedge against gender noncomformity in general”, but you need a secondary source to say that, not editor opinions. The two secondary sources in the article, as of now, say that it is being done to criminalize minors attending drag shows. If you get secondary sources that say it is for the reason you stated, by all means add them to the article. I really am about having a factual article. The primary sources should probably be removed from the article, but I have no problem giving it some time. Policy says “ Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source”. It is a bill, it likely never gets voted on, the bill seems unworkable per secondary sources and this is the sort of reason why we have WP:Notnews. This is probably just a waste of time and will never be notable. 2600:1700:1111:5940:2519:1595:62F4:4ABF (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, you don’t need to apologize. It was easy to follow your thinking. I was long-winded to give you some background on my thinking and a way to move forward. A synopsis would be: determining intent requires analysis and all analysis on WP has to come from secondary sources. 2600:1700:1111:5940:2519:1595:62F4:4ABF (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the line of thought, and I'm not saying that we shouldn't state the intent as given, I just don't think it should be the opening line. I feel that distracts from the wider importance of the text and leads the viewer to mistakenly assume that the bill will only be enforced against drag queens; whereas if we open with the text of the bill, and *then* say it's designed to be used against drag queens, that lets the reader know that the bill itself is X, but Y is the stated intent, which I find to be much more neutral. Snokalok (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: How about this then?:

To criminalize allowing minors to attend drag shows, a bill, HB 643, which will recategorize any business or venue employing a performer who "exhibits a gender identity that is different than the performer's gender assigned at birth" as a "sexually oriented business" (SOB), was prefiled in the Texas legislature in November 2022. As currently defined, SOBs are businesses where anyone performs nude, as in, for example, "strip clubs". These are subject to regulation with special limits on their operations; criminal penalties apply for breaches. Any SOBs that admit underage persons to the venue are liable to a criminal penalty. HB 643 widens the definition of SOBs to encompass drag shows –the stated intent of the bill, according to the filing member, Rep. Jared Patterson– but will also capture any performance where a performer uses "clothing, makeup, or other physical markers" to "exhibit a gender" at variance from the one assigned to them at birth and also "sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs" in front of an audience. Such broad definitions have raised concerns that the bill will, in addition to preventing minors attending drag shows, also restrict access to any entertainment where either transgender persons perform in any role, or cisgender persons depict characters of diverse or ambiguous genders, such as occurs in traditional theatrical productions.

A bill which, if passed, will widen the definition of "sexually oriented businesses" (SOBs) was prefiled in the Texas legislature in November 2022. The intent of HB 643, according to the filing member Rep. Jared Patterson, is to criminalize allowing minors to attend drag shows, but the new, broader definitions of "sexually oriented businesses" contained in the bill will capture a range of public performances other than "drag shows". They will, in addition to preventing minors attending drag shows, also restrict access to any entertainment where either transgender persons perform in any role, or cisgender persons depict characters of diverse or ambiguous genders, such as occurs in traditional theatrical productions. This is because the bill covers any performance where a performer uses "clothing, makeup, or other physical markers" to "exhibit a gender" at variance from the one assigned to them at birth and also "sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs" in front of an audience.

—Current text —Proposed alternative text

Would some changes similar to this help at all? (I'm thinking particularly of @Snokalok:'s concerns.) Posting here, rather than at the RfC section below, just to avoid crowding it but hope it will be considered as part of that discussion, if it's useful. Feel free to adjust or suggest further rewrites if it helps. AukusRuckus (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I quite like this personally, this is very well written and maintains the intent while addressing the concerns I’ve stated Snokalok (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks for spending the time and effort providing a constructive solution. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer it removed, but AR’s proposal is well-written and even in tone. If the material is included, I think the article would be improved by a more extensive analysis of the many anti-trans bills pre-filed in this legislative section. A deeper analysis from better sources can be found here and and These are the highest quality sources and there are literally dozens of pre-filed anti-trans bills, why pull out this one? I would like to discuss adding more material, if the current material stays. If others prefer to keep just the current material, I support AR’s proposed edit, it is very well written. 2600:1700:1111:5940:A0BF:ED3B:85C4:55EF (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You make a good point, IP 2600. As the sources you provided say, there's so many anti-trans bills, a least 48! (An inappropriate aside: what a complete #!@*$# travesty and misuse of democratic processes. <feelings vented>) I guess one reason only a few might be included is that the news sources seem to be emphasising some over others; perhaps for reasons better known to locals and politics-followers in the US? (I.e., it may be implicit in their coverage which bills they think are most likely to get "legs", based on who sponsors/ authors them, etc.)

I would be in favour of some kind of overview treatment of these legislative (and maybe regulatory?) pushes in the article. I hope nobody minds, as I may have got a bit ahead of the consensus, but I made a very tentative start on what I think you had in mind. Of course, it's a mere suggestion, in no way meant to be definitive, and I can take it out again for further development offline, if preferred.

Also changed the HB 643 par as shown above, which seemed to have at least early consensus. Let me know if I've gone too early, I'll happily retract.

I would very much like to communicate my appreciation of the constructive efforts here. Even though things may have started in a less than ideal way, it's so obvious that all here- IP 2600 and Snokalok (and then joined by Lukewarmbeer) - are working to get a better article, and something everyone can live with. Anyone who saw some of the earlier horrors on this talk page, will understand why I am particularly grateful. Thanks all, I genuinely appreciate it. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for putting in the extra effort to summarize the material so well. At some point, it may be good for readers to have the proposed bills together in the new section and the passed laws in the other sections. That will make it easier to make changes in the future as bills, laws and opinions change over time. That is not a request but a topic of future discussion. I very much support your last edit and the new section, thank you again.

