THC Science

Biography Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Feminism Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy Start‑class Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Women writers Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Start‑class Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Allegations of transphobia

A section of this article alleges that Stock has made transphobic comments and tweets and that this has caused some controversy. My position is that Stock's "critical views on the UK Gender Recognition Act and trans self-identification" are mentioned at the beginning of the article, with three supporting citations, and as long as this isn't a real controversy that garners sufficient mainstream media attention or in some way affects Stock's work or influence, it need not be reiterated, certainly not to the extent that it is at the moment, with a full paragraph that is practically as long as the rest of the article. Additionally, the material I am referring to lacks sufficient citations, and the sources provided are not impartial—a tweet Stock has made, and a story in an LGBTQ publication—hardly neutral or strong sources that would suggest any sort of controversy worth mentioning. The user who has added this material has been insistent on reasserting their edits, so I'm putting it up here for discussion. If this receives no response within a week, I will delete the offending paragraph once more. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. CatCafe (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A mobile user edited the paragraph later, leaving a sentence about toilets. I reverted to content of neutral tone version from Revision as of 01:05, 2 January 2021 by Revirvlkodlaku which provides reference to the debate I describe below in Talk. I regard this version as a first draft btw, but the current choice is whether the article should contain short, general, neutral tone statement. Mattymmoo (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have reverted your edit per WP:BLP. Twitter is not a sufficient source. Nor is it appropriate to label a subject without any reference to sources - that does not qualify as a neutral tone. Best to wait for any discussion to play out here before making further edits. AutumnKing (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work to add section headings and more detail to these sections including additional references and new information.John Cummings (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

debate on sex and gender is hindered by labelling participants

The debate about sex and gender is taking place in many fora, often with very poorly defined boundaries. This debate bears on National legislation in the UK, in Scotland, on the regulation of sport, schools & prisons, and on social conduct and language. That debate should be covered, if possible, elsewhere on Wikipedia, but can be referred to here as Stock is a leading participant. I support the stance taken by [[User talk:Revirvlkodlaku|talk] , the paragraph should be deleted. Mattymmoo (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. CatCafe (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What precisely are the two of you agreeing about? What are you proposing? Newimpartial (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again = "the paragraph should be deleted". CatCafe (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debate on sex and gender is hindered by labelling participants. Why does this even have to be stated? Certainly we can do better than say that person is not on our team. I was surprised when I came here that somehow the article did not attempt to weaken her status because of her positions. That Wikipedia had not completely caved for fear of no longer being part of the cool kids. I was surprised by the fact in this one case, Wikipedia resisted folding again to its weaknesses. Let's go for two in a row. Nanabozho (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender identity

Stock has notable views with transgender or gender identity not people according to most sources. So I am unsure why it is reverted back to her having an issue with people. Which people? This source says "However, although Stock rejects gender identity theory, she doesn’t reject trans people."[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatCafe (talk • contribs)

The section on this in the body is sourced to The Argus, in which the relevant passage is as follows:

“However, many trans women are still males with male genitalia, many are sexually attracted to females, and they should not be in places where females undress or sleep in a completely unrestricted way.”

Dr Stock vehemently denies that she opposes trans rights.

She said: “I gladly and vocally assert the rights of trans people to live their lives free from fear, violence, harassment or any discrimination.

“I think that discussing female rights is compatible with defending these trans rights.

“This has nothing to do with any particular trans people – it is about a general structural issue in our society and how to deal with it.”

Neither Stock nor Argus invokes the concept of "identity" or "identity theory" here - she describes it as a general structural issue in our society that is concerned with many trans women in particular. That sounds to me like an issue with (certain) transgender people. Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Putting "people" is a rhetorical trick used by activists where they conflate their demands for specific policies and their metaphysical ideas with "people", thus allowing them to tar any critics of those specific policies and ideas as attackers of transgender people. Never mind that some transgender people, like Buck Angel, Blaire White, Debbie Hayton, etc. disagree with these unelected activists and self-proclaimed "allies". It is thus POV and inappropriate. Nothing quoted above supports this terminology - quite the opposite, e.g. as noted here. Any fair reading of the sources shows that Stock's issue isn't with "people" per se, but the legal and societal doctrine of gender self-identification - that male/female/other are a matter of self-proclamation only. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah those and other sources confirm it's about identity or rights - not people, I concur with Crossroads edit and explanation here[2]. CatCafe (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, rather than charging in on the steed of rhetoric, maybe you could deal with the example I provided at length, in which the doctrine of gender self-identification is not invoked at all. And as far as I can tell, your strawman argument about activists and celebrities has nothing to do with this article.

And CatCafe, Stock is specifically disclaiming that the issue is about rights, isn't she? She is saying it is about people - but not particular trans people, rather many trans women. Who are normally understood by nom-philosophers also to be people. Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take that as you making the argument that 'Transgender women' is a more appropriate phrase than 'Transgender people'. Point taken, but I still believe the sources are better reflected using the term 'identity' or similar. CatCafe (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, "transgender women" are a subset of "transgender people". Other arguments made by Stock apply to transgender people other than transgender women. Newimpartial (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and even in the source quoted above, she says that This has nothing to do with any particular trans people – it is about a general structural issue in our society and how to deal with it. Not people, but something structural. This article says Her current research project focuses on conflicts of interests between trans women and natal women, and how to resolve them. Here, she examines arguments against expanding the concept of “trans women” to include anyone self-identifying as such. It's about gender self-ID. This book review says It was also a statement of a new orthodoxy, one in which sex gives way to feeling, and feeling trumps facts. This is the central argument of Kathleen Stock’s controversial new book... This book review shows she speaks of gender identity theory. These are the first three I checked; there are plenty more. It is clear that the sources speak of her as criticizing the concept of gender self-identification. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, did you read the passage I quoted above? It placed your quote in context - in that instance, she is concerned specifically about many trans women and their role.

I have already documented that the first of the points made in this article is not about gender self-identification (a concept that doesn't even come up in the relevant section). Do I have to go through each of the other points supported in the article as well, or will you accept reality: that gender identification isn't the only aspect RS indicate her as being concerned with? Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Newimpartial. I'm well aware of what a subset is, duh. You just seemed to be making a point about 'women'. I don't think much of any of the above you present supports you want for it to say 'people'. CatCafe (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read anything I quoted? Her argument even there is about those trans women's self-identification. Self-ID/gender identity is how RS, versus your original research, relay her viewpoints. Certainly "people" doesn't cover her other points about self-ID. It is pure POV framing. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

, Crossroads, please take a deep breath and read my comment above where I quoted the passage surrounding (and including) your selected quotation. The Argus - the first RS we cite in the section - does not attribute the views of Stock's (that we are citing it for, on the issue I'm quoting her on) to self-ID. I'm not the one doing WP:OR or POV framing here. I am simply reading the source we use. What is it with you and ASPERSIONS, anyway?

I also don't understand what you mean by "people" doesn't cover her other points about self-ID. If she held these views, but not concerning people, do you think she would have attracted the criticism she has? Her views about trans people and societal structures are rather the point, not something more abstract. Or at least, the RS say so. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying that when sources summarize Stock's views, they describe it as a gender self-ID matter. Fixating on a phrase plucked from "The Argus" doesn't change this. Your proposed text is like if we said "X has been criticized for his views on Black lives" in an article about someone who actually opposed defunding the police. The result is activist editorializing. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a sensible parallel. The RS for this article note several controversial views of Stock's. Some are about self-ID and some aren't, but they are all about transgender people. I am not fixating on a phrase plucked from the Argus, I am evaluating the sources as a whole. Newimpartial (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which claims and sources aren't about gender self-ID? And regarding the Argus, what is "general structural issue in our society" about if not gender self-ID (per context)? Crossroads ^-talk- 21:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the current article, Stock has called for trans women who have male genitalia to be excluded from women's changing rooms, characterising them as "still males" who may be sexually attracted to women. That's not self-ID (per the source given).

Likewise, our PinkNews source points out, In January, 600 philosophers signed a letter criticising the decision to give Stock an OBE. In the letter, the academics expressed concern about a “tendency to mistake transphobic fear mongering for valuable scholarship, and attacks on already marginalised people for courageous exercises of free speech”. That isn't limited to the discussion of self-ID. There is clearly more at stake. Newimpartial (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That source doesn't say it's "not self-ID". Non-op trans women in women's changing rooms clearly is self-ID - they are in there because of self-ID. And PinkNews, itself a biased source, there attributes that view to the letter itself. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Non-op trans women in women's changing rooms clearly is self-ID - they are in there because of self-ID - that's nonsense, or at least OR. There are lots of legal frameworks, including the one I live under, that "allow non-OP trans women in women's changing rooms" without being based on self-ID in the sense Stock discusses in her work. So you're inserting terms like "non-OP trans women" that neither Stock nor our sources use, then twisting them to make a claim that neither Stock nor the sources make. As I said, nonsense, or at least OR.

As far as the philosophers' letter is concerned, my point is that the RS documents that they are concerned about views of Stock's that extend well beyond "self-ID". It is these concerns that define the issues to be reflected in this article - in fact, other people's concerns about Stock's work is a major component of her Notability by now, and if anything is under- represented in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When we get to specifics, the crux of the controversy is 'what is a woman?', gender-identity stuff. Those views are what the open letter speaks of: Stock is best-known in recent years for her trans-exclusionary public and academic discourse on sex and gender, especially for opposition to [amendments to*] the UK Gender Recognition Act and the importance of self-identification to establish gender identity...* Erratum: the original version of this letter incorrectly stated that Stock opposes the UK’s Gender Recognition Act. This was an error; it should have said that Stock is well-known for opposing amendments to the Gender Recognition Act that would have made it easier for people to self-identify their gender. [3] Crossroads ^-talk- 22:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, you need to chill out and cease trying to editwar. And regard you banging on about other's making aspersions, you were the one calling me a 'man', saying I wasn't human and putting faux warning tags on editors pages you don't agree with. CatCafe (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources here. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CatCafe:, @Crossroads:, @Newimpartial: could the three of you please stop engaging in an edit war. I understand that there is a disagreement upon the wording. I am trying to read, catch up, and figure what the sources that are being used are saying so that I can contribute, however the constant revert/addition/revert cycle is making this difficult. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just added supporting cite to the lede because Newimpartial is putting CN tags there. The lede currently looks fine and a good reflection of the rest of the article IMO. There should be no need for the cites in the lede that Newimpartial is demanding, but here we are. CatCafe (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Crossroads tried to use a SPS reflecting the subject's POV to define what is controversial about their views. That doesn't work at Graham Linehan, and it doesn't work here either. It is a basic NPOV and ABOUTSELF fail. Reliable sources are required.Newimpartial (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC) explanation below Newimpartial (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strike your falsehoods. Which of these three ([4][5][6]) is an SPS? None of them are; they are all top-quality published RS. And I never did any such thing at Graham Linehan either. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do keep in mind that rejecting clearly good sources is a sign of WP:Tendentious editing; see WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH and WP:REMOVECITE. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I explain this situation below; the self-published source was added in the same sequence of edits, and I mistook it as being about the same issue (and mistook where the quotation for "gender identification" came from, since I also saw the phrase on her faculty page). Anyway, I apologize for my confusion. Newimpartial (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that none of the sources you've added supports "transgender identification", the phrase you've been revert-warring into the article? Or do you? Newimpartial (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well they all refer to 'gender identification', & seeing I was the one who added 'trans' as a prefix, I will revert back to 'gender identification', as Newimpartial that seems what you're now arguing for. Thanks. CatCafe (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Taking the lead from revision as of 23:17 UTC, 8 October 2021, the contentious sentence appears to be She has gained public attention for her views on transgender identification. Prior to the edit war, per the revision at 20:36 UTC 7 October 2021 the sentence read She has gained public attention and criticism for her views on transgender people.

In the revision from 7 October, the sentence was uncited however was supported by the section labelled "Views on transgender people". As of the 8 October revision, that section has also been changed to "Views on transgender identification".

The crux of the disagreement appears to be whether the criticisms of Stock are because of her views on transgender people, as per 7 October, or on transgender identification, as per 8 October.

Starting with an analysis of the sources used in the "Views on" section on 7 October, Stock's own words are largely limited to the area of transgender identification. The criticisms however are not. In The Argus[ref 9] the criticism is a quote from an activist and refers to trans people. In The Spectator [16] criticism is restricted to the single unattributed quote "transphobic bigot". Citations 10-15 do not mention or contain any critical views. Citation 18 is a repetition of citation 14. Citations 19-28 deal with Stock being appointed as a trustee of the LGB Alliance, and criticism of that organisation. PinkNews [29] says that Stock has faced considerable backlash over her views on gender identity. in the opening paragraph, and in quotes from the student protest against her say that she is a transphobe and that she is espousing a bastardised version of ‘radical feminism’ that excludes and endangers trans people”.. The Times [30] contains the same quotes from the same group of students, and is used in the same manner. Citation numbers in this paragraph are based on 7 October revision linked above.

The citations used in the 8 October revision are the same, except they have been renumbered.

Next, looking at citations for the sentence in the lead as of 8 October. The Guardian [3] links criticism of Stock against trans people, per the open letter relating to her OBE. The BBC [4] limits criticism of Stock to transphobia. The Times Higher Education [5] also limits criticism of Stock to transphobia. Citation numbers in this paragraph are based on the 8th October revision linked above.

So, based on an analysis of the sources, criticism of Stock is either generalised to transphobia, or per both commentary on the OBE open letter and comments made by the students currently protesting against her, trans people. In my opinion, based on reading the sources in the article, where Stock is being criticised according to those criticising her, it is either generalised transphobia, or it is specifically against trans people. The opinion that the criticism is because of or limited to her views on transgender identification comes from Stock herself. Per WP:NPOV we have a duty to cover both points. As such I don't think either wording of the lead is properly balanced. Likewise I believe the "Views on" section heading is somewhat reductionistic, given that while Stock asserts she is writing only about transgender identification, those criticising her take a much broader view of the situation.

As such, I would propose the following change to the lead. "She has gained public attention for her views on transgender identification[3][4][5], which have been criticised as transphobic[22][23]". I am unsure of what change to make to the "Views on" section heading. Please note that the numbers in brackets for this suggestion refer to the citations as ordered on the 8th October revision linked above. They may have changed since. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes OK, but now it has been pointed out that the phrase 'gender identification' rather than 'transgender identification' better reflects the sources [3],[4]&[5]. Is the lede the best place for the criticism i.e. "...been criticised as transphobic[22][23]", or would this be best placed in the body? CatCafe (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re "gender identification" v "transgender identification", I saw that discussion happened while I was reading the sources. It's an easy one to fix in that sentence. As for criticism, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, so it needs to be in both. Given that the Sussex University subsection already mentions how she is being criticised for her views on trans people, I believe adjusting the wording of the first paragraph in the "Views on" section is most appropriate. Proposal: "Stock has called for trans women who have male genitalia to be excluded from women's changing rooms, characterising them as "still males" who may be sexually attracted to women. For these views she has been criticised as being transphobic, although she has denied opposing trans rights, saying..." Everything after the ellipsis is kept as it currently is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sideswipe9th (talk • contribs) 01:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Transgender people" was first inserted in this edit and was first challenged in these edits, having been there for only 2 hours and 42 minutes. That's no "prior to the edit war"; it has never been stable like that or had consensus.

This source analysis seems to be directly compiling the words/claims of criticism by Stock's detractors as quoted in sources, and arguing how to describe the criticism based on that. That is WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis; we should be relying on how WP:Secondary sources describe the dispute as a whole, not just the words of her opponents that they report on. This is especially since, as you note, Stock's own words are largely limited to the area of transgender identification. The criticisms however are not. Especially as a BLP, we should be sticking to the secondary description of the issue as a whole, not doing our own compilation of what critics say, since their criticisms diverge from what she actually says apparently.

"Transphobia" is listed at WP:LABEL, which are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. (Emphasis added.) I'm not seeing that threshold met, and even if it were, that would need to be attributed, not just a WP:WEASEL "criticized as".

"Gender identification" instead of "transgender identification" is fine. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that Stock has gained public attention for her views on gender identification is still both vacuous and WEASEL language, however, since it still gives the reader no idea where she stands on these issues or what form of attention they have received. This has primarily been critical attention, including calls from both students and her academic peers for her employment to be terminated - that is what the sources actually indicate, not that she has blithely "gained public attention for her views". Choke me on my own vomit, why don't you. Newimpartial (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with something like "She has been the subject of controversy for her views on gender identification." The calls to be fired belong in the body but not in the lead; since that is a currently highly-active campaign, putting that in the lead seems like boosting that campaign, which is inappropriate per WP:NOTADVOCACY. "Controversy" covers that plenty well. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get that the objective of the campaigns doesn't belong in the lede. I think "subject of controversy for her opposition to gender self-identification" might work: at least that would indicate the main point she is making, to which her critics object. Newimpartial (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages, as it would make it impossible to evaluate article content and sources. Secondly this is explicitly not WP:SYNTH. We had this discussion on another article's talk page about what synth is and is not. Synth is combining of two or more sources to reach a conclusion not supported by either, A + B = C. Of the three sources recently added to the lead, two of them (BBC and Guardian) both state in their own voice that Stock is being accused of transphobia. The THE article uses transphobic in an anonymous quote.

With respect to the sources in the "Views on" section, the reason I said Stock's own words are largely limited to the area of transgender identification is because the majority of the sources in that section are either written by Stock (The Economist), an uncritical interview with Stock (The Badger, The Guardian second cite ), or present Stock's words in an uncritical way (The Guardian first cite, The Standard, The Spectator). Outside of the subsection on the campaign by students at Sussex University, the only two sources that even mention criticism of Stock are The Telegraph and The Sunday Times, both of which try to dismiss it as propaganda by activists and Stonewall.

Having done a review of the sources in the article, the balance of the sources is currently skewed towards either pro-Stock or uncritical of Stock. Now that's not unexpected for a relatively small article that's been expanded recently, but it is something we should address.

It's also important to note that 600 of her peers said that "Stock is best-known in recent years for her trans-exclusionary public and academic discourse on sex and gender, especially for opposition to [amendments to*] the UK Gender Recognition Act and the importance of self-identification to establish gender identity, and for advocating that trans women should be excluded from places like women’s locker rooms or shelters." in an open letter written after her OBE award. That would not happen if her views were not controversial, and I would suggest that the chief objection at this time is because of a lack of balance in the sources.

To sum up, it is correct in saying that transphobia is best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources. However at the present time we have a relatively biased source selection that does not mention the criticism at all. Of the RS that do mention criticism, they all state that she has been accused of transphobia. Given the widespread criticism of Stock, especially by her peers, we should address the balance issue in the sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can agree that if RS are missing from the article, they should be added. The distribution of views in RS may not always be what we expect, though, and whether a wiki article has POV/bias is defined based on the sources, so it may not be that those sources are unrepresentative. They may be, or may not be. Regarding 'NOR on talk pages', when I speak of NOR I am speaking of proposed article text. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand that the controversies surrounding Stock are quite fluid, with debate developing to the point that we are going to have to distinguish clearly between support for Stock on "free speech" and "academic freedom" issues (e.g., what should the consequences be for Stock's interventions on trans issues) and support for Stock's positions on transgender issues themselves.

Once the article has some basic form and structure, though, we will have to to back to fixing terminology, because the phrase "gender identification" does not at all encompass the range of published positions for which Stock is being criticized, and "Honours" is a rather deceptive heading for a section where the negative reaction to Stock's OBE is much more noteworthy than her having received it in the first place - or at least, that is what the RS would lead us to believe. Newimpartial (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's a lot of editing on the main page at the moment, some of which is contentious, with no established consensus, and under discussion here. Do we maybe need to request an increased protection level for the article temporarily while we discuss and resolve the structural issues? Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - there aren't that many edits, the edits are generally good faith (though informed by a range of different perspectives), and discussion is happening in parallel with the editing. I wouldn't say that this page shows the level of edit-warring that would justify protection. The Land (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that there isn't any edit-warring going on, but if we're to discuss a major restructuring of the article, it may help if we can slow the rate of edits/additions/reverts at least temporarily? That way we can get the structure right without risking loss of any recently added content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what protection is for. It's to prevent vandalism and other clearly disruptive edits, except for full protection, which is just used to stop multi-sided edit wars, of which I don't see any going on. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence on published works in lede

Newimpartial, what's wrong? You add a CN tag on the lede demanding new sources, and then I make a minor edit and add a source as you demand one, then you delete it. Re the following sentence: "She has published on aesthetics, fiction, imagination, sexual objectification, sex, gender, and sexual orientation."[7]. CatCafe (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mistook the self-published reference that you added as being a response to my failed verification tag. You are quite correct that the ABOUTSELF source is fine for the sentence you quote, but that wasn't the point where verification had failed, per my tag. As I say, I was confused by this. Sorry. Newimpartial (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just taken a read of the source used for this section of the lead, in light of the recent attention that has been on Stock. I believe this sentence, as it is currently written may be misleading. As far as I can see, Stock's commentary on sex, gender, and related fields is non-academic. Her academic publishing record only contains works on aesthetics, fiction, imagination, sexual objectification, and sexual orientation. In light of this, if another editor can concur, I think we should make the distinction clear between her academic and non-academic published works, as academic works are necessarily held to a higher standard than non-academic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I'm not the only person to notice this. This PinkNews piece has comments from the USSU trans and non-binary officer who states "Professor Stock has not released a single academic piece in a peer-reviewed journal about trans issues". Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The USSU officer is not correct; Stock has published this in The Philosopher. This article about the meaning of sexual orientation also discusses "trans issues". Crossroads ^-talk- 06:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That piece in The Philosopher is difficult to evaluate, in part because it doesn't seem to be available for scrutiny. I've checked the usual sources; Google Scholar, JSTOR, Scihub, and I cannot find a copy of it anywhere. According to this review of works in the area, a version of it was available on Medium at one point in time but it has since been deleted. We don't even have an abstract to read, all we have to go on is a title. It would help immensely if we could evaluate this work if anyone knows of how to source a copy, as I am more inclined to believe the USSU officer and PinkNews than I am to believe Stock.

I disagree with your reading of "Sexual Orientation: What is it?" Having read that piece, it only tangentially mentions trans people and gender identity in one short section, on pages 11 and 12, as part of a literature review of other philosophers. The overall content of the work is on sexual orientation, and not trans people. I would argue that this does not meet the criteria for a published academic work on gender. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to "believe Stock", just the academic publishing indexes. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misrepresentation of what I said. I said that we can't verify that the piece in The Philosopher is a piece on gender from the title alone. Neither the full text nor abstract of the piece is available for scrutiny to confirm that the title matches the content. The PhilPaper's entry for it has no keywords and no categories. The only information we have is the title, where it was published, and when it was published. Don't judge a book, or in this case a paper, by its cover.

I'd also appreciate it if you could respond to the substance of my second point as well. You've said you disagree, but you've not said why, or given any constructive feedback on an alternative. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAYWALL -- the inability of any particular editor to access a source for free is irrelevant. If it's important to you, you can pay. Or not -- no-one else is going to care. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not strictly a WP:PAYWALL issue. I'm unable to find any source for the paper, not just a free source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I'm still trying to find a copy of the paper but I'm now severely doubting whether or not the source publication is actually peer-reviewed. There's a lot of information here, much of it outside the scope of Stock. In short, the current version of The Philosopher seems to only have come into existence circa 2015 after the collapse or split of The Philosophical Society of England. The original version of The Philosopher has not been published since that time, and the current version only came into existence in 2015 following the split. There is no reference on the current website to a peer review process at all. Searching online, the only place that seems to authoritatively say the publication is peer reviewed is Wikipedia, for which the claim is unsourced and has been challenged in the talk page. I'm going to try and confirm, and if necessary seek an update to The Philosopher's entry, but at the moment this paper by Stock is very suspect as to whether or not is academic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've found confirmation that The Philosopher is not a peer-reviewed journal. In the words of its current lead editor: "The journal is very much rooted in what is going on in philosophy right now, i.e. featuring contributions from authors of recent books, analyses of emerging trends etc. as well as a strong desire to balance out contributions from well-established academics with exciting up-and-coming scholars and even non-professional philosophers. So, for the scholar I would say that they are likely to come across a wide range of themes and thinkers that may significantly broaden their horizons while at the same time not requiring them to trawl through a dense 10,000 word peer-reviewed paper or a whole book.

In light of this, I would like to restate that we need to reword that section of the lead to make clear the distinction between Stock's academic and non-academic work. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone else interested, I've made an entry on The Philosopher's talk page here discussing the issues with the publication, along with issues as to the state of that article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One final note, thanks to the Wayback Machine I've finally been able to get a copy of one of the versions of the work published in The Philosopher, as Stock had previously posted it on her Medium. The work in question seems to have been commissioned directly by The Philosopher for the summer 2019 edition of that publication. In light of my earlier point about the lack of peer review, I want to reiterate that this seems not to be an academic work. It is a non-academic piece, published in a non-academic publication and commissioned by that publication for that issue. I am still trying to track down a copy of it as it was originally published to compare for differences and citations, however given the interview with the publication's editor I very much doubt there will be much of either. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Her body of work as a philosopher is rather insignificant/obscure, with a very low number of citations (roughly 400 not counting non-scholarly publications). Therefore, any mention of her philosophical work should be kept short. She is primarily known for anti-trans activism, including political writings and her role as a trustee of the LGB Alliance. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better-source tag on Lesbian and Gay News

@CatCafe: just to let you know I've reverted the revert. Per consensus at RSN archive 334, LGN is an unreliable source. Editors need to check both WP:RSP and WP:RSN when determining if a source is or is not reliable. WP:RSP is only for sources that are frequently discussed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK are we saying that LGN are not reliable when stating Stock's sexual-preference and what the University LGBT and Women's groups said against the VC? I will remove them for you.CatCafe (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple questions here. With respect to the University LGBT and Woman's Officer statements, that claim appears accurate and verifiable per primary sources. With respect to the quote from Janice Turner, that does not appear in the LGN article.

The issue however is that the source itself is unreliable. Please see Template:Better source needed for why it's appropriate right now to put a better-source tag into the citation, so that a reliable source stating the same claim can be substituted in when one is found. I'll be doing a search some time tomorrow for this, but that tag serves as a note for any other editor to find a reliable source that can be used in its place. Until a better source can be found, or if there is no better source, it is better to leave the statement from the USSU in place. I'd remove citation 15 from the sentence quoting Janice Turner however as that's not verifiable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CatCafe: please stop disruptive editing. For now the Template:Better source needed is the correct way to handle this situation until a better source can be found, or if after a search no such better sources then those statements can be removed. For now, leave it alone and search for a better source to slot in as a replacement. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of disruptive editing when I revert my own edits after I receive legitimate criticism. I would consider that you are disruptive editing when you refuse to allow me to revert my own edits. It you want to add the text under discussion please find a RS. CatCafe (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Find me the policy that says reverting my own edits is disruptive editing. You criticised my addition - I removed it. Please stop the accusations in edit notes. CatCafe (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately due to time zones, it is 3am where I live. I will be searching for a better source for this tomorrow after I wake up. However the purpose for the better-source tag is so that any editor can preform that search and make the necessary change. Note that better-source is different from Template:Unreliable source?. Unreliable source is when a claim made is suspect. Better-source is when a claim made is not suspect, but the source of the claim is. The statement that USSU made in response to their vice chancellor is verifiable per primary sources. Namely the USSU Twitter account. However the secondary source currently used for that statement is unreliable. It's fine to leave the statement in for now, pending a search for a better source.

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, point 5. Per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. I have tagged the problematic part of the article content, so that I or another editor can correct it later. This is proper policy in this situation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)\[reply]

User:Sideswipe9th you are being unreasonable. You criticised my work and you put on CN tags. Then you convinced me that my sources were not RS, so I removed my own additions and cite and I'm in in the process of finding new sources to satisfy you. But then you are reverting my reverts of my own work and putting back nonRS. Why do you want to reintroduce back the nonRS you've criticised - that makes little sense considering you want it gone. Unless you are wanting to editwar? Now you want to make official complaints about me. Please realise that I'm trying to edit to fix the problem you raised, and you're doing the reverting. CatCafe (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want the claim gone, I want the source fixed. I did not criticise your work, I criticised the source. There is a large difference. I fully support the additions you've been making to the article over the last few days, they're good. And noting the statements by the USSU LGBT+ society and SU Women's officer is important given what is happening on the Sussex campus right now. The issue is not with the content, it's with the attribution of the content. The purpose of the Template:Better source needed tag is so that any editor can see that there's a problem with a source, but it's not related to the claim the source is making, so that a more appropriate source can be found. The claim is verifiable through primary sources, the secondary source that was in use is unreliable. Leave the claim be, but fix the source problem. If a reliable secondary source cannot be found for that claim, then state it here before removing the tag and the source. Until that has been done, it is appropriate to leave the better source tag in place, so that multiple editors can see that there is a specific problem with that source, and not the claim that the source is making. One editor may not find a better source, but multiple editors searching for it might.

The reason why I made the complaint is because the actions taken are making fixing this one small source problem far more difficult than they need to be. I thought it was a WP:3RR violation, clearly I erred in the interpretation of that rule. I had tried to resolve the situation here, however you kept the same removal which was not necessary. The statement is fine. The only thing that needs fixed is the source being used for it. That's all. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you erred IMO as well. And I found one new source for you you instantaneously - even after the Women's Officer had deleted her tweet for whatever reason. Now perhaps you can find an additional source re the LGBT+ Society comment - otherwise half the sentence (I added) needs removing. I'm trying to help you out here. CatCafe (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. So the only source I can find for the Sussex Uni LGBT Society response to the vice chancellor is a Twitter post they put out on 9 October. This doesn't appear to have been picked up by any reliable secondary sources. With regards to the Student's Union at Sussex, they put out a statement on 8 October on their website, although I can't find a secondary source for this either at least in English. I know there's one French language secondary source currently in the article, but I'm not fluent enough in any second language to check non-English sources. Given that the women's officer at USSU has since deleted her post and USSU Twiter account for some reason, I'd suggest we link to the statement on the USSU website instead of a archived Twitter post.

On the topic of last night. Removing those statements in that manner was kind of a nuclear option. As I said before, the issue wasn't with the content in the article, it was with the source being used to support the content. The content didn't need to be removed at the time, all it needed was a Template:Better source needed until one or more editors could preform that search. I would have done it at the time, but it was late and I was getting ready for bed. As such I tagged that source in the hope that any editor could have seen the issue and resolved it before I woke up, without needing to remove the content until we could be sure that there were no reliable secondary sources for it. If it hadn't been resolved by the time I woke up, I'd have taken a look myself when I had the time/energy to do so. That is established procedure in these circumstances as the sentence itself was not contentious and was verifiable as factual based off primary sources. As such, I saw the wholesale removal of those sentences as disruptive. I tried to discuss it with you @CatCafe:, however for some reason that's still unclear to me you preferred to remove the content entirely pending. When it appeared as though we were in an edit war, I did a quick read of the WP:3RR and thought that this was a clear cut violation. Obviously my interpretation of that rule differs from the admin who reviewed it. As such I apologise for getting it wrong and taking that action. It would help if I could understand why you wanted to proceed in that way, as it seems to me that it would make it difficult for more editors than ourselves to engage with fixing the sourcing. I hope that helps you understand why I took the actions I did last night, and I'd suggest that outside of helping me to understand why you felt removal was the only option (which may be a topic for your/my talk page and not here per WP:NOTAFORUM) we leave it here and move on. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes on all that, there seems not to be good sources for the sentence: "The university's LGBT+ society and the Student Union Women's Officer both criticised the Vice Chancellor's response" - but I note the next paragraph expands on the Student Unions position. So I have removed the said sentence and we can rely on the better sourced next paragraph. CatCafe (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But not to be outdone editor Newimpartial, rather than contribute here, thinks it better to report me at ANI for doing this. I have invited Newimpartial to contribute and discuss here, and assist with RS needed, but so far they can't be bothered, preferring to have me reprimanded. CatCafe (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the previous discussion here about RS for comments by the USSU and its officers, PinkNews put out this piece a few hours ago with extensive commentary from Amelia Jones, the USSU officer for trans and non-binary students. Noting here to return to this tomorrow if no other editor picks up on it by the time I wake up. There does seem to be some useful commentary we can add for context. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've had a read of the piece now and I'd like to propose adding the following paragraph into the reactions subsection, immediately following the paragraph from the UCU.

The University of Sussex' Students' Union officer for trans and non-binary students, Amelia Jones was dismayed by the comments from the vice-chancellor calling them "an adamant defence of Professor Stock" while condemning their lack of acknowledgment of trans and non-binary students and staff. She stated that "The vice chancellor still has not met with his own trans students to see how they are feeling" and that some students had swapped courses at the university to avoid being in classes with Professor Stock.^[1]

Any thoughts, additions, or rephrasing needed? Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Per consensus at RSN archive 334" – the Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion regarding Lesbian and Gay News was never closed. Which means that there is no final determination on whether it is or is not considered acceptable as RS for Wikipedia purpose. That discussion can be re-visited and continued at any given time. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not having a formal closure, and not having consensus, are two rather different things. There is a quite clear consensus to that discussion without there being a formal closure. Although I agree that a new discussion based on a longer baseline evidence - and without the now-banned SPAs and the brigading from the "gender critical" boards and twitterz that marred the previous discussion - might produce an even clearer result. Newimpartial (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Newimpartial said, closure and consensus are two different concepts. The discussion linked was the most recent entry for it on the noticeboard, and the consensus at the time was that it was unreliable. Consensus can change over time, and if an editor wants to challenge that consensus, the onus is on them to open a discussion at the relevant noticeboard. But until a new consensus is established, we should stick with the existing one, that the source is unreliable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kellher, Patrick (13 October 2021). "Trans students 'shocked and dismayed' by uni's 'hypocritical' defence of professor Kathleen Stock".

Campaign by students and reactions section

I've just done a first pass review on the reactions subsection to the ongoing campaign at Sussex university, removing and combining repetitive information, and re-ordering the paragraphs to better fit chronological order of events. I also clarified the distinction between comments made by the Sussex branch of the UCU from those made by the national organisation, as well as noting that the Sussex branch executive had received threats as a result of their statement. I'm still a little unhappy with the final paragraph, some of which would fit better in the first paragraph. Chiefly the statements by Baroness Falkner and Liz Truss, so I may take another pass at this later if no-one else does. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that CatCafe has been blocked for a week for 3RR, and so may not be available to comment for a while. Newimpartial (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, thanks. More just a note here to keep myself right given what happened over the last 24 hours here, as I don't want that edit to be seen as disruptive. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding CatCafe, Talk:Jessica Yaniv#Kiwi Farms drawing (for which reason he was also permanently blocked) is particularly illuminating. His edits come across (as many others have noted) as extremely biased and parts of this article previously gave the weird impression of being a hagiography. I suggest that we remove his recent biased edits. The article subject is primarily known for her anti-gender views and activism, and the current wording of the lead, which only refers to unspecified "views on gender identification", doesn't adequately summarise who she is or what she is known for. For example the letter signed by 600 academics (mostly philosophers) in response to the OBE should be mentioned; it received a huge amount of coverage and made her a well-known figure. We should also include something about the student protests and the UCU response, that Stock herself said "effectively ended" her career (so there's really no question that it's significant). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanda A. Brant: you should comment on content, not contributor; additionally, "indefinite" is not "permanent", and I don't know why you're using he/him pronouns for CatCafe but I don't believe you're correct. — Bilorv (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: pointing out that another editor has been indefinitely blocked from contributing to another article in these content areas (BLP and gender), for attempting to add a deeply abusive image is not a personal attack. Neither is pointing out that in light of their being temporarily fully blocked from Wikipedia that perhaps their recent edits should be checked to ensure no WP:NPOV violations. This is a contentious area, and ensuring the correct level of balance is a fine line to tread at the best of times. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that clearly is a personal attack. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

An attempt at summarising some of the key issues discussed in the article:

Kathleen Mary Linn Stock (born November 1972) is a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex.^[1] She has published on aesthetics, fiction, imagination, sexual objectification, sex, gender, and sexual orientation.^[2] She has gained public attention for her views on gender identification.^[3]^[4]^[5] Stock received broad media attention when she was criticised for "transphobic fear mongering" in a letter signed by 600 philosophers and other academics, who objected to her receiving an OBE. In October 2021, a student campaign calling for her dismissal received significant media attention. Stock said a statement by the University and College Union in support of the students' right to protest against transphobia at the university had "effectively ended" her career at the university.^[6]^[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanda A. Brant (talk • contribs)

This is not a balanced summary of the body, per WP:LEAD. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It was a relatively balanced summary at the time of writing, circa 9.30am UTC, October 13 2021. There have been a number of revisions since, including a series that I am not convinced has consensus given the various discussions on this talk page. Perhaps in addition to a complaint, an alteration could be proposed given the change in state of the article? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The editor Crossroads has not offered any rationale or evidence for their assertion that the proposed wording is not balanced, nor any form of constructive input or counter-proposal that other editors could engage with. As discussed before, the lead is currently not a meaningful summary of the article and fails to explain what she is notable for. For that reason we are discussing an improved wording here. She is not really notable as a philosopher (see section below about her limited scholarly impact/abysmally low number of citations); she is primarily notable for her anti-gender activism and the related controversies surrounding her, especially the widely reported letter by 600 philosophers criticizing her views as both unscholarly and transphobic, and the student protests calling for her dismissal (including the controversy generated by the protests). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Amanda Brant and Sideswipe9th. Most of the material about Stock and thus most of the article is about protests against her. All of that needs to be referred to in the lead. The Land (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's really quite silly to assert that an entirely one-sided presentation in the lead is somehow "balanced". We can disagree with "the other side" (I do -- i.e., I disagree with them), but it does exist. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is not balanced? It includes one sentence about the controversy that made her a well-known public figure back in January when she received an OBE and 600 philosophers condemned her views. Fact. And then it includes an entirely factual sentence that mentions the (widely reported) student campaign calling for her dismissal (that has generated a ton of controversy). And then it includes one sentence quoting her about the UCU statement that she says is of career-ending significance. Fact. Instead of just complaining, you could propose an improvement. For example, we don't absolutely need the last sentence about the UCU statement, but the other two are summarising the two things she is mainly known for. We are also not aiming for any kind of false balance here. This is not Stock's website. It's not LGB Alliance's (a fringe group) website either. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing me of intentions I do not hold. I'm well aware that wikipedia articles are not subjects' websites -- thanks for the lecture. I have no intention of dealing with toxicity from other editors, especially when it leads to biographies that are unbalanced to the point of contravening BLP. Perhaps a discussion of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS will have to happen in a different venue? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The substantive point is that Stock has also received support from other academics. Are we going to include this in the lead? I think that way of writing leads produces awful text. The current version, noting the way her views on gender self-identification, gives readers what's needed, in my view. The effort to add "facts" from one angle but omit "facts" that might seem inconvenient from that angle is precisely what we must not do. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Are we going to include this in the lead'? Well - why not. I've just added it. It's odd in my view to have a one-sentence statement in the lead about controversy, when that is 90% of the article. The Land (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need details in a lead, so I don't like your version. But I accept the need to compromise, so I've made an edit that leaves most of it intact. The part about "transphobic fear mongering" goes too far, though -- WP:UNDUE in the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK- but we do have to mention the reason for the controversy, complaints etc. We can't just leave it silent and say there were complaints but not what about. If we're not saying 'transphobic fear mongering' then what wording would work? The Land (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do mention it: her views on gender self-identification. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that isn't what the letter says at all; it refers to Stock and others using their academic status to further gender oppression in light of her trans-exclusionary public and academic discourse on sex and gender.[8] As I have said before, this criticism is not at all limited to "her views on gender self-identification", and it is purest whitewashing to pretend that it is. Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the recent letter of support, I have already mentioned my view on this in the balance section. That quality of the signatories to that letter is incredibly suspect. Only around half of the names are academics, and the signatories contain a number of false and repetitive entries. I do not believe this letter can be relied upon in the article because of these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sideswipe9th (talk • contribs) 15:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial and Sideswipe9th both make good points here that I agree with. Certainly it's highly misleading to claim that the criticism from the large representative group of philosophers was merely related to her views on "gender self-identification"; the exact wording could be adjusted in accordance with the quotes mentioned by Newimpartial. I also agree that the "support letter" from the transparent TERF group "GC Academia Network," containing mostly obscure signatories (and a number of false names) at most merits a one-sentence mention below, and that it's misleading to portray them as "hundreds of academics" when it's primarily yet another statement from the overlapping groups within the TERF movement itself. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nomoskedasticity nailed it. What is clearly POV and one-sided WP:LEAD writing is summarizing only the opposition to Stock and not the support. And, again, when it comes to summarizing why she is controversial, this has to be based on WP:Secondary sources describing the controversy. Not grabbing sound bites directly from her critics and, OR-style, saying that is the controversy. Of course partisans in a dispute will propagandize their case by using vague and moralistic terminology. We are supposed to be summarizing the sources that are secondary to and removed from the dispute, not the people engaging in it. Also, when it comes to reporting the letter in support of Stock, Wikipedia must describe it the way reliable sources do, rather than report on it according to editors' WP:Original research. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above and discussed elsewhere, Stock is not really notable as a philosopher (she has a very low scholarly impact) but rather as a controversial activist in a fringe movement, namely the anti-gender movement (from the lead on our article on that movement: "The idea of "gender ideology" has been described by scholars as a moral panic or conspiracy theory") and more specifically trans-exclusionary radical feminism (where she is even mentioned in the article), and as a trustee of an organisation that has been widely labelled a hate group (as discussed in its article). Her trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) or "gender-critical" or anti-gender views are fringe views, of that there is no doubt at all. It would be completely wrong and biased to treat the "moral panic or conspiracy theory" that she and her supporters advocate as equally valid as the cricism of her, e.g. the criticism from 600 philosophers over transphobia at Sussex University. The lead was therefore quite balanced and reflected a mainstream, international perspective on this debate. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "balance" in the lead as currently written.
"Stock received broad media attention in January 2021 when she was criticised for transphobia in a letter signed by 600 philosophers and other academics, who objected to her receiving an OBE.[6] In October 2021, a student campaign calling for her dismissal received significant media attention, and prompted both criticism and support of Stock.[7][8]"
In comparison to what precedes it, it is insufficient to merely state "prompted...support of Stock" and leave it at that. Where's the wordage that elucidates the support she has received? Right now, the composition of the lead is slyly bypassing WP:NEUTRAL. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary! If we were to elaborate on "support and criticism" (clarification: this refers to the sentence on the student protests) at all, we would need to elaborate on the extensive criticism of her fringe views. Most of the "support" she has received is from the anti-gender/self-described "gender-critical"/TERF movement itself, such as the "letter of support" from a declared TERF group (GC Academia Network). Apart from that she has mainly received some support for her right to freedom of expression, coming from a somewhat absolutist perspective (such as the statement by the vice-chancellor), that itself has become the subject of criticism and controversy. However, apart from the vice-chancellor's (controversial) statement, the statements of support (e.g. from the GC Academia Network) haven't really received the same kind of attention. There are really only two issues/controversies that really stand out in generating substantial debate and controversy, and making this somewhat obscure philosopher (ca. 400 scholarly citations) into a public figure (also internationally): The January 2021 letter by 600 philosophers criticising her, and the ongoing student protests. So those two issues need to be mentioned. The wording that mentions "support and criticism" is, if anything, overly balanced in her favour, but I find it to be an acceptable compromise for now. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why you should not have re-added this. That was already summarized when describing the controversy over her views on gender self-ID. That is POV because it fails to describe the things like the letter from academics in her support, and hence a BLP violation. That some editors don't like that letter and have strong opinions on her views is not relevant. None of the details on competing letters need to be in the lead.

And you need to stop conflating her views with the heavily Catholic anti-gender movement. It is akin to saying that both socialists and American libertarians have the same ideology because they both oppose American police as an institution. Outside of a small amount of overlap reached for separate reasons (in this case on gender self-ID), the ideologies differ extensively. Catholics believe in gender roles, while Stock and others like her want to abolish them. Of course, critics say that isn't how that would work, but they also largely recognize that different worldviews are still at play. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the so-called letter of support from a fringe TERF group called the GC Academia Network doesn't merit inclusion in the lead, and it hasn't generated anywhere near the same level of attention as 1) the criticism from 600 philosophers in January and 2) the student protests in October. They are not "competing" letters because they are on entirely different levels in all respects, both in the quality of the signatories, and in the level of attention they generated and thus in their significance. The initial letter is really the main reason for her current notability (she's an exceedingly obscure philosopher with about 400 citations), and the student protests are a direct result of the earlier controversy generated by that letter. The letter by the TERF group has had no discernible effect, it's just one of the many (minor) statements from various groups and people that are part of the ongoing controversy related to the student protests (generated by the January letter).

The TERF movement and the rest of the anti-gender movement are two sides of the same coin, they increasingly cooperate and they increasingly share the same terminology and views, and this has been extensively discussed by scholars (e.g. [9]).

The controversy is not about her views on so-called "gender self-ID", the criticism from the philosophers in January and the current student protests are specifically about transphobia at Sussex University, a much broader topic. This was also made clear in the statement by Taiwo Owatemi, the Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, who said she was "greatly concerned by [Stock’s] work as a trustee for the LGB Alliance group" (widely considered a hate group), and which she said should be "rejected by all those who believe in equality." --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions about Stock and the letters are not relevant, only coverage in sources. And this source does not support the extreme degree of the claims you are making. Even though it explicitly says it is from a trans feminist perspective, it says, The TERF wars, then, are best understood as a series of complex discursive and ideological battles within (rather than against) feminism. That's what I've been saying.

As for "the criticism from the philosophers in January...are specifically about transphobia at Sussex University, a much broader topic", if that is so, then it definitely doesn't belong in the lead of an article on the BLP Kathleen Stock. And Owatemi is a partisan politician, not some neutral factual observer. As I said before, we have to rely on sources secondary to the controversy, not ones propagandizing as part of it. This applies to both sides of course. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The letter is in response to Stock's OBE, and is about her contribution to an anti-trans environment at Sussex and elsewhere (as well as being concerned with the ways other parties have amplified her views). Of course it is relevant here.

And if you are willing to remove the material from The Times, The Telegraph and everyone else that is propagandizing as part of this controversy, then we might as well go to AfD. That might be my personal preference, but I don't think it would help our readers in this instance. Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Need to make a correction here, though I see as I was typing Newimpartial made the same point. The January letter was in response to Stock being awarded an OBE. That letter criticised both Stock directly for producing transphobic discourse, and more widely the environment that is protecting her from the consequences of making that discourse. We already have, or had as I've not re-checked while typing this reply, factual secondary sources in the article pointing out that the criticism she received from her peers in January, was because of her actions and the environment her actions create in wider society. Amanda A. Brant is correct in saying that Stock's primary claim to relevance is because of the criticism she has received over her non-academic content, not because of her academic work. Prior to the recent student protests, the two most notable events about her were that she was awarded an OBE, and that because of the award she received a large amount of criticism from her peers. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial's comment reveals a big part of the problem. The comment positions the secondary-source, mainstream media/newspapers as ~~fake nooz~~ propagandists in the same way the partisan activists themselves are. What a very postmodern, post-truth, alternative-facts, with-us-or-against-us way of speaking about the world. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do for my views about "truth" what you have previously done for my views about "biological sex" (namely, STRAWMAN them into nearly the opposite of my position). I am talking about what The Times and The Telegraph are doing on this issue in particular - which is absolutely propaganda - and not at all discussing the normative role of broadsheet papers of record, which the Times fulfils much of the time and the Telegraph, well, not so much. But I am attacking their practice on this issue, not the norm. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the only RS covering the recent letter in support of Stock is The Times, whereas conversely almost every RS discussing Stock in relation to the current student protest has pointed out the January letter. The January letter is relevant to criticism of Stock. The GC Academia Network letter is not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of the "support" she has received is from the anti-gender/self-described "gender-critical"/TERF movement itself, such as the "letter of support" from a declared TERF group (GC Academia Network).} – "Terf movement"? "declared TERF group"? Based on these statements, which are your opinions ... I don't think you should be editing this BLP. If you can't stay neutral, think neutrally, and edit in a neutral manner — you should not be editing a BLP subject in which you obviously have a very strong emotional investment about. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might say the same about you. Based on your comments, you are in no position to tell me what I should and shouldn't edit. Trans-exclusionary radical feminism, abbreviated TERF, is an objective, scholarly and widely used term (especially among feminists), used in scholarship and general discourse when referring to this movement, and it's also the heading of the section describing the movement in our article on Wikipedia. It is well known that the term is only rejected by fringe, anti-trans groups such as LGB Alliance, which is widely considered a hate group, but just like we don't let climate change deniers or self-declared "race realists" dictate how we refer to their movements here, I'm not going to let fringe anti-trans groups/TERFs such as LGB Alliance dictate how I refer to their movement. GC Academia Network is a declared TERF group, that is an objective fact ("gender-critical" redirects to the section describing the TERF movement and including the term in the heading). I write from a mainstream, centrist liberal perspective, and where I live transphobia/TERF and "anti-gender" ideology are universally condemned and regarded as an extremist/fringe ideology/movement, and nobody would even raise an eyebrow when someone described an obvious TERF group such as GC Academia Network as a TERF group; it's just a description. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Based on your comments, you are in no position to tell me what I should and shouldn't edit." Exactly which comments of mine are you comparing? WP:NPOV, or WP:BLP, or WP:RS?
"widely used term (especially among feminists)" – "widely used" is a disputable assumption, and "among feminists" in real life is "among select feminists".
"GC Academia Network is a declared TERF group" – where did it declare itself to be a "TERF" group?
"it's just a description" – this all depends on the motive of those who create descriptions.
Nevertheless, your letting us all know your personal opinions and the perspective you're coming from is very helpful. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GC [Gender-Critical] Academia Network is a declared TERF group because they call themselves "gender-critical". The fact that they don’t use the same terminology is immaterial; "gender-critical" redirects to TERF and describes the same thing (no climate change deniers call themselves climate change deniers either). From a broader international perspective (that includes the US and most of Western Europe), anti-trans groups calling themselves "feminists" are considered fringe groups by the vast majority of feminists. No respectable or well-established feminist organisations that I know of support TERF/"gender-critical" ideology; it's only promoted by new organisations dedicated entirely to anti-trans activism that are often labelled as hate groups and that established feminist organisations don't touch with a barge pole. (Compared to the UK, the US and other Western European countries have a stronger feminist tradition with more well-established feminist organisations that are part of the political mainstream, which probably explains why transphobia is such a marginal phenomenon among self-described feminists in other countries). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary: please do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS about another editor. Your comments about Amanda A. Brant are a personal attack, and WP:NPA applies. Amanda's commentary is fine, there is a difference between discussion of terminology and casting ASPERSIONS on the motives of editors. Remember to assume WP:GOODFAITH, and that WP:COMPETENCE is required in a discretionary sanctions area. @Amanda A. Brant: I'll say largely the same to you, though I do recognise your comments were only as a response to those by Pyxis. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: WP:ASPERSIONS links to casting aspersions, where it is described as "To make damaging or spiteful remarks."
It also states, "These principles are an application of the policy against personal attacks".
Where in my comments have I made damaging or spiteful remarks, or a personal attack? Your desire to find fault in another editor is transparent. So let me put it this way ... don't threaten me with bogus accusations. Because falsely accusing an editor of making aspersions against another editor is not only uncivil, but may be considered harassment .Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary: If you can't stay neutral, think neutrally, and edit in a neutral manner — you should not be editing a BLP. That is an aspersion. You are attacking the editor's motives, you are claiming they are making ideologically biased contributions and should not be contributing to this content area. That is a personal attack. It is fine to disagree with the arguments an editor is making, and indeed that is encouraged so that consensus can be reached. Attack the arguments not the editor. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: Full comment: ""Terf movement"? "declared TERF group"? Based on these statements, which are your opinions ... I don't think you should be editing this BLP. If you can't stay neutral, think neutrally, and edit in a neutral manner — you should not be editing a BLP subject in which you obviously have a very strong emotional investment about." – this is an observation based on the comments in this talk page made by said editor, and I made a WP:NEUTRAL-based suggestion to said editor, which you personally interpreted as, and twisted as, WP:ASPERSIONS. Your involvement in this goes beyond impartial observation, or else you would not have left the following comments in said editor's talk page:
Hey Amanda, my advice next time another editor makes an accusation like that is to not rise to their bait. Point out the personal attack and refer them back to policy. If they continue, then you can raise it through one of the noticeboards via WP:RUCD. I do agree with everything you've said on the talk page. ... and ... Don't worry too much about it. I've had the same accusation made against me. It's frustrating when it happens, but better to let the other editor make a fool of themselves, than get dragged into an argument on their terms. No-one comes out of the latter situation well.
You are creating animosity, and you are fostering hostility among editors. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 00:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Kathleen Stock : University of Sussex". University of Sussex. 2021. Archived from the original on 9 October 2021.
^ Cite error: The named reference philpeople was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Badshah, Nadeem; and agency (2021-10-07). "University defends 'academic freedoms' after calls to sack professor". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2021-10-07. A university has said it will not tolerate threats to "academic freedoms" after a professor faced calls to be sacked over her views on gender identification.
^ Lawrie, Eleanor (2021-10-08). "University of Sussex backs professor in free speech row". BBC News. Archived from the original on 2021-10-08. The University of Sussex's vice chancellor has defended a professor after protesters tried to have her sacked for her views on gender identity.
^ Grove, Jack (2020-01-07). "Kathleen Stock: life on the front line of transgender rights debate". Times Higher Education (THE). Archived from the original on 2020-01-07. "It is quite a strange situation to work somewhere where people make it clear that they loathe you," reflected Kathleen Stock, professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, on the backlash she faced for her views on gender identification.
^ Cite error: The named reference ucu was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference guardian2021-10-12 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Balance

This article includes no less than 8 or 9 statements in support of Stock from people who have themselves been criticized for transphobic or at least problematic comments and activism. Many of them are active in the same fringe movement or organizations. It includes ridiculous variations of the "I have a black friend so I can't be racist" fallacy by quoting the world's only trans anti-trans activist (Debbie Hayton). Of course you can find one or two black people who might say outrageous things about other black people, but should their views dominate articles on racism? Are they representative of the group they claim to speak for, is the key issue here.

In comparison, the only criticism included in the article is the criticism from large and representative groups, including her own trade union with its 120,000 members, and a collective statement by 600+ philosophers and other academics. We should remove the "I have a trans friend" stuff about Hayton (a fringe figure with an unremarkable career as a schoolteacher) and only include the "letter of support" from Tickell because it is representative of something or someone (he speaks for the university). That, in addition to the coverage of her own views on the subject, is more than enough to represent her own (fringe) position. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, oddly, the editorial stance of The Times seems to carry disproportionate WEIGHT with certain readers, for some reason or other. Newimpartial (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, it doesn't add anything new to the article, it's just more of the same conspiratorial propaganda from the anti-gender movement that serves to bombard the reader with a British anti-LGBT, right-wing perspective reminiscent of the Orbán regime in Hungary. We shouldn't approach this issue solely from a UK perspective at all; the anti-gender movement operates internationally, and they are criticized in other countries as well. They are certainly not viewed as mainstream in any other part of Western Europe. Consider Hungary: Our articles are not bombarded with newspaper articles from right-wing Hungarian newspapers that push the Orbán line on everything from LGBT to the rule of law; on the contrary the mainstream European perspective on these issues dominate our coverage. We shouldn't treat the UK differently in that regard. As far as LGBT issues are concerned, the UK is an outlier, just like Hungary, and we should treat the national debate in the country's right-wing press with far more caution. There is also a quality issue here; the coverage of LGBT issues in the British right-wing press has been criticized repeatedly for being conspiratorial and sensationalist, so they are not really very good sources when they are used just for commentary. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, PinkNews and the two Times and Telegraph newspapers are all considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Philip Cross (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether The Times in general is accepted as a source, but whether we need to bombard the article with a dozen comments representing a British right-wing, conspiratorial anti-LGBT perspective, and whether the article on Stock (a member of a very fringe movement, i.e. trans-exclusionary radical feminists) should include five or six times more support than criticism. It's an issue of balance, not only in terms of the local debate in the UK (or more precisely in its right-wing press), but globally. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Philip, we use BIASEDSOURCES on WP, but that doesn't mean we have to weigh the sources so heavily on one side of a dispute - particularly through the use of editorials. Newimpartial (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add The Times editorial. Multiple feminists associated with The Guardian would take a similar view to those who have written for The Times. PinkNews appears to be the only UK reliable source taking a different view on this issue. Philip Cross (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable academic sources geneally take a different view, as does the RS reporting on the student activists. Newimpartial (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a brief look previously at recent coverage of Stock, when trying to find a secondary source for the statements made by USSU and their LGBT+ Society, there appears to be more media coverage about Stock and her views than about those criticising her. I agree however that the article is biased somewhat heavily in favour of Stock's position at the moment, with more statements in support of her than against. I would advocate for removing the recently added paragraph on the letter from The Times. The letter itself was written by only 16 trans people, some of whom are non-notable, and the reporting of it in The Times is disproportionate. 16 people does not the trans community make. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This problem also increases with endless new additions about statements from the same (TERF) group and published in the same anti-LGBT newspaper, that now dominates the article in an inappropriate way.[10] This is not Stock's personal website, it's an encyclopedic article about her. Also note how misleading the edit is: The source makes it clear it's a statement from "GC Academia Network", a TERF group (self-described "gender-criticals"), and the statement itself uses extremist language ("women's sex-based rights", a term only used by the TERF movement), while the edit misleadingly claims they are just prominent academics (they aren't). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, especially with regards to the open letter from the GC Academia Network. While more names have been added to the open letter since the Times piece was written, currently at 1259, about half (608) of the names on it are from students. Even limiting the search to the first 800 names as they are being added sequentially, results in over half (417) being students. As such The Times' reporting of it is overly sensationalistic, and misleading when it says "mainly university staff". Yes what I'm saying is OR, but to clarify I'm not saying we should criticise The Times' in the article, I'm saying that we should remove that statement entirely. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't remove WP:RS because some editors' unsourced opinion is that the source is bad. Add RS with missing perspectives instead, if they exist (I suspect they do). None of the proposed removals would be appropriate. They amount to POV special pleading. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presently, the only source that I can find covering the GC Academia Network open letter is The Times. I would like to know what policy "Add RS with missing perspectives instead" is quoted from, as I cannot easily find that text anywhere else on Wikipedia. Or if it's paraphrased, which policy it's paraphrased from. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a quote; maybe you saw the italics double apostrophes as quotes in the diff? The idea is based on WP:NPOV ("all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources"). This doesn't mean 'I think RS overrepresent this view and I'm going to remove it'; rather, add the other RS viewpoints that are missing. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ONUS states While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article.. I am arguing that the claims made by The Times' in relation to this open letter are not verifiable, and I'm also arguing that even if it was verifiable it does not improve the quality of the article. The open letter is available on Google Docs. The names are in a table. Any editor can preform an analysis like I have done to verify the claims made by the Times that the first 800 people who signed it are "mainly university staff". When I preformed the analysis, less than half of the first 800 names were non-students. Some of the names on the list are clearly fake, for example 962 is Dr Otto Octavius, and some names appear multiple times. The quality of the letter and its signatures is very clearly suspect. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Times seems determined to discredit itself in its coverage of this issue, but it is not our job to give them an additional platform to do so. Newimpartial (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Newimpartial and Sideswipe9th. The key issue is that endless additions of demonstrably factually misleading/false commentary from The Times does not improve the quality of this article, and that The Times has a poor reputation in this topic area. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Find WP:RS criticizing it then. No attempt at a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and special pleading that The Times is bad because editors fancy themselves as independent journalists is going to succeed. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And this entire talk page could use more light and less heat. The light comes from sources not editors' own arguments. Some editors may need to review WP:NOT#FORUM. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of The Times in this circumstance is only part of the argument I'm making and it is a stand-alone part. I'll reiterate the other stand-alone part again which has yet to be addressed, WP:ONUS states While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. The article from The Times covering the GC Academia Network does not improve the article. As such, we do not have to include it per WP:ONUS. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you and Newimpartial want to "discredit" The Times, take it to WP:RSN. On the ONUS question, we seem to be at an impasse, so an RfC may be in order. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That may he worth doing, but assembling the links and quotes to show that The Times is pursuing an agenda on this issue rather than simply reporting factually - and actually getting RSN participants to read the evidence - is a pretty big ask, particularly to obtain a carve-out from the general reputation of The Times when we are supposed to pay attention to source biases even for the most reliable of sources.

Anyway, instances where The Times is the only source making a claim or characterizing things in a certain way are the main matters at hand, and editors are already discouraged by WP:DUE from going out om a limb with a single source. Newimpartial (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Sharpe review

There is now an additional academic review of Material Girls by a critical legal scholar, which someone more patient than I could work into this article: [11] Newimpartial (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is exactly the kind of thorough, high-quality sources this article desperately needs. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book doesn't have much coverage in the article and at present reviews are only used to describe the book content. If that changes, I feel this review is worth including, but that would be a significant change to the article. The Land (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a hostile review of both books & amounts to soapboxing. Wikipedia's Voice would need to contrast a sympathetic view. Mattymmoo (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is another high-quality, academic review with a sympathetic view available? Newimpartial (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found these reviews.^[1]^[2]^[3] (There's also this interesting review by a gender-critical feminist who complains that Stock shows too much sympathy for gender identity theory and queer politics; go figure.)
Schazjmd (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Baggini, Julian (September 13, 2021). "Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism - a review". The Philosophers' Magazine.
^ O'Grady, Jane (April 30, 2021). "If biological sex is a myth, so is evolution". The Telegraph (London). ProQuest 2520054508.
^ Patterson, Christina (April 25, 2021). "Fighting back about gender". Sunday Times (London). p. 26. ProQuest 2517754011.

Use of "gender critical"

@Bilorv: I've just reverted your last edit removing the term "gender critical" from the article. Its use in this manner is supported by the sources used in the article, though maybe an argument could be used for putting it into quotation marks rather than removal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I have reverted it back. This is a term that was created and is endorsed by one side of a debate; WP:LABEL applies. Newimpartial (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I had forgotten that. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of value-laden labels, what about the paragraph about Falkner's comment which speaks of "attacks" on Stock in Wikipedia's voice? Referring to the student protests and the statements by UCU and academics who have supported the protests or otherwise criticised her as "attacks" doesn't seem neutral. I tried changing it to criticism of Stock, which it is, but an editor instantly changed it back to attacks simply because the source used that biased and value-laden label. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution here would be to put the word "attacks" in quotation marks, the same as "disgraceful" is, to clarify that the choice of language there is Falkner's/the sources and not Wikivoice. Or possibly to see if there's an alternative source for that section those comments, without The Times' paraphrasing of Falkner's words, and then modify that paragraph to better fit the source? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Newimpartial explains as well as I could what's wrong with "gender critical", though I do think my edit summary was clear enough. Onto the next point: "criticism" isn't appropriate (death threats, say, are not criticism), but neither is "attacks" in our own words. Bit clunky to say what The Times deemed to be "attacks" on Stock but it's the only thing I can think of. Very unclear from the source who specifically Falkner is commenting about (maybe that's intentional on the part of Falkner, or The Times). Is there a longer quote by Falkner that makes clear what she is talking about? — Bilorv (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The student group's statement, that has received public support from staff members, doesn't include any "death threats". If Falkner wasn't referring to anything the student group or academics at the University of Sussex have said or done, but something else, she should have made that clear. In any event, we shouldn't pay much attention to random comments on the Internet; anyone can claim to receive "death threats", and TERF groups have a long history of (often baselessly) interpreting any random comments on social media that they don't like as "death threats" and using it as anecdotal evidence in support of their views. The main issue in this case is the demand by the student group (without any death threats) and the response to it. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I've alluded to in another section, The Times' coverage of this has been very sensationalistic. According to The Times Stock has been told by the Sussex Police that she "must keep off campus and teach solely online because of threats to her personal safety.". However according to Brighton and Hove News, published an hour later, the Sussex Police said "We have established that police have not advised the victim in this case to stay away from the university campus." WP:RSP says that "The Times, including its sister paper The Sunday Times, is considered generally reliable.", however I'd argue that in this case their reporting is anything but accurate. I would be inclined to treat any reporting by the Times as suspect. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made that point as well. Even though The Times may traditionally be considered acceptable as a source in most topic areas, its coverage of LGBT issues specifically has a long-documented history of transphobic, misleading, sensationalist and factually inaccurate reporting. We should treat them in the same way that we would treat a right-wing anti-LGBT pro-Orbán newspaper's reporting on LGBT issues. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another source saying otherwise on one point does not establish that The Times is unreliable. That is a common occurrence. We especially do not reject RS based on sensationalized and unsourced personal opinion. If "attacks" is used by the source in its own words, then what non-personal-editorial-opinion, non-WP:OR reason is there to exclude that word? An edit like this falsifies the source and is a WP:BLP violation, because the individual criticized the attacks, not all "criticism". Also, some editors need to stop WP:SOAPBOXING on this talk page their opinions about the BLP and related topics. Lastly, many sources and critics of Stock and like-minded people use "gender critical" in their own voice. It is not forbidden to do so, and equating it with "race realism" is a false analogy, since no RS use that term in their own voice. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using "gender critical" with attribution, such as which Stock describes as "gender critical", is fine if sourced. Using "gender critical" without attribution would violate WP:NPOV and MOS:LABEL; the opening of MOS:WTW specifies, Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, ... or endorsing of a particular viewpoint, which is clearly the case with "gender critical". The term itself takes one side of a controversy. Newimpartial (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably agree with you a couple of years ago, but nowadays I see a lot of critics of GCs use the term without comment, as well as mainstream newspapers. I suspect that this is because it's harder to discuss and criticize them if the public doesn't know who is being talked about because the terminology is all over the place. But, we can write creatively around it to keep it attributed if used, though it should be without seeming MOS:SCAREQUOTES. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Gender-critical" has basically the same meaning as anti-gender although it's a transparent attempt to make it sound more palatable (like "race realist" instead of "racist"). The fact that members of the anti-gender movement like to call themselves "gender-critical" is probably taken by many mainstream sources/people as an admission that they are in fact part of the anti-gender movement that scholars have described. So mainstream people may sometimes use "gender-critical" in their own voice as a synonym for someone considered part of the anti-gender movement, perhaps in a slightly mocking way (because the idea of being "anti-gender" or "gender-critical" is viewed as such a ridiculous and extreme position in itself by mainstream people, it's something most Western Europeans and educated Americans associate with concerning and bizarre press reports about the conditions in Orbán's Hungary). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The Times' coverage of this has been very sensationalistic". Personal opinions are irrelevant. For as long as The Times (The Sunday Times, The Times of London) continues to be considered a "Generally reliable" source, it can and should be used as a source in this biography — regardless of any editor's POV. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that everything The Times writes must be included in the article. The weight we put on coverage in the Times remains a matter of editorial judgement. In cases where the Times covers a particular aspect of a subject at greater length than other sources tend to, it's fine to omit aspects of what the Times is saying. The Land (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS states While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. If consensus is that coverage in The Times does not improve the article, we are under no obligation to add it. I and others are simply saying that, and the reasoning for why we are saying that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus against The Times being used as a source for this or any other article, and this is not the venue to arrive at one. WP:RSN is. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While that statement is accurate as far as it goes, SMvCandlish has not offered a policy-compliant argument to include everything The Times has to say on this topic - and no such argument actually exists. In particular, we are not obliged to include claims or phraseology featured only in The Times. Newimpartial (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar

Should we include her Google Scholar profile[12] as is common in academics' biographies? She has an abysmally low number of citations for such a high-profile figure, which is interesting in itself. Some of the publications she lists in the profile are not scholarly publications at all, but political blog posts related to her activism in the anti-gender movement. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment we link to Stock's PhilPeople profile in the lead which largely seems to cover the same info. Maybe adding both to the her infobox might be a good idea? Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intimidation and harrassment

The entry quoting Daily Nous is soapboxing for harrassment & intimidation. Protests targeted at a specific individual, demanding their dismissal, simply because they disagree with you on a public policy issue is harassment and intimidation. The entry is partisan should be removed as incompatible with the voice of wikipedia. Mattymmoo (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood the position of the Daily Nous and its editorial team. Newimpartial (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A ridiculous assertion. It is a nuanced, balanced comment from the leading news website in philosophy, that if anything is rather sympathetic to her position regarding her right to free expression, while also pointing out that the students also have that right. It's funny how she and other trans-exclusionary radical feminists so often insist on relentlessly attacking trans people (in a manner that many would regard as transphobic harrassment in a workplace context), insisting on their own freedom of expression, while not tolerating any kind of criticism of themselves, not even the most nuanced and balanced criticism (such as the Daily Nous article). The students have made it clear that they don't disagree with Stock on a "public policy issue", they object specifically to transphobia at Sussex University, and UCU and others have agreed with them. Different! --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of the quote I disagree with is the casting that this is an academic freedom issue. Stock isn't being criticised or protested against for her academic work, the condemnation is because of her non-academic work. The rest of it, and the article itself seems fair and reasonably balanced. Reading WP:NPOV this does not seem like a NPOV issue, because the content from the Daily Nous is properly attributed and clearly the opinion of the author of the source, not Wikipedia itself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with that, and I've seen a number of commentators make that point and point out that she hasn't published any scholarly papers at all recently.

I don't personally agree with the Daily Nous comment, but I thought it seemed like a reasonable attempt to understand both sides in the controversy over the student protests (which is rare in this dispute), making a good point that students have freedom of expression too. The Daily Nous is also widely read by philosophers. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, that quote from Justin Weinberg is a self-published post on his "popular philosophy blog, the Daily Nous" (insidehighered.com) It is a self-published source, and according to WP:SELFPUB "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Happy to discuss, but I am deleting it in the mean time. AndyGordon (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weinberg is not making any claims about Stock. He is making a general point about academia, pointing out that "students themselves have under UK law a right to freedom of expression, including the right to (unwisely) call for one of their professors to be fired, and to do this in writings, on social media, on flyers, and through in-person demonstrations. They also have the right to publicly condemn her views". This is all uncontroversial. The Daily Nous is a notable, well-respected philosophy online newspaper. Weinberg is a well-respected professor of philosophy. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Amanda A. Brant, please also see WP:BLP "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." and WP:BLPSPS "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." The quote is about Stock "one of their professors" from a blog post about Stock, and we are discussing an article about Stock.

Which sources say that that Daily Nous is a newspaper? The wiki page does not.

From WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." The quote is about UK law. Is Weinberg an SME on UK law? (I don't know.)

Remember also "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources" so there may be other sources for the legal situation. Regards. AndyGordon (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amanda A. Brant: Since you are a relatively new editor (account created 13 September 2021) you should consider becoming familiar with WP:BLP and WP:RS. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources

The following may become useful.

Extended content

Kathleen Stock @Docstockk (12 October 2021). "My former union branch @sussexucu has just effectively ended my career at Sussex University. This just sent to all members". Twitter. Archived from the original on 15 October 2021.

Bannerman, Lucy (8 September 2018). "Trans Goldsmiths lecturer Natacha Kennedy behind smear campaign against academics". The Times. Archived from the original on 6 July 2021. Members of the group claimed that the philosophy department of the University of Sussex was "clearly an unsafe environment" because of the presence of Kathleen Stock, a professor who has argued against redefining the category of woman and lesbian to include men.

Badshah, Nadeem (7 October 2021). "University defends 'academic freedoms' after calls to sack professor". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 7 October 2021.

Hatchet, Jean (7 October 2021). "Smoked, but not fired". The Critic. Archived from the original on 9 October 2021.

Martina Navratilova @Martina (8 October 2021). "This is not ok… it's worse than cancel culture- it's dangerous". Twitter. Archived from the original on 16 October 2021.

d’Ancona, Matthew (11 October 2021). "The Kathleen Stock case is about much more than trans rights". Tortoise Media.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Turner, Camilla (12 October 2021). "Lecturers' union has 'effectively ended' my career, says professor at centre of transgender row". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 October 2021.

Collins, Philip (13 October 2021). "Kathleen Stock, trans rights and a crisis of free speech in British universities". New Statesman. Archived from the original on 13 October 2021.

Somerville, Ewan (13 October 2021). "Cambridge University 'Terf-spotting' guide condemned as a 'witch-finder's charter'". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 14 October 2021.

Donelan, Michelle (14 October 2021). "Intimidation of Kathleen Stock is an attack on democratic ideals". The Times. Archived from the original on 15 October 2021. (Donelan is MP and Minister of State for Higher and Further Education)

Courea, Eleni; Woolcock, Nicola (15 October 2021). "Bookshops are scared to display my work, claims trans row author". The Times. Archived from the original on 14 October 2021.

"Academic freedom in British universities is under threat". The Economist. 16 October 2021. Archived from the original on 13 October 2021.

Anne McElvoy, Samuel Kasumu, Alison McGovern, Penny Mordaunt, Robert Winston (14 October 2021). Question Time Live From Nottingham. 14/10/2021 (Television production). United Kingdom: Brexit-Box TV (YouTube). Event occurs at 39:46. (Question Time presenter: Fiona Bruce. Left to right: Anne McElvoy, senior editor at The Economist; Samuel Kasumu, former senior advisor on ethnic minorities to Prime Minister Boris Johnson; Alison McGovern MP, Shadow Minister (Digital, Culture, Media and Sport); Penny Mordaunt MP, Minister of State, Department for International Trade; Robert Winston, Baron Winston, House of Lords, Vice-Chairman of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.

→ And only to see who is publicly supporting Stock (using Twitter): go to Stock's account @ https://twitter.com/Docstockk — and Search hashtag: #IStandWithKathleenStock.

Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the collection, several of these sources are either inappropriate or already covered in the article through other sources.

All three of the Twitter links are WP:PRIMARY. The first one, about the letter from Sussex UCU is already covered by reliable secondary sources in the article (see reactions subsection). The second is straight WP:PRIMARY territory. And the third is inviting editors to preform original research which is forbidden.

The Critic is not a reliable source. Though discussion on it quickly veered into a discussion on Intelligence (journal) the users who did comment on it raised concerns about its notability and publication of fringe views.

I'd be interested to know what content the rest of these may add to improve the article however. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"opposition to gender self-identification"

Hey @Newimpartial:: thanks for adding that source. Here's an interesting passage: "what she says she opposes, though, is the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters – that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex." It doesn't tell us that she "opposes gender self-identification". So, to do WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, perhaps we could fix the body so that we could fix the lead? I mean, if we're trying to get an accurate article, anyway... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the idea that gender identity is all that matters – that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex is what Stock (and others) mean by "self-identification". It doesn't mean anything other than this. So it seems that you are creating a distinction without a difference.

I have previously objected to the use of "gender identification" or "self-identification" in the lead and article headings, as already acceding to the terms of debate that Stock and her allies prefer. But if we are going to use those terms, we have to allow Stock et al. to actually mean what they mean, rather than engaging in OR revisionism. Newimpartial (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating response. I of course think that the WP:OR is coming from you. If we say "opposition to gender self-identification" and Stock hasn't said (or is reported to have said) "I oppose gender self-identification" -- I think it's OR, even if there's some sort of deduction you can come up with to make the equation. Has Stock in fact said "I oppose gender self-identification"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you can read Material Girls and find a difference between the objections to "self-identification" she offers in that book and the "institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters" as what she "says she opposes" in The Guardian, I'd like to know what you think that difference is. To me there is no difference at all - and in Material Girls she uses "self-identification" as a label for that which she opposes. Newimpartial (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you're content to go with your deductions and your own take on things -- cool, cool... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I follow what the sources actually say. No ASPERSIONS, please. Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- so there is a source where Stock has said "I oppose gender self-identification"? Please, let's have that -- would be good to resolve this. PS: I'm going to continue in this mode -- so if you're worried about aspersions please proceed straight to ANI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She endorses "objections to self-identification" and "opposes the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters", which is one of the ways she defines "self-identification". I'm afraid I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make - it's as though you were doing a word search for "I oppose gender self-identification" in her work and, seeing none, concluding that she does not verifiably oppose gender self-identification. That isn't the way language - or philosophy, or polemic - works. Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, digging in -- WP:OR on stilts -- thanks for the clarity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serious question: why not just use the wording reported in the sources? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like, a philosopher who ... has developed the fullest gender-critical case against trans inclusion? [13] Yeah, that's fine with me. Opposition to trans inclusion seems much more accurate to me than opposition to "self-identification". But the edit warriors have insisted on using the primary-sourced term. Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did that comment seem clever to you? It will be evident to others that the intention was to sidestep the question rather than to answer it. I could pose it more specifically, but the section heading makes clear what this discussion is about. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the language used in the highest-quality of the available sources. I don't see why you think that is somehow out of scope; this isn't an RfC between only two options, you know... Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sure. But to the matter at hand: you are not producing sources for "Stock is opposed to gender self-identification"; you've only engaged in obvious WP:OR for it. Self-revert, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The journal paper that Newimpartial is a WP:SECONDARY source on Stock, and it does indeed say what Newimpartial quoted from it. That said, it seems as though the URL for it was broken. This however should be the correct link to that paper. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The primary and secondary sources both note that Stock objects to and opposes what she refers to as "gender self-identification". That doesn't require OR, only reading comprehension, and your objection to that appears to be IDONTHEARTHAT rather than anything based on sources or policy.

Also, I fixed the broken link Sideswip9th pointed out. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources work in that way, then it won't be at all difficult for you to quote the passages that do the work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have both quoted one of the relevant passages, but for some reason you object to its plain meaning. I do not have the time (or the stomach) today to go through the passages from Material Girls but I invite other editors to do so; in it she articulates what she refers to as "self-identification" and lists her objections. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the quotation given by Newimpartial in its fuller form, "I then consider in greater detail the arguments made by Kathleen Stock, a philosopher who, as far as I am aware, has developed the fullest gender-critical case against trans inclusion" On the PDF version that quote is from the final paragraph on page 1, in the introduction. In the HTML version it is in the third paragraph of the introduction. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: you mean the passages you used (in this very section) to engage in WP:OR to arrive at your preferred conclusion? Coming in part from the source you added where the wording is in fact different? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Citation needed] @Nomoskedasticity:. Unless you're talking about a different quotation that I can't see, the only change that Newimpartial was to trim some extraneous words that did not change the context or meaning in any way. I have already provided both the fuller quote and its location on the PDF and HTML versions of the paper. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming the words quite obviously changes the meaning. Any objection to using the wording that appears in the source provided? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are proposing, in lieu of "opposition to gender self-identification", "opposition to the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters – that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex": actually I object to that wording, because it defers far too much to the rather particular views held by the subject than is appropriate in a BLP lead paragraph. Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, If you can read Material Girls and find a difference between the objections to "self-identification" she offers in that book and the "institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters" as what she "says she opposes" in The Guardian, I'd like to know what you think that difference is. To me there is no difference at all - and in Material Girls she uses "self-identification" as a label for that which she opposes. As far as I am concerned, the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters means the same thing as self-identification - because that is what Stock says - and she is opposed to this. I haven't seen you produce any evidence or argumentation, Nomoskedasticity, to support any other interpretation. Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps an explanation is in order for how the trimming, with correct use of an ellipsis "quite obviously changes the meaning". The article in question is a peer-reviewed research paper by a peer of Stock, and provides a description of Stock and her non-academic work in this topic area. I'm not quite sure what your objection is to it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As has been borne out above, sources don't support the blanket statement here but rather the version here more akin to the status quo antebellum. That wording is supported by the mainstream media across the mainstream political spectrum. More recently, this paper has been pointed to, but there are issues with it. It is in SAGE Open, a pay-to-publish megajournal, and hence is rather poor. It is clearly taking a side in the dispute and hence is not secondary to it; it speaks to advance a particular partisan side. And lastly, that source also uses the same language as the other sources: The proposed reforms aim to replace the current medicalized process of gender recognition with one based on self-identification and self-declaration. Later when talking about Stock, the source says, This argument appears confined to trans women who, in accordance with the proposed reforms, will be able to obtain a gender recognition certificate on the basis of self-declaration/identification. It goes on to argue it goes beyond that, but it does use this terminology too. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have read the Sage paper, have you, Crossroads? How you could call it poor compared to what The Times and The Telegraph are putting out, I have no idea. And the paper situates Stock's position as one against trans inclusion, rather than being only against self-identification, which is the point I (and also, not coincidentally, Stock's critics as documented in RS) have been making all along. Newimpartial (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now we're judging the sources by how good they sound to us rather than by Wikipedia's rules? It's still a source engaged in the controversy. Also, I forgot to point out that the source also uses gender-critical in its own voice, despite the claims by some here that we must never use the term and that it is equivalent to "race realist". Crossroads ^-talk- 22:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A source engaged in academic critique, and a source engaged in a journalistic controversy, are not on the same level of reliability according to WP policy. Newimpartial (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked WP:RSP and WP:RSN, and apart from one discussion about SAGE Open Medicine there have been no discussion on the reliability or unreliability of SAGE Open as a source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stock's statements on gender self-identification are clear. She states in her book ("Material Girls") that she views gender self-identification as a perfectly valid step in itself, in terms of an individual constructing a narrative about their own life. She also draws a distinction between (1) how people narrate their own lives, and (2) how uncritically this then narration should be taken by wider society as an objectively valid account that should override any other considerations - for instance, those arising from biological sex. Stock's book is not a complicated read; she has gone to great effort to set her ideas down as accessibly as possible. Stock's stance is that it is perfectly possible to view "self-identification" in terms of gender identity as a valid - and positive - concept, without accepting that it automatically trumps any kind of categorisation or other consideration based upon biological sex. I don't understand why some people in this discussion find it so hard to distinguish between her actual (clearly stated) position and saying that Stock "opposes gender self-identification". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewMorris (talk • contribs) 00:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that her views are clear, but my conclusion is the opposite of yours. With "gender self-identification" having a set meaning, distinct from "gender identity", Stock's words and actions obviously oppose the former. However Stock uses the term, everyone else uses gender self-id to refer to the ability to change gender/sex based on your own self-identification without additional procedural/medical requirements. Newimpartial has been saying this all along. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, both Stock and "everyone else" (so far as there is an "everyone") uses the term in the same way: to mean the idea that laws/rules/regulations should classify a person (whether a change or not) according to their self-statement without any medical or other requirements. Stock's position appears to be that in some circumstances, this is fine, but not all. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The position your describing is fairly summarized as "opposes gender self-identification". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"fairly summarized" -- there's no place here for special private meanings of words/terms. This topic gets enough toxicity even without that sort of distortion of language. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that necessarily is a fair summary and in any case, we don't need to summarize it, we just relay how the mainstream media summarizes it. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first source cited in the lede states quite categorically what it is that Stock opposes. That is what the Reliable Sources (and for that matter, the Wikipedia article on the topic) refer to as gender self-identification. Crossroads' comment that Stock's position appears to be that in some circumstances, this is fine, but not all is not supported by Stock's own writings or the secondary sources presented thus far. Newimpartial (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please indicate exactly which source you're referring to, and then provide the relevant quote? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ask in part because the first source given in the lead is her Sussex profile, and I don't think you mean that. Perhaps you mean the Guardian article? But we've already seen that there's nothing in that source to support "opposes gender self-identification" -- i.e., nothing apart from your own interpretation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the Guarduan source I added here which states what she says she opposes, though, is the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters – that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex. The argument that you and Crossroads have been making about that - that in spite of the plain meaning of her words, when she writes about gender self-identification in Material Girls she somehow is referring to something other than institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters - is entirely unsupported by anything besides your own fantasy. What matters for WP is what the subject has written, what has been written about her, and what those words mean, in plain English - not whether the words "opposes gender self-identification" can be found as a text string. Newimpartial (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you want to use your preferred term to summarise a source, rather than using the words that are actually found in that source. And you still don't offer a reason for not using the formulation provided by the source you have added. This isn't going to end well for you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hie thee, accuser! If you read the article and Talk history, you will see that gender self-identification is actually not my preferred term - before the most recent round of media coverage, I was arguing for views on transgender people as the most appropriate term - as I don't think the changing room issue, for example, is adequately summarized in relation to "self-identification" - and in terms of the recently sourced terms used, I think exclusion of transgender people does a better job of setting out what is controversial about Stock's views. So no, I am not using any such preferred term. For me, this language is a much less-"preferred" option, and a compromise.

But to deal with your argument as stated: we are using multiple sources in this article, one of the most important of Material Girls, so to argue that we should exclude one of Stock's own "preferred terms" from the lead because it doesn't appear in a particular piece of journalism seems more than a little bit bizarre. At the time I added that LEADCITE, the argument being made by those on your side of the debate was that opposes and its cognates could not be used because Stock wasn't necessarily opposed to anything Transgender-related. So I obtained a source that documented that Stock does, indeed, oppose treating humans on the basis of self-ID, and the opposition immediately shifted to but that isn't what self-ID meeeeeeeans! without the slightest bit of supporting evidence. A load of codswalllop, tbh. Newimpartial (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Nomosketasticity, in a recent edit summary you said, "opposition to gender self-identification" could easily be read to mean that she opposes the idea that someone can adopt their own gender identity - is there any evidence this has ever happened, outside of this Talk page? Gender self-identification - the article - rather rules out this possible (?) interpretation. Newimpartial (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIRCULAR: Wikipedia is not an eligible source and does not help us here. I'm still waiting to see a source where "opposes gender self-identification" is used (whether by Stock or in the voice of the source). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are imposing an unnecessary requirement. Summary of reliable sources is a primary function of Wikipedia. The sourcing documenting her opposition to gender self-identification is solid. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity, are you actually suggesting that "opposition to (the formulation above, which amounts to gender self-identification)" plus "objection to gender self-identification" (from Stock herself, in subsequent writing) does not equal "opposition to gender self-identification", as though the conclusion were somehow OR? If so, how exactly does that, rather scholastic, objection run? Are there angels on the head of that pin? Newimpartial (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a source from Stock herself where she actually says "I oppose gender self-identification", could you please produce it? I've been asking -- and if we have one, then it resolves this entire thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She endorses "objections to gender self-identification" explicitly in Material Girls, as I believe you know. But she doesn't write "I oppose" in as many words - it isn't that kind of a book. She is an analytical philosopher, after all, so even in popular writing the appeals to personal perspective and emotion have to be disguised. Newimpartial (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've used Google books now -- I've searched for the word "objections", and I don't find any passages that help us. I really wouldn't make anything of "objections" vs. "opposition". If there's a passage from the book you could quote to move us forward here, it might help. I am not generally an obstructionist editor -- I'm willing to cooperate, on the basis of sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am starting to find the WP:CRYBLP arguments disruptive. How a formulation could be a BLP vio in the lead, but not in the body, or how a possible misunderstanding that is pre-empted by a wikilink and that only is only "possible" according to a Talk page argument presented without evidence - how any of that could be a BLP violation - well, it is hard to take that seriously, much less sincerely. I suppose that's what noticeboards are for... Newimpartial (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - reviewing this section, I noted with interest the statement by Matthew Morris (if that is your real name), Stock's stance is that it is perfectly possible to view "self-identification" in terms of gender identity as a valid - and positive - concept, without accepting that it automatically trumps any kind of categorisation or other consideration based upon biological sex. This is the only intervention I've seen that might offer support to Nomoskedasticity's concern expressed in the next subsection. However, my searches through the text of Material Girls today confirm my recollection that Stock does not use "self-identification" in terms of gender identity to refer to a valid or positive concept. Rather, the discussion of the psychology of what the literature calls gender dysphoria is couched in terms of "gender identity theory" and related concepts. So the idea that "self-identification" is ambiguous in the sense suggested is not supported by the text of Material Girls, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

summary of the difficulty

Here's my take on where we are. The discussion has not produced sources that enable us to write "opposes gender self-identification". Some editors appear to believe that it's okay to write "opposition to gender self-identification", because it seems to them that "the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters – that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex" can be summarised by the term "gender self-identification". My genuine concern is that "gender self-identification" can easily be read in a simpler way: the adoption of the gender identity one prefers. The conflation here is simply not good enough, and there's no good reason to make it, when all we have to do is stick more closely to the source. (Or, perhaps, go with "views on gender self-identity".) I'm genuinely puzzled by the attempt to conflate these two formulations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Opposition to legal gender being solely determined on the basis of self-identification" or something like that, perhaps? Tewdar (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity, you asked above for Stock indicating her objections to gender self-identification in her own words, in Material Girls. I find all copies of that book online now to be paywalled - which they were not when I read it - so I cannot find an appropriate citation at the moment. But in her piece in The Economist, Stock indicates her objection to what the Labour and Conservative leaders were proposing in 2018: They want to change the law to allow gender self-identification via an administrative process of self-certification as the only criterion for legally changing the sex recorded on one’s birth certificate. However, I’ll now suggest that such a move is not cost-free. In particular, certain harms to original members of the category “woman” should be weighed against any gains (Emphasis added). In other words she objects to or opposes this form of gender self-identification, which is the same thing that Gender self-identification - and the sources on which that article is based - say that "gender self-identification" means. Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stock's conception of "gender self-identification" is more comprehensive than the concept described in the Gender self-identification article. It doesn't just mean the idea that a person's legal gender should be determined by how they self-identify. Also, statements such as "not cost-free", "costs should be weighted against gains" cannot reasonably be used to suggest she "opposes" gender self-identification. The book has plenty of quotes that do suggest this much more plausibly, however. Tewdar (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stock's position is certainly more comprehensive in some respects - for one thing, as documented above, Stock objects to trans women in women-only spaces even when they meet both legal and medical criteria for transition. She also objects to the use of gender self-identification on the part of municipal and civil society organisations even when this is not tied to "legal gender" documentation. The jurisdiction in which I live - Ontario, Canada - does not have "gender self-identification" as part of the legal identity regime, but Stock would undoubtedly still object to the rights and freedoms that trans and nonbinary people here have, with respect to her issues of concern. But none of these aspects really undermine the reality that she opposes gender self-identification or that this position is controversial and has generated criticism. And the fact that she writes a piece that lists a series of "harms" but no supports for gender self-ID can't meaningfully suggest that she does anything besides oppose or object to it. Yes, she writes using the conventions of analytical philosophy, but any other interpretation of her writing would be entirely sophistical. Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is, you can give a much more accurate summary of her views by simply citing or quoting from the book. This article gets crappier by the hour, and one (of the many) reasons for that is that people are not accurately summarizing the cited sources. Tewdar (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely disagree. But then the answer is to WP:FIXIT. Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I almost entirely disagree. Quoting from her book is not helpful here. Much of the contention predates the publication of the book and is based on earlier, allegedly anti-trans comments and actions, including public opposition to gender self-id. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can we WP:FIXIT when there's a WP:1RR in operation that makes WP:EDITING the WP:ARTICLE a bit like playing this?! Tewdar (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see 1RR as a problem here, frankly. Substantially new edits don't count as reverts, so the revert limit doesn't apply, and the consensus-required provision only applies to material that has been reverted. So actual, new edits are in fact encouraged, in a way. Newimpartial (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tewdar: propose the full edit here first. Establish a consensus for how to word the contentious section, in the article talk page. Once there's consensus on the phrasing, then make the edit to the article. It's basically WP:BRD without the BR part. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: "Propose the full edit here first..." - yeah, I did. Nobody noticed as far as I can tell. Tewdar (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to get my head around the full discussion here. However I would object to the "the institutionalisation of the..." long-form quote. In the context of the Guardian interview, that is the interviewer's summary of what Stock says she is opposing. I would argue that using that would be a BLP violation, because it is uncritically whitewashing what Stock has been criticised for, and the scope of what she has published. I would defer back to the open letter in response to her OBE, which states that her notoriety is because of her trans-exclusionary public and academic discourse on sex and gender, especially for opposition to [amendments to*] the UK Gender Recognition Act and the importance of self-identification to establish gender identity, and for advocating that trans women should be excluded from places like women’s locker rooms or shelters. Her views, at least in the eyes of her peers, extend beyond the realm of just gender self-identification. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I realise I'm probably re-opening Pandora's box here, but I think we should take another look at the discussion in Transgender Identity. Neither the long form institutionalisation quote, nor the summary gender identity accurately summarise what Stock has been saying on the transgender topic. Instead of trying to pick A or B here, we need to find the third choice that more accurately represents the situation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have been over that already, both there and in this discussion above. The sources that are secondary to the dispute characterize it as about self-ID. The people engaging in the dispute are not the sources to use for an NPOV article. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does Stock believe or support gender self-identification or not? If yas have a source to answer that question? Then, the rest should be no problem. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Practically the entire book she wrote, Material Girls, is about gender self-identification and the Gender Recognition Act (GRA), which she references by name repeatedly, and about how it is bad and harmful to women and feminism. Here's some examples.

"Most UK universities now have policies that explicitly allocate ‘single sex’ facilities – bathrooms, changing rooms, showers and residences – on the basis of ‘self-identification’ or ‘self-ID’. The Cardiff University policy says, ‘You have a legal right under the Equality Act 2010 to access facilities – such as changing rooms and toilets – according to the gender with which you identify.’69 Leeds University policy says: ‘Trans people can use single-sex facilities (such as toilets and changing rooms) according to their self-identified gender.’70 And in 2019 it was reported that posters had gone up in public toilets in the University of the West of England asking, ‘Do you feel like someone is using the wrong bathroom?’ Any respondents in the affirmative were instructed not to ‘challenge’ the person, but instead to ‘respect their identity’ and to ‘carry on with your day’.71 Meanwhile, most of the providers of rape crisis centres and domestic violence shelters make no distinction between trans women and women, either as clients or as employees."

"These rapid, seismic policy changes are bound to have detrimental consequences for female safety as they become further entrenched. Since gender identity is not something anyone can see directly, and is supposedly potentially detached from behaviour, dress and physiognomy, practically speaking this means that any male at all can enter a space and claim, if challenged, that it aligns with his gender identity. As conveyed by the UWE poster, females are expected not to challenge but just to ‘carry on’ with their own business. This obviously puts them at additional risk of assault."

Later on after a long section going over individual cases of criminals who have been trans, she writes:

"These relevant facts seem to be ignored by organisations, including local government organisations, rushing to instigate self-identification as the official means of entry into women-only spaces on their premises. They also seem to be ignored by the often well-off and well-educated people arguing that organisations are right to do so. Less well-off women and women in prison – who of course intersect – are not the only groups of women recently abandoned by the mainstream feminist establishment in their enthusiastic embrace of the conclusions of gender identity theory."

She's pretty clear on self-ID and the GRA being "detrimental" and leads to women being "abandoned" by those groups who support it. That is all just directly from the text. Silver seren^C 05:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is all in reference to specific contexts, though. There is certainly no harm done by being extra-careful to note what specifically is meant by the phrase. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If anything in Material Girls is going to be quoted in these discussions, we also need to know what page the quoted material is from. A free copy of the book may not be available on the web, but those who own the book, or can borrow it from a library, can then compare the quotes with what she wrote in it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, @Pyxis Solitary:, the book does not contain page numbers in any form. You can also confirm that from the Google Books preview. I have a PDF copy of the book and there are no page numbers anywhere. The Table of Contents, while listing the chapters, gives no page numbers for them either. It seems it was made without page numbers at all. One could create page numbers for it by saying that page 1 is the first page of Chapter 1 and determining things from there. Not sure if that is something we're allowed to do though. Silver seren^C 19:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Free previews of books on Google and Amazon often do not include their page numbers.
How can you believe that the physical version of a book — that also provides a Table of Contents with chapter numbers and chapter titles — does not also include page numbers in the book to turn to? Buy the book or borrow it from a library ... and then tell us that it doesn't have any page numbers. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And do full PDF copies generally not have page numbers? Does the Table of Contents in full copies generally not list page numbers as a part of that page itself when discussing chapters? I've never seen that be the case for other copies of books that I have. If you have any evidence to the contrary, then please present it. Silver seren^C 02:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"If you have any evidence to the contrary, then please present it." The burden of proof is upon you, since you are the one that stated "the book does not contain page numbers in any form". PDF copies of books posted on the Internet are usually pirated copies of those books, unauthorized by either the publisher or the author to be made available to the public as a free PDF version.
This is a book published in May 2021 — not May 2001.

Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism
by Kathleen Stock
Hardcover, 432 pages
Published May 6th 2021 by Fleet
ISBN0349726590 (ISBN13: 9780349726595)
Edition Language English
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54646323-material-girls

–> 432 pages.

No comment by a reader anywhere that the book does not contain page numbers.

You need to prove with absolute certainty that the physical version of Material Girls does not contain any page numbers. Walk the talk. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on self-id

Sources, already used in the article, that mention Stock's criticism of, or opposition to, gender self-id:

Stock in The Economist: "They want to change the law to allow gender self-identification via an administrative process of self-certification as the only criterion for legally changing the sex recorded on one’s birth certificate. However, I’ll now suggest that such a move is not cost-free."^[1]
Stock "met with controversy after criticising the government’s reform of the Gender Recognition Act (2004). The amendment would ‘de-medicalise’ the legal process for changing gender. This would increase emphasis upon self-identification rather than requiring a medical diagnosis or certificate. Stock believes that this could leave natal females vulnerable"^[2]
"has been critical of trans self-identification as part of her work on feminist philosophy"^[3]
"argued that self-ID “threatens a secure understanding of the concept ‘lesbian'”, rooting her rhetoric in a belief of immutable biological sex."^[4]
Stock: "If we are moving to self-ID, it seems to me that we have fundamentally taken away that whole rationale, because there is no longer any real worry about privacy because if somebody has not had medical intervention. Sex is pretty obvious. If gender dysphoria is no longer a requirement on getting this certificate, there is no therapeutic aspect. That is one worry I have. Another set of worries I have are about the practical interactions with the Equality Act, but fundamentally it will have lost its rationale."^[5]
"best-known in recent years for her trans-exclusionary public and academic discourse on sex and gender, especially for opposition to [reforming] the UK Gender Recognition Act and the importance of self-identification to establish gender identity, and for advocating that trans women should be excluded from places like women’s locker rooms or shelters."^[6]

Please feel free to add any already-present sources here, or start a section for newly found sourcing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New source in light of her resignation today.

"She has also argued that self-ID “threatens a secure understanding of the concept ‘lesbian'”, rooting her rhetoric in a belief of immutable biological sex."^[7]

This source also mentions that the student protest was about her trans-exclusionary views, and not just those about self-ID and has a few other sentences surrounding that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning whether Stock was only controversial for her views on self-ID, The Guardian today[14] said this:

But hundreds of academics criticised the decision, signing an open letter that criticised Stock’s comments on transgender and gender non-conforming people.

The letter claimed her “harmful rhetoric” about transgender and gender non-conforming people reinforced “the patriarchal status quo”.

That lends some credence to the earlier versions of the article that used Views on transgender people (in lede and in section heading) to describe what the controversy is about, though of course these phrases concern the philosophers' letter in particular. Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PinkNews and that letter from philosophers are sources that are themselves highly partisan in the dispute. They are not secondary observers. The Guardian, when describing the dispute in its own voice in that article, describes it as about "her views on gender identification and transgender rights", which is much closer to the text that we have long had. Describing it as about "transgender people" is POV as already addressed at Talk:Kathleen Stock#Transgender identity. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, your opinion that this PinkNews piece can be dismissed as highly partisan in the dispute seems to be, well, just your opinion. Care to back that up with anything, or should we take this to RSN?

Also, you seem to be misinterpreting the situation: if the sourcing for views on transgender people changes, then it might well be time to update that previous discussion (which reached no clear consensus) with something more up to date. Tewdar, with whom I disagree about almost anything that can be expressed in the English language, seems to have had some good ideas on this score, which you dismissed in your recent reversion (to an article version that lacks consensus, as noted elsewhere). Newimpartial (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-read the discussion under Transgender Identity, however I disagree with your reading of it. There was only one editor who agreed with your POV complaint Crossroads, and as Newimpartial has just said, there was no clear consensus established. While I have no doubt that your position remains unchanged on this, revisiting the discussion based on newer sources and a wider audience of editors is warranted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Reality check

Here's the key question: do we want readers to understand what Stock actually opposes and why it is controversial? If so, it won't work (especially in the lead) to say (merely) that she opposes "gender self-identification" -- unless we simultaneously explain what that term means. To repeat what I said at AE: we create articles for readers who don't already know stuff; the fact that you or I might know "the definition" is irrelevant. I'm quite happy to work towards a formulation (preferably a concise one) that conveys accurately what she and others mean by that term. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the last 24 hours (mostly reading uninvolved admin comments at AE), I have come to the conclusion that this isn't the problem at all. People say there is a lack of clarity that Stock "opposes self-identification", but what they mean is that, without qualifiers, the statement means to them that Stock may oppose gender self-identification everywhere and in all forms. Crossroads' article, Gender self-identification, actually does a good job of delineating the main terrain the term is used to refer to, but these admin (like you, Nomo) don't want to depend on the wikilink.

So it seems to me the solution for the lead is similar to that in the body, namely to specify the contexts in which Stock's objections to self-identification have become controversial. The challenge is that these are not, in fact, limited to legal reforms incorporating self-id - her argument about the need to exclude trans men from women's only spaces is not at all limited to legal issues. But if the lead could cover some of the low-hanging fruit that have made Stock's positions controversial, that would go a long way to providing clarity for our readers (which the current, misleadingly cited "quotation" certainly does not, IMO). Newimpartial (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

these admin (like you, Nomo) don't want to depend on the wikilink -- yep, this is true, I think it's not appropriate to rely on the wikilink. Our article should be self-sufficient; we have to anticipate that some readers won't click on the link, so they should get a BLP-compliant understanding from the article (and in particular the lead). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with including an explanation of the term. Are there any other jargon-y terms we should explain further? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution?

Has this content dispute, been resolved? GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Philosophical Problems With the Gender-Critical Feminist Argument Against Trans Inclusion"

This publication:

Zanghellini, Aleardo (April 1, 2020). "Philosophical Problems With the Gender-Critical Feminist Argument Against Trans Inclusion". SAGE Open. 10 (2): 1–14. doi:10.1177/2158244020927029. Retrieved October 19, 2021.

It is basically entirely about Stock and her arguments, referencing her and her online articles throughout (since she doesn't have any academic publications to cite). What's the best way to incorporate it into the article? Silver seren^C 20:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That paper is actually one of the discussion points in the section above this one! Newimpartial cited it in their comment at 16:42, 16 October 2021 if you'd like to follow that discussion. I do agree that it should be included in the article, but at least one editor is objecting to it because of the journal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the journal? SAGE Open is a fine journal, peer-reviewed and everything. And Sage Publications has a strong academic background. Silver seren^C 21:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would direct you to the comments above by Crossroads on 21:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC). I agree that as a scholarly source its fine, I'm just pointing out that one editor has objected so more discussion may be needed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can see their comments. They're...pretty dumb comments. Especially the "gender critical is the same as saying race realist" one, which, sure, both are terms showing that the person is a part of a hate group. Not sure why that means we can't use the term though when both terms are...the terms that the hate groups describe themselves as. Those are their terms they use to avoid blatantly using self-descriptors such as racist or transphobic that would plainly reveal what the hate groups are about. And we've only be using them as terms from the reliable references themselves. Silver seren^C 21:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'd have phrased it quite that way, but I don't disagree with what you're saying. I just wanted to point out the relevant conversation points to get you up to speed on this source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding this! One immediate response before reading: does the paper contradict our current article language: that Stock has published "articles in peer-reviewed academic journals"? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She has published articles on her actual subject matter, philosophy of fiction in literature. Though her last article on that was years ago as far as I'm aware. Her older articles get reprinted as book chapters a lot, so that fills up her Google Scholar listing. And she's never published an academic article on anything related to trans topics. It has nothing to do with her education background, for one. Silver seren^C 21:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Thanks for gently nudging me out of my brain fart moment. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From memory of when I last read this paper after Newimpartial linked it, the only point I objected to was classifying Stock's piece in The Philosopher as academic writing. That source isn't peer-reviewed, and she was commissioned directly by that periodical to produce the article. See my comments under Sentence on published works in lede as well as my recent revamp of The Philosopher for more info as to why. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, it's a periodical, not an academic journal. Not sure how anyone could seriously claim it counts as academic writing. It's basically a self-written high end magazine article on a specific topic. Nothing scientific about it. Silver seren^C 21:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Until the revamp, our article on The Philosopher said it was a peer-reviewed journal, which was apparently an error. I never said we shouldn't use the SAGE Open source whatsoever; what I objected to was privileging its description over that of many others. My points, though, do apply - that it is a WP:BIASEDSOURCE because it clearly is arguing for a particular position, and hence should be attributed and treated with proper WP:WEIGHT, and that as far as academic sources go, it isn't the best sort, being in a pay-to-publish megajournal. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Times editorial

That particular editorial in the Irish Times has an interesting denouement. Newimpartial (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Stock files complaints and threatens to sue anything that criticizes her views or even that just posts her past statements. Recent info has come out that she did the same to the Sussex student newspaper article on her in 2018 that just noted things she said and wrote and then responses from other individuals and organizations. Here's that article before the University forced it to be taken down after Stock's complaint. Silver seren^C 22:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the proposed sentence On March 8, 2021, Stock spoke at the Irish Women’s Lobby (IWL) inaugural conference on the subject of British gender recognition law reform and against the argument of self-ID existing in Ireland and Irish society being fine regarding it., the WP:RSOPINION objection is that we can't rely on an opinion piece for a statement of fact. In this circumstance, citing either the Irish Women's Lobby website, Kathleen Stock's website, or the presentation itself would be allowable per WP:BLPRS and WP:BLPSPS.

In that circumstance, the following sentence The Irish Times writer Emer O'Toole pointed out about the presentation that in order for trans-exclusionary feminists to prove their arguments, the self-ID laws in Ireland have to be shown to be "not fine at all". O'Toole also noted that the conference showed "shocking transphobia, and a stone-cold absence of compassion for the humanity and wellbeing of trans women." attributed to the Irish Times would be acceptable as it provides a counter argument to the presentation she gave at that conference, though I think we could expand the quote to reduce what is being said in Wikivoice. There may also be other useful quotes in that piece that we haven't considered. Thoughts? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC), edited for clarity Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably just remove the last sentence commenting on the conference as a whole. And change the beginning of the sentence prior to that to "Concordia University Associate Professor Emer O'Toole pointed out..." and the rest being the same there. Since the point is the person pointing it out and not the Irish Times itself. Silver seren^C 23:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd maybe suggest something like Writing in The Irish Times Emer O'Toole pointed out..., just to keep it clear both who the opinion is from and what source it is in. I'll take a read of the piece now to see if there's any other quotes we may use. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that other editors can cite all the opinion pieces they want? Since opinion pieces are apparently on the table.

No, this is the most egregious form of cherry-picking and WP:ILIKEIT/WP:FACTION disregard of WP:RS I have seen in a while. Opinion articles are not RS and do not meet WP:DUE. They are routinely removