Talk:21st-century anti-trans movement in the United Kingdom

Apologies

Apologies if this article is severely a work in progress right now! I thought I was creating a draft but I guess not! Snokalok (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I should add, the current section divisions are not intended on my end to be longterm, just to place the information until it can be shortened and summarized into a much more coherent flow, the way we do with articles about Nazi Germany Snokalok (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I've placed a Template:Under construction tag onto the article so people coming to the article but not the talk page are aware that you're working on major restructuring still.

Feel free to remove the tag once you're satisfied with the state of the article.

I also helped fix a few orphaned refs, added attribution for the text you brought in from another article and de-orphaned the article by including it in relevant other pages and navboxes. Raladic (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Very much appreciated! Snokalok (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Title

Would a rename fit? 21st-century anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom

Centuries are hyphenated when used as adjectives (see Category:21st-century social movements). Web-julio (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done boldly. Thanks for pointing it out. Raladic (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the "21st-century" part can be scrapped as overly precise. I'd suggest Anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom as consistent with titles such as Transgender history in the United Kingdom and Transgender rights in the United Kingdom. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

While not an unreasonable view, I would disagree on the grounds that just as the 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States is its own topic distinct from that of the 1980s or earlier, so too would I say the British anti trans movement that began in the mid-late 2010s is its own topic Snokalok (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. If we remove the 21st C framing, then it gains a much wider scope. There is a particular set of events that have happened this century which is different from the last century. Lewisguile (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That's debatable. Prosser (2022) explicitly ties the current anti-trans backlash to developments of the 1970s and 1980s, writing that opposition to trans rights in the US and UK is in many ways, an old story.

According to article naming policy, titles should be no more precise than necessary to unambiguously define the scope of the article. Since we don't have an article named 20th-century anti-trans movement in the United Kingdom, putting the year/decade/century in the title doesn't help readers to identify the topic.

Several sources also use "anti-transgender" instead of, or addition to, "anti-trans". See for instance:

• McLean (2021): This article examines the development of anti-transgender debates within the United Kingdom
• Duffy (2023): a worrying trend of discourse has appeared in social and media spaces in the United Kingdom – that of anti-transgender advocacy under the guise of protection of (cisgender) women’s and children’s rights

So I still think Anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom is the most clear and precise title without being too precise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

"Movements against some transgender rights" would be more neutral AndyGordon (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, neutrality means following published, reliable sources. Please present one more sources that put the focus on "some transgender rights" as opposed to general anti-trans sentiment. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, McLean's article talks about the transgender right to self-id. He also talks about the GC claim for single-sex spaces, which is contrary to self-id. But he does not talk about the protected characteristic of gender re-assignment from the Equality Act. No "anti-trans" group that I'm aware of is campaigning against that transgender right. Just saying "against transgender rights" would lack precision, possibly suggesting groups are campaigning against all transgender rights. AndyGordon (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I feel you could really make that argument about anything. “The Nazis aren’t against all Jewish rights. They let Jews keep their fingernails, the Nazis never fought for Jews to have their fingernails removed. Therefore we can only say the Nazis were against SOME Jewish rights.” Snokalok (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

My point is that we have a wiki page of specifically transgender rights, and the organisations and individuals this page seems to be about are only campaigning against some of them, not all. The example you've come up doesn't involve a specifically Jewish right.

"Anti-transgender" or "anti-trans" are labels contested by the orgs themselves and used by a small minority of the reliable sources that talk about them.

How about "Movement against some transgender rights in the UK"? AndyGordon (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I am swayed, @Sangdeboeuf (mostly by the lack of a "20th century" article). I would accept either title (i.e., with or without the "21st century" part), and it may not be a bad idea to have a broader sense of the history here. Lewisguile (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Folks, whether GC feminism and related groups are "anti-trans" or "anti-transgender" is contested by different parties as reported by reliable sources, so we can't use these terms in wikivoice in the title.

I'm going to spell this out because I can tell other editors disagree with me. If I'm wrong with this reasoning, please help me out.

McLean's article itself notes that "Lobby groups who campaign against trans rights are usually at pains to stress their support for trans people." and then quotes several groups: this is a reliable secondary source.

It's easy to find many examples of reliable secondary sources (eg mainstream UK newspapers) reporting GC feminists (and other individuals who could be seen as part of this movement) denying that they are "anti-trans".

• Trans activists disrupt Kathleen Stock speech at Oxford Union | Transgender | The Guardian
• Charity employee wins harassment case over gender critical views (LGBA "not anti-trans")
• I'm not anti-trans, says JK Rowling after 'periods' row
• Ricky Gervais says new Netflix comedy SuperNature is not anti-trans | Ents & Arts News | Sky News
• JK Rowling transphobic? How I went from spreading this false narrative to seeing right through it – EJ Rosetta
• Councillor quits over Cambridge transgender toilets row - BBC News
• Rosie Duffield: I’m not anti-trans but Labour ignores women’s rights at its peril

However, we also have some reliable sources (including some above) saying that these orgs are "anti-trans".