—EDIT— I did not respond to one of your comments about how to proceed with the new section and 48 bills. I think this is a great start and sets the right neutral tone for what is going on in Texas legislature. I think we should expand on those that have become notable with good sources. You mentioned 3, I think, in your edit. We can just note changes as they have sustained coverage. 2600:1700:1111:5940:4D78:1E9A:FA8:97F6 (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello all (after a rather long pause!): IP 2600-ish, Snokalok, Lukewarmbeer, any other interested editors.

I've just made a rather WP:BOLD edit that I hope won't be taken amiss. It is my attempt to organise the proposed bills / policies of interest (that may not make it in the end, but could still be of note even as "failed" efforts to undo rights). I'm aware that it's not exactly comprehensive, but the hope is that editors wishing to add this type of material will keep it together in one section.

It's just a first try; please improve upon it or make suggestions for changes. Let me know if you see any big problems with it, and I'll be happy to self-revert / alter. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Request for comment on trans people in performance art section

Should we have the words "To criminalize allowing minors to attend drag shows" as the first words of the section?

Snokalok (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Snokalok: RfCs opening statements need to be "brief and neutral" per WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Could you remove the parts where you're arguing for one outcome? You can place that below the opening statement in a bolded !vote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Done Snokalok (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyway as previously said, Texas has proposed a near total ban on anyone who presents differently from their assigned gender at birth, being allowed to perform for an audience. The stated intent by the politicians who pushed this bill was to keep minors from attending drag shows.

I would argue that given the above data, the motive is secondary and should be stated after the actual wording and contents of the bill are stated. Not everyone on this page agrees, with there being dispute in particular over putting "To criminalize allowing minors to attend drag shows" as the first words of the section.

I would argue for changing this, because it buries the lede and sounds like it's just running cover for a bill that goes far beyond that stated intent. Snokalok (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer to remove the paragraph as it is a bill that is unlikely to pass, per the included reliable sources, and WP is WP:NOTNEWS If we insist it stays, the paragraph should reflect the WP:WEIGHT of the available WP:Secondary sources on the topic of the bill. Snokalok thinks the intent is something else and the article should reflect Snokalok's views on the intent of the bill based on Snokalok's review of the bill's text is a non-starter and we already went over why in the previous section. 2600:1700:1111:5940:A4C4:3EA5:4A66:5814 (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Have to agree with Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1111:5940:A4C4:3EA5:4A66:5814. My suspicions are the same as those of Snokalok as to the possible intent - but we aren't here to crystal ball these things. If the bill passes and if that is how it transpires then there should certainly be 'full coverage' properly supported with appropriate referencest. But not now. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I can see where Snokalok's coming from, in that the stated intent of the bill will clearly not be anything like its effects, if passed. And wanting to make that crystal clear upfront. It's not encyclopaedic, though, to structure the par the way Snokalok suggests. [Not] "burying the lede" is a newspaper-style of writing. WP and similar informative texts need to develop their information logically, orienting the reader first and then going through it step-by-step. Reasons to even include the bill here are marginal, as pointed out by IP 2600 and Lukewarmbeer.

Proposal: I think on balance, I would prefer to remove it, but I'm not categorically opposed to keeping a par on it, as long as consensus on wording can be easily reached. I'm loath to see editors expend much more time on what could end up merely ephemera, as it may very well not pass. I have suggested an alternative text, which may meet some of the concerns expressed (I fondly hope!). This is shown in the section above, § Changes to "Trans people in performance art". AukusRuckus (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Made another post in the preceding section. I went ahead and made some edits to the article, but I realised after I did so that I may have been jumping the gun. I think they're broadly in line with the views expressed here and one of the changes is only as a trial, but I will completely understand if anyone thinks I should self-revert. Just let me know. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• keep as is. Where it is currently in the second sentence I think is suffice. Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) making this statement the very first words read is not neutral, it gives the whole section a negative point of view. Whereas stating what the bill is first and then giving this statement I feel is less targeted, more factual and more neutral. Dobblesteintalk 22:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

References

House Bill 1311

House bills 1311 and 1399 have both failed to pass and are stale, there is no consensus to add new material that is not undue. This article is littered with historical minutiae that has been reversed or never passed. I want a great article, if people want to add weekly news in spite of WP:RECENTISM at least let people clean up the garbage. This is a recurring problem and why we also have WP:NOTNEWS with specific attention to the news reports section . I edited this post to add a link from a reliable sources that the bill is dead. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D811:43E2:3A0A:A112 (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Just because a major LGBT-related bill failed to pass one of the two chambers within a specific legislative session does not justify the removal of this information from the article, particularly given that multiple similar bills affecting the LGBT community are being considered by the Texas Legislature as we speak. Calling these bills "historical minutiae that has been reversed or never passed" is untrue: Nothing has been reversed; to the contrary - Texas legislators are advancing very similar bills at this very moment. The average reader of this article is looking for information about "LGBT rights in Texas", and expects to see an overview of important bills and legislation dealing with this subject. This is clearly not the case of WP:UNDUE, since we're only talking about four sentences in a specific section of a fairly long article. Guycn2 (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the proposing of the legislation, it's consideration and the results of that consideration (pass or fail) may be of encyclopaedic interest and wouldn't be Wikipedia:UNDUE but it is Wikipedia:RECENTISM because this stuff is happening all the time and often disappears without trace. If such legislation were passed in the future the inclusion of this material might be mentioned as a background to that. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

References