Talk:Gay and trans panic defense

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Thanks, Glasspalace (talk | contribs) 11:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Gay panic defense → Gay and trans panic defense – The article is about both concepts. These ideas are linked, but not the same. GnocchiFan (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, if we were to move it that way, it would have to be Gay and trans panic defenses, or it sounds like we are talking about 1 thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I haven't decided how I feel about any move from the current title, but if a move to "Gay and trans panic defense" is considered as one option, then imho you would have to also consider "Trans and gay panic defense". Note the interesting story-in-one-chart, as given by this ngrams chart, which might support the trans-first word order, although gay-panic was clearly older (but not the oldest). Mathglot (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Support - I was going to oppose this, but after doing some digging into sources on my own, I honestly think "Gay Panic" is a historical term, "Gay and Trans Panic Defense" seems to be the current term, and it could easily be remedied by adding a bit about the history the term and terminology used in Australia could be added there too. Per WP:DICTIONARY: "Articles almost always focus on a single definition or usage of the title". I don't think that's a problem with the proposed title, as most of what I'm reading puts them together as the exact same topic, like this . The topic would be "a type of legal defense, meant to lead to a not-guilty or at least reduced sentence, in a murder case." So I'm good with the retitle with a goal of refocusing the topic this way.

My main issue with the article is that it's a bit of a catch all that isn't based on a "topic". It's what I would call a "stuff" article - people have come along and "stuffed" it full of things that have derailed the article. Some of it is far off topic - I think the mental illness is covered by having the disambiguation link at the top. Rape by deception is a crime you can be convicted for, but it doesn't involve murdering someone and doesn't belong on the page.

The "Jurisdictions" section feels like it is stuffed full of "ooo this topic hit the news" so the article no longer reads like an encyclopedia (a summary of the topic) but it's a bunch of "this was in the news and someone plopped it on here", which to me, falls squarely under WP:NOT. It really needs good sources that really cover the subject in depth, and point us in the direction of what should be on the article, rather than news articles about laws being considered/passed, and random cases that happened to use the defense, and everything else stuffed in there. Are the cases somehow significant - in the sense that when books or in depth articles cover the topic, they include them? This is not by any means the only article with this problem, but I really support someone taking some scissors and streamlining this article to be on topic, and expanding it to be a higher level summary of the subject with good sources. Because right now that section is really a collection of news articles gathered together in a haphazard way. Denaar (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Like Denaar, my initial reaction was unfavorable but upon review this proposal is appropriate. There is support for this terminology in a variety of places. as well as variants like 'gay/trans panic defense' and 'gay and trans panic defenses'. (The links provided are to intended to be a comprehensive review of sources but rather to show that such usage is easily found.) I don't think the plural 'defenses' is necessary although the argument is reasonable. As for word order, I prefer 'gay and trans'. This appears to be more common. The Ngram provided confirms that 'gay panic' is the older term. 'Trans panic' has only recently overtaken 'gay panic', and barely. 'Gay and trans' is also in alphabetical order so could be considered neutral if we are attempting not to show a preference. Unsurprisingly, 'homosexual panic' is even older but has largely fallen out of use. It is often mentioned as a historical term. 'LGBTQ panic' or 'LGBTQ+ panic' are preferred by some sources but these do not appear to have gained widespread acceptance. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)