So Wikipedia:WIKIVOICE applies: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." In particular, we can't use the "anti-trans" or "anti-transgender" phrase directly in the title. AndyGordon (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Fully disagree.

Think how many anti-gay groups say “We support gay people, just not homosexuality itself”. Think how many racist groups say “We’re not racist, we just believe in protecting the American way of life or something”. Reliable sources still describe them as racist and anti-gay, even if they don’t describe themselves that way; and wikipedia does as well. Just because a prominent TERF says “I’m not anti-trans, I just think we need reasonable restrictions” does not make that a statement worth treating as reliable, per WP:FALSEBALANCE Snokalok (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Rosie Duffield, Ann Sinnott, J. K. Rowling, Ricky Gervais, Kathleen Stock, and Denise Fahmy can say and believe whatever they like. It's fallacious (not to mention false balance) to conclude anything about a broader anti-trans movement in the UK based on these statements. None of the above sources deny that such a movement exists, and we have multiple reliable, scholarly sources that explicitly describe it as anti-trans. Do any equivalent scholarly sources seriously contest that characterization? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Our first sentence says that GC feminism is part of the anti-transgender movement in wikivoice, implying that GC feminists are anti-trans, which they contest, as reported in reliable secondary source (doesn't matter in wiki policy if they are scholarly or not). This is Wikipedia taking sides.

As I said, McLean, a reliable primary source, concedes that "anti-trans" is contested by the groups he labels as such. BTW, we really need secondary sources who quote McLean.

Here is a reliable secondary source that Rowling, most prominent GC feminist in UK, denying that she is part of an "anti-trans movement", with the BBC conceding that it was an opinion not a fact. BBC says sorry for debate about ‘anti-trans’ Rowling

I really don't see how WP:FALSEBALANCE applies. Please explain in detail. We have a vague label "anti-trans" (not a scientific concept) that is applied by groups and media on one side of a major debate in the UK, but is not used and in fact is denied by the other side of the debate. GC feminism is not a fringe POV as per WP:FALSEBALANCE. Come on, Wikipedia is about neutrality. We can't use the label in wikivoice in the title. AndyGordon (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality on Wikipedia means reflecting the predominant views of published, reliable sources, not seeking a middle ground between "both sides" of a debate. You're conflating the gender-critical movement with a handful of people who happen to espouse gender-critical views. Rowling's protests are irrelevant to this article, which is about the UK anti-trans movement more broadly.

McLean (2021) provides evaluation and interpretation of the contents of primary sources, making him an independent secondary source regarding the topic of this article. The source is published in a refereed academic journal, which are considered among the most reliable sources on Wikipedia. Describing this and other scholarly sources as merely one side of a major debate (with some random celebrities on the other side) is the epitome of false balance.

McLean succinctly describes the subject as a toxic discourse [...] in which it has become entirely reasonable to question the extent to which trans people should be allowed into the public space promoted by lobby groups who campaign against trans rights. Nothing vague about that. There's no problem using Wikipedia's voice to label the overall movement as "anti-trans(gender)" while acknowledging that certain groups deny that label. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sangdeboeuf

There is exactly a problem "with labelling the overall movement as "anti-trans(gender)" while acknowledging that certain groups deny that label". This is directly against WP:WIKIVOICE. "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."

By using the title "anti-transgender movement" and immediately saying it include GC feminism, we are labelling GC feminists "anti-trans" in wikivoice.

Although some reliable sources call GC feminists "anti-trans", some reliable sources reject that label:

• McLean (2021) acknowledges that: "Lobby groups who campaign against trans rights are usually at pains to stress their support for trans people."
• McLean explicitly identifies LGB Alliance as part of "anti-trans movement", but LGB Alliance denies the label, saying they "not anti-trans".
• Lamble (2024) speaking about some GC feminists, writes "These feminists generally position themselves as ‘pro-women’ rather than ‘anti-trans’"
• BBC: Re GC feminist Rowling being part of "anti-trans movement", BBC acknowledges that "our contributors gave their opinion as fact".

You've brought up WP:FALSEBALANCE, but it's about what is presented in the page from the section "What to include and exclude". Here to apply WIKIVOICE, we are discussing whether or not "reliable sources make conflicting assertions".

Moreover, it's not an extremely small minority who reject the "anti-trans" label: following the formulation in WP:DUE, the viewpoint that GC feminism is not "anti-trans" is held by a significant minority, at least: its easy to name prominent adherents such as Rowling or Stock.

As I've said, a resolution to this difficulty would be to make the page be about GC feminism in the UK. AndyGordon (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Following your logic, every individual or group mentioned in an article on white supremacy is being labeled as "white supremacist", which is just another word for "racist", which is a contested label. Therefore we shouldn't use article titles such as Neo-Nazism, Racism, Sexism, Terrorism, or White supremacy, which is obviously absurd. Article title policy does not apply to material within articles, and non-neutral but commonly used names are allowed.

Equating the views of political lobby groups and multiple peer-reviewed scholarly sources as just differing opinions is the epitome of false balance. Both scholarly sources you mention explicitly label the movement as anti-trans(gender). The BBC article about J. K. Rowling is irrelevant; Rowling is not mentioned in the article at all (and soundbites in the news media are not the same as peer-reviewed academic research). The topic is broader than just gender-critical feminism in the UK; see the sources I listed under §NPOV below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Lobby groups who campaign against trans rights – this isn't a very convincing argument against anti-trans movement. Against trans rights is another way of saying anti-trans rights. Lewisguile (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Notability

Hi, I wonder whether the "anti-trans movement" in the UK is notable. Please see WP:NRV: we would need "verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability". I suspect there is WP:OR to collate a set of events. Where are reliable sources that establish notability? AndyGordon (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

There are currently 88 sources supporting the article. A quick search of Google Scholar shows loads of articles on this subject: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=anti-trans+movement+uk&btnG=

From the first page alone, we have:

• Simon, Braedyn Ezra. "'It Isn't Hate to Speak the Truth': Anti-(Trans) Gender Politics in the UK and the Development of the 'Gender Critical' Feminist Movement: a critical look into the colonial remnants of gender discourse." (2021).
• Tudor, Alyosxa. "The anti-feminism of anti-trans feminism." European Journal of Women's Studies 30, no. 2 (2023): 290-302.
• Lamble, Sarah. "Confronting complex alliances: Situating Britain’s gender critical politics within the wider transnational anti-gender movement." Journal of Lesbian Studies (2024): 1-14.
• McLean, Craig. "The growth of the anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom. The silent radicalization of the British electorate." International Journal of Sociology 51, no. 6 (2021): 473-482.
• Duffy, Sandra. "Postcolonial Dynamics in Pro- and Anti-Trans Activism in the United Kingdom and Ireland." Feminists@ law 12, no. 2 (2023).
• Armitage, Luke. "Explaining backlash to trans and non-binary genders in the context of UK Gender Recognition Act reform." INSEP–Journal of the International Network for Sexual Ethics and Politics 8, no. SI (2020): 5-6.
• Miles, Laura. "Marxism, moral panic and the war on trans people." International Socialism 173 (2022).
• Hines, Sally. "Sex wars and (trans) gender panics: Identity and body politics in contemporary UK feminism." The Sociological Review 68, no. 4 (2020): 699-717.
• Dinnage, Madelaine. "A critical discourse analysis of the representation of transphobic discourse in the UK Press." University of Nottingham.
• Lewis, Sophie. "How British feminism became anti-trans." New York Times 7 (2019).

Seems pretty notable to me. Lewisguile (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

How many of these talk about an "anti-trans movement"? It is the topic of Craig McLean's article, but not mentioned explicitly by the others. McLean's article doesn't really give an explicit definition, although he uses the term in his title.

I'm assuming WP:GOODFAITH, but its not whether you think the topic is notable, but whether it meets our notability criteria. Please read WP:OR - most of the content is supported by sources that do not mention the phrase "anti-trans movement". AndyGordon (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith also, and that's why I gave sources. But it seems like maybe it's only the movement part that you have issues with (since it implies a singular movement)? If that's the issue, then that's certainly something to have an RfC/RM about, I guess? It could be "anti-trans movements" or "transphobia in the UK", as two alternatives.

However, the general topic of rising transphobia (often organised and pushed by politicians or the media) seems to be something the sources find notable, which is why they're discussing it. Most sources mention the gender critical movement, for example. Several mention ties to US evangelical/fundamentalist groups.

Either way, this doesn't really seem like an issue of notability but one of precision. WP:OR has little to do with it. The subject of the article is notable, as evidenced by the many, many sources backing it up. Whether the title reflects that subject is a different matter. Lewisguile (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

"Anti-gender movement" is also used frequently on Google Scholar, so that's a third alternative. Lewisguile (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Most of the sources on the 2020s anti LGBT movement in the page doesn’t say “2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States” either, it’s still a relevant and highly covered topic. Snokalok (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Snokalok that's a different page and may not be conformant with Wiki policy. We should base our discussion on the wiki policies. @Lewisguile if there are "many, many sources" please provide ones that talk about the "anti-trans movement in the uk". As I say, only one of the many you list above seem to mention this phrase.

We do already have an article about the "Anti-gender movement" and about "Gender-critical Feminism". Maybe the content of this page could sit in those pages? AndyGordon (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

And again, the phrase itself is irrelevant. Saying that we can’t have an article on something because different sources that talk about it don’t use the exact same name for it is a feeble argument at best, but more than one of the sources above do talk about there being an anti-trans, gender critical, anti-gender movement, shift, trend, etc in the UK, and several of the news sources in the article talk about it. Snokalok (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

To add, if one source says World War 1, another says The Great War, and a third says The War to End All Wars, we can still put all of those on a world war 1 article Snokalok (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm with @Snokalok on this one, I'm afraid. If the title is an inaccurate reflection of the subject matter/scope, let's discuss the title on that basis. But the argument you seem to be making—that the title is incorrect and therefore the page shouldn't exist or should be merged with others—seems an incorrect application of the policy you cited (notability).

Anti-gender movement and Gender critical feminism are much broader articles with a global scope. This is specifically about those movements within the UK (where the latter movement was said to have originated, according to the GC article). The "many, many sources" I mentioned are those which refer to anti-trans incidents and movements in the UK, not that specific term. I don't care about the specific term itself which is why I'm not bothering to defend it.

So can I clarify what the exact problem is? Is it:

• that the title is incorrect and should be changed?
• that transphobia and anti-trans incidents/movements in the UK are not notable?
• something else?

Lewisguile (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Anti-gender is not mentioned in the body of the article, and is rarely used in the British setting. So, I think you are saying that this article is specifically about GC feminism in the UK?

There is a proposal here to split off the content on the UK and GC feminism to a separate page.

So could this page be renamed to "Gender-critical feminism in the United Kingdom". That is notable, and there is already a call to create the page. AndyGordon (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that that title becomes overly restrictive. For example, the puberty blockers ban doesn’t cite any gender critical reasoning, but it’s still anti-trans policy. The BBC article isn’t explicitly gender critical in any way, it’s just anti trans. If we made this article gender critical only, we’d be cutting out relevant pieces of information for pedantic reasons because we can’t tie them back to one particular strain of anti trans belief. Snokalok (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to be neutral. A basic problem with "anti transgender movement" is that it is a one-sided description and we cannot use that in wikivoice. GC feminists don't consider themselves anti-trans in general, and are only said to be by a minority of sources. Our articles usually put both perspectives. Some think that the puberty blockers ban is "anti-trans" but that is contested and we can't just present the one view. The same applies to the BBC article. We can't in wikivoice say that either of those is anti-trans. It's going to be very hard to say that anything is anti-trans in wikivoice. AndyGordon (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Copying the first line from the GC article:

Gender-critical feminism, also known as trans-exclusionary radical feminism or TERFism, is an ideology or movement that opposes what it refers to as "gender ideology", the concept of gender identity and transgender rights, especially gender self-identification.

So, is what you’re saying here that a movement which opposes transness and transgender rights, can’t neutrally be described as “anti-trans?”

Likewise, are you genuinely

suggesting that a piece of writing which cites several anti-trans groups to say that trans women are rapists, cannot be neutrally described as anti-trans? Snokalok (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: Should we start saying “race realist” instead of racist because people who believe certain races are inferior describe themselves by saying “I’m not racist, I’m race realist”? Snokalok (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, many sources in the article do say anti-transgender or anti-gender, so perhaps if you believe too much attention is being given to terfism, you could try rewording things to highlight other types present in the source Snokalok (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we need to follow the sources, and reflect the multiple points of view, rather than putting one perspective in wikivoice.

On the title, see WP:NPOVTITLE. Present title is a descriptive name, which needs to be NPOV and there's an explicit warning to "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words". The linked page includes MOS:NEO which says "Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as pre-, post-, non-, anti-, or -like to existing words to create new compounds can aid brevity, but make sure the resulting terms are not misleading or offensive, and that they do not lend undue weight to a point of view". I'm contesting the title on basis that it lends undue weight to one side of the debate.

TLDR: we'd be better to put our energy into a page on "Gender-critical feminism in the United Kingdom". AndyGordon (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

And I’m repeating, that many sources in the article say the words “anti-transgender” and that gender critical is not an acceptable substitute for reason that that severely changes the scope of the article. Additionally, again I repeat, by gender critical feminism’s own consensus agreed upon definition on this wiki, it is anti-transgender. A movement which is best described as against transness and against trans rights, is in its most neutral definition, anti-trans, and the only reason I could see anyone contesting that despite our sources is because it sounds a lot less PR-friendly than “gender critical feminism” but the fact is, our sources link the two, our sources say anti-trans, anti-gender, and “GCF in the UK” would be a fundamentally different article than this one. If you disagree, then my question to you is this - what *would* you consider anti-trans, if not this?

I’d be open to @@Lewisguile’s Transphobia in the UK suggestions, though I would have to ask whether that shifts the article’s scope to one of more sentiment-based. Still, we do already have a Transphobia in the US article Snokalok (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Transphobia in the UK is definitely better than solely Gender critical movement in the UK. Do we need to clarify that this is for the 21st century only? Lewisguile (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

My initial thought was again, in a similar vein as the 2020s anti-lgbt in the US article - it’s meant to cover a distinct era, whereas if we just had transphobia in the UK, everyone knows people were transphobic in the 90s, that’s nothing distinct from any sort of trend, whereas the sudden uptick in the mid-2010s constitutes a distinct shift the other way from how things were previously going, a shift which many of our sources acknowledge as well. What are your thoughts? Snokalok (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

For a neutral notable topic, how about: "Disputes over Sex and Gender Identity in the UK"

The existing sections can be included and expanded something like this:

Background: as before but expanded

• Hostility towards each side of the dispute
  • Hostility towards trans people - as before but expended
  • Hostility towards GC feminists - added, for balance
• Policy changes: as before but expanded

I'm pretty sure there are sources to back this up, but not checked. But first, do you see I'm trying to find a neutral way to cover the material you've assembled? We can and should quote sources that say GC is "anti-trans", but just not in wikivoice or in the title. AndyGordon (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

But Disputes over Sex and Gender Identity in the UK is not a neutral rendering of this article—it's an entirely new article. One which, I might add, would result in significant WP:FALSEBALANCE if it replaced this article.

WP:NPOV isn't about exacting neutrality; it's actually about reflecting the consensus of experts. WP:SPOV doesn't treat the two things as equal—that's largely something that happens in tabloids. Lewisguile (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Snokalok, re: the time period, that's a good point. Based on that, and the existing articles such as 2020s anti-LGBTQ movement, I would vote to leave the title as is: 21st century anti-trans movement in the UK. 21st century transphobia in the UK seems a bit too much of a mouthful. Lewisguile (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll also add this as a potential source:

"Report of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, Victor Madrigal-Borloz"

https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g24/054/24/pdf/g2405424.pdf

I don't think WP:NRV applies here.

HenrikHolen (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a good source in general. Thanks for that. Lewisguile (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• This just seems like pedantry. The sources are very clearly about this topic and extensively so. They don't need to use the exact phrasing of the title in every source. This article is also a sub-level expansion from the more generalized global versions of the topic. I see no reason for the title to be changed. Silverseren^C 18:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

I am tagging this whole article as POV, because it contains a laundry list of people, organisations, and events that are implicitly being assigned the value-laden label of anti-trans/transphobic, but it does not cite sources that demonstrate that each of these things is in fact anti-trans. For example, the section "Restrictions on healthcare" (itself a non-neutral subheading) discusses changes to the provision of puberty blockers but includes no source that supports labelling these changes as "anti-trans". Is anti-trans supposed to mean anti-the-affirmation-model-of-healthcare? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I stared at this comment in amazement for several long minutes. To argue that it’s not anti-trans to ban trans healthcare and replace it with mandatory conversion therapy is a truly miraculous take that I’d go so far as to call WP:FRINGE.

Anyway, here are three sources that I found in as many minutes all calling trans care bans anti-trans.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/scotus-transgender-care-ban-12-04-24/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-HEALTHCARE/TRANS-BILLS/zgvorreyapd/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/05/trans-poll-gop-politics-laws/ Snokalok (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You are equating provision of a specific treatment with provision of healthcare. If a treatment is beneficial, providing it improves healthcare, but if a treatment is not beneficial then not providing it improves healthcare. Those three links are all about US politics. Where are the sources that support the Cass Review / Wes Streeting being anti-trans? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The Cass Review which multiple RS, as included in the article, have charged with advocating gender exploratory therapy, a form of conversion therapy? Here's WPATH et al calling it out for starters.[1] For funsies, here's an academic source on the myriad issues with the Cass Review which reviews multiple documents it produced and charges it with whitewashing "anti-trans prejudice", using "anti-trans" 24 times (and notes the support of GET).[2] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

In none of those 24 uses of “anti-trans” does it claim the Cass Review is anti-trans. Therefore relying on this source to insinuate that the Cass Review is part of an anti-trans movement is synth. What about Wes Streting? Are you happy to paint him as part of an anti-trans movement without any sources to back that up? WP:BLP applies. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Snokalok. The POV tag was entirely unwarranted. The article appears well balanced and makes reference to reliable sources where necessary. HenrikHolen (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I removed the {{POV}} tag because the user who tagged the article appears not to have done any research to attempt to solve the problem as indicated under WP:CLEANUPTAG. It's fine to have a discussion about possible POV problems, but not to use templates as a warning or a badge of shame. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with @Barnards.tar.gz that the article is POV and we should restore the {{POV}} tag. AndyGordon (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I have been editing in this area for years and am very confident that no source exists that would support implying some of these people, events and organisation are part of an “anti-trans movement”, without attribution, and with no use of neutral sources which do not use this term. Now that you know that I have done the research, please could you self-revert your removal of the POV tag until the issues are resolved, which at a minimum means coming up with sources that support the desired content, per WP:ONUS, and fixing the BLP issues. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Barnards.tar.gz and @AndyGordon. This article is one of several -- LGB Alliance is another -- which are plainly not written from a neutral point of view. It should at least be made more clear that some gender-critical individuals and organisations strongly reject the accusation that they are "anti-trans". -- Alarics (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield would at one time strongly reject the accusation that he is an "anti-vaccine activist". We go by independent, reliable sources, not PR campaigns by individuals and groups with an obvious conflict of interest. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You are correct that a denial of an accusation is not a strong reason to give weight to the inverse of the accusation, per WP:MANDY. The problem here though, is that when neutral sources try to write neutrally about this topic, they don’t throw around phrases like anti-trans. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

First, reliable sources are not required to be neutral. Second, peer-reviewed scholarly literature from sources such as Amery & Mondon (2024), Duffy (2023), McLean (2021), and Pearce, Erikainen, & Vincent (2020) all refer to the movement using some variant of "anti-trans(gender)" or simply "transphobic". Those are just the ones I found after a quick search; there may be others. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources are not required to be neutral, but when multiple significant viewpoints exist, articles are required to cover them all, with due weight - not just one. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The key word there is "significant". WP:BESTSOURCES like peer-reviewed scholarly journals are more significant than WP:ABOUTSELF denials for purposes of assigning weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what BLP issues are you referring to specifically? Snokalok (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Everybody who is named in this article is implicitly being described as being part of an anti-trans movement. “Anti-trans” is being used to mean transphobic. Take the passage on Nadine Dorries in the sport section. Where’s the source for Nadine Dorries being a transphobe? Scratch that, where are the overwhelming number of reliable secondary independent sources which commonly and consistently call her a transphobe? Because that’s the standard of sourcing you need to call someone a WP:LABEL in uncouched, unattributed wikivoice. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article is she called a transphobe. Her name is mentioned because she’s relevant to the timeline of events. Just because someone’s name is mentioned in the article does not mean the article is calling them anti-trans, otherwise every “Professor So and So of University of wherever described the anti-trans movement as” blurb would be calling them anti-trans because their name is mentioned; but you’re the only one applying such labels here. Snokalok (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

If she is not anti-trans then what is the purpose of including her in an article about an anti-trans movement? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Because in her official government capacity she played a notable and directly relevant role in the implementation of trans sports bans? You don’t need to call her directly anti-trans to list relevant actions conducted by her as a government figure. Snokalok (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

So is a person who implements an anti-trans policy anti-trans or not? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance this question has given that nowhere in the article is Nadine Dorries called anti-trans Snokalok (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The article is about an anti-trans movement. Every person, organisation and event that forms part of the narrative is implicitly being called anti-trans. How else could they be part of an anti-trans movement? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

They could simply be useful idiots for one. There's no value judgment in correctly labeling someone's politics as anti-trans, and WP:LABEL does not say we have to avoid basic categorizations like this. Should we also avoid labeling individuals as anti-immigration activists, anti-LGBTQ activists, or anti-monarchists? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Anti-trans redirects to Transphobia making them equivalent to wiki readers, and transphobic is literally on the list of examples of LABELs. If you think there is no value judgement in calling someone anti-trans, are you making a case that the two mean something different?

We can use all of the labels you mention if the sourcing is adequate. At the moment there is zero sourcing to support Nadine Dorries being part of an anti-trans movement.

If you want to make a case for Nadine Dorries being a useful idiot that has unwittingly played into the hands of the anti-trans movement, then you need sourcing for that too.

You can’t just make damaging claims - implicit or explicit - about a living person with no sourcing. You have been here for years so you must know this. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

So remove the WP:COATRACK material yourself. You're aware of WP:ONUS and could also cite WP:BLPREMOVE. Go ahead and be bold. Just stop wasting time complaining about how badly the article is written or asking others to provide sources that you say you are very confident don't exist in the first place. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The bold move would be to redirect this article to Gender-critical feminism on WP:POVFORK grounds. Since I expect that would be immediately reverted, I am attempting to gain consensus first.

It's good if you now agree that the passage in question is inappropriate and can be removed. But I've got very little interest in grinding out this same debate one passage at a time until the article is empty.

We could save ourselves some time and just do the redirect. What do you think? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

POV forking refers to separate articles on the same subject. The UK anti-trans movement as a whole is a broader topic than gender-critical feminism. See:

• Amery & Mondon (2024): By organised transphobia, we refer to this seemingly unholy alliance between liberal articulations of transphobia, often couched in feminist and even pro-LGB rhetoric, and deeply reactionary politics. [...] This type of transphobia has been particularly prevalent in the United Kingdom
• Kettell (2024): public policy measures aimed at improving the lives of trans people are frequently resisted on the grounds that they pose a threat to social norms. These views are often promoted by right-wing figures in politics and the media
• Lamble (2024): anti-trans politics in Britain defy conventional left-right divisions. Gender critical perspectives in Britain cross multiple constituencies as well as political and partisan lines
• McLean (2021): a formidable international collection of groups hostile to trans emancipation already existed. These included, but were not limited to, evangelical Christians, conservative policymakers (not all), and (some) feminist groups
• Morgan (2023): a survey of political transphobia in the UK [...] did not ... find a strong role for Catholic groups ... at UK Government policy level'. Instead, Britain’s anti-trans feminists are joined most visibly by conservative evangelicals
• Pearce, Erikainen, & Vincent (2020): The backlash against the proposed GRA reforms, and the trans-exclusionary feminist movement that has taken shape in the UK in relation to it, did not emerge in a vacuum. Rather, they are a contextual expression of a wider trans-exclusionary political climate with international dimensions.

A quick search of the scholarly literature reveals this to be a distinct subject. Are you sure you've done your research? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The overlap is significant, and the article is currently exclusively concerned with GC talking points. A better place to cover the conservative/evangelical perspective would be anti-gender movement. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Anti-gender movement is about a worldwide movement opposed to reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, sex education in schools, and gender studies in higher education, among other issues. This article is concerned specifically with opposition to trans rights as it manifests in the UK in particular. Quoting Lamble (2024): the British gender critical movement [...] differs significantly from the international anti-gender movement.

Articles on distinct but related topics will have some overlap. I think there's enough significant coverage in the above sources for a standalone article, even if it's shorter than the article we have now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, let’s take this logic to its conclusion. The Wikipedia article on Nazism talks about how Adolf Hitler took power because he was appointed chancellor by Paul von Hindenburg, who was the president of the party directly opposed to Hitler’s. Can we reliably say that Paul von Hindenburg was a Nazi, or just that he put one in power? If we can’t say he’s a Nazi, then do you think his name should be in the article on Nazism at all? Snokalok (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

That article explains clearly what his role was - and wasn’t - in relation to the Nazi movement, and has sourcing to back it up. Where’s the source that explains Nadine Dorries’ relationship to the anti-trans movement? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, as the BBC source cited in the article says, she met with the heads of UK sporting bodies and said that women’s competitive sports should only be reserved for those “born of the female sex”, which was shortly thereafter followed by several sports implementing restrictions on trans athlete participation. The inner workings of her mind aren’t mentioned, nor are her personal relationships whatever they may be, because they’re not relevant, only her actions are.

For someone who is so confident that there aren’t any sources in the article backing up what it says, you don’t seem to have actually checked. Snokalok (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I’ve added two more RSP green sources as well - sky news and the independent, all saying the same thing. Snokalok (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I read those three sources. ZERO of them mention an anti-trans movement. All three of them describe multiple viewpoints: the viewpoint that the policy change is being done for safety and fairness reasons, and the viewpoint that this is bad news for inclusion. This is a cracking example of how neutral sources describe this debate. They don't rush to condemn using one-sided language like "anti-trans movement". They present both sides. They explain the concerns of both sides in neutral terms, and they give quote space to the opposing parties to air their opinions.

Therefore, it is a gross violation of NPOV to pick one side and present that one as exclusively factual, adding in value-laden labels out of thin air (I repeat: the phrase "anti-trans" is not to be found in any of these sources!).

she met with the heads of UK sporting bodies and said that women’s competitive sports should only be reserved for those “born of the female sex”, which was shortly thereafter followed by several sports implementing restrictions on trans athlete participation - with the absolute best of faith, the only way I can make sense of this argument is that you must believe this sequence of events to necessarily constitute an anti-trans action, and to necessarily be part of an anti-trans movement, and therefore through some kind of WP:SKYBLUE argument believe that you don't need to source that conclusion. Is that right? If so, I can do no more than to recommend a much closer reading of WP:SYNTH. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Right, let’s start by getting the obvious out of the way.

Here are four RSP green sources describing sports bans as anti-trans policy.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/20/politics/house-transgender-sports-bill

https://time.com/6176799/trans-sports-bans-conservative-movement/

https://apnews.com/article/lgbtq-transgender-republicans-trump-christian-conservatives-election-83becc009d8123d96a75c2e4940ab339

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/watch-house-votes-on-anti-trans-school-sports-bill

It doesn’t matter which country they take place in, they’re still the same policy. But since you insist on a source specific to the UK, here’s a fifth source which directly lists sports (and GAC) restrictions as part of this movement, in which the paper also describes GCF as part of the wider UK anti-trans/anti-gender movement.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/10894160.2024.2356496?needAccess=true

But honestly even past all of that, it should be blindingly obvious that discriminatory restrictions on a minority group implemented during an established sociopolitical movement against the rights of that minority group, merit inclusion - regardless of whether the proponents of those restrictions say they’re justified. Snokalok (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do insist that an article about an anti-trans movement in the UK uses sources that cover an anti-trans movement in the UK.

Taking a closer look at the paper you cited:

1) it treats “anti-trans politics” and “gender-critical movement” as synonymous throughout, lending weight to this article being a POVFORK of gender-critical feminism.

2) It doesn’t mention Nadine Dorries at all.

3) It mentions sports exactly once, and only in the most general terms, so it supports no claims about any specific policy change.

4) It is a biased source, as we can tell by the introduction where it discusses strategies for challenging gender-critical politics. Therefore attribution is appropriate.

5) It is a single primary source containing academic opinion, and therefore represents one viewpoint, not the final word on the subject. You previously cited three green RSes, each of which includes the viewpoint that the policy change is about safety and fairness. That viewpoint needs to be represented in the article.

6) Your “blindingly obvious” argument contains embedded assumptions and debatable premises that make it ultimately your opinion rather than a factual statement. There are multiple viewpoints available on this topic. That’s part of what makes it a WP:CTOP. You’ve been editing this area long enough to know this. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you @Barnards.tar.gz AndyGordon (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m not ignoring this btw, it’s just holiday break and I feel like arguing on wikipedia over holiday break would be kinda miserable for me so I’m taking it easy and enjoying the time with loved ones. I’ll return after and continue after. Snokalok (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It might be simpler to just tag any parts you think aren't well sourced, and then someone can either source it or remove it. Or go in and suggest alternate wording. Worst case scenario, it gets reverted but we know what you have an issue with so can address it directly. Best case scenario, it's policy-based and NPOV, so everyone gives it a thumbs up and we move on. It saves us all a lot of back and forth. Lewisguile (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Nearly the whole article isn’t well sourced. The fundamental issue is that the sources support events happening but do not support them being part of an anti-trans movement. They are here for SYNTH/COATRACK reasons. @Sangdeboeuf has cited some scholarly articles that talk about an anti-trans movement in the UK. Those sources are suitable and the article should be based on those. Not on random news articles that have been synthesised into a narrative not directly stated by any of them. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Right, let’s do this. We have multiple sources describing sports restrictions as example of anti-trans policy in the UK.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0038026120934713

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10894160.2024.2356496#d1e342

And this one while not using the word anti-trans, does link such restrictions to wider restrictions on trans rights in the UK.

https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/ssj/41/4/article-p325.xml

Additionally, the source you’d previously discounted on the grounds that it used anti-trans and GC interchangeably did not in fact. It used GC to mean anti-trans, yes, but did not use anti-trans to mean GC; much like how all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.

Regardless, since we have sources saying that yes, sports bans are part of the anti trans movement, then we should detail those sports bans accordingly, would you not agree? Snokalok (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Hope you had a lovely holiday! Snokalok (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Note the disclaimer in the first source: It self-discloses that It is important to acknowledge, however, that we ourselves do not write from a position of neutrality. Non-neutral sources are usable, but when we know there are other sources available giving other significant viewpoints, then those viewpoints need to be added too. For example, here's a paper that argues that sport policy changes are not being done for anti-trans reasons, but for safety and fairness reasons: [3]. Here's another perspective [4], which I would summarise as "this is a difficult problem on which reasonable people can disagree". Then there are all the news sources that you provided which don't call these changes anti-trans, but do describe differing opinions. So the article's framing that these policies are necessarily anti-trans is just one narrow POV. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

JK Rowling

@User:AndyGordon Why did want to include the JKR paragraph? She’s not been mentioned in the article up to this point, I’m not seeing the relevance Snokalok (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I removed that paragraph since Political views of J. K. Rowling is its own article and the sources barely mentioned the broader anti-trans movement at all. @AndyGordon: can we infer from your addition that you agree the topic is notable after all? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Does this "movement" even exist?

Above, Sangdeboeuf quotes the view of Amery & Mondon: By organised transphobia, we refer to this seemingly unholy alliance between liberal articulations of transphobia, often couched in feminist and even pro-LGB rhetoric, and deeply reactionary politics. [...] This type of transphobia has been particularly prevalent in the United Kingdom. So: many people have expressed disgreement with some of the views expressed by some trans activists. I see no evidence of an "alliance", let alone that it is "organised". Are we expected to believe that sportspeople, evangelical Christians, and other groups have got together to organise their opposition to woke opinions? I certainly don't believe that. It seems to me that this article is about a conspiracy theory, not an organised movement. Maproom (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

You don't have to believe it. We follow published, reliable sources, not the personal experiences or beliefs of Wikipedia users. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Where's the reliable independent source that describes an organised alliance? Maproom (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Amery & Mondon (2024) describe the "alliance" they call "organised transphobia": Organised transphobia describes a top-down movement that relies on prominent platforms and privileged access to shaping public discourse to divert attention away from the real struggle most women and LGBTQ+ people are facing.

See also Morgan (2023): anti-trans feminist groups in both Britain and the United States have fostered extensive financial, organisational, and strategic ties with conservative Christian organisations [...] entailing overlapping personnel [...] and even shared conferences. However, this is a red herring, since organisation is not required for a movement to exist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC) edited 19:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is well sourced, and the citations do a good job of describing this movement. I don't see any issue with this section. HenrikHolen (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Sangdeboeuf and HenrikHolen. I'm convinced. Maproom (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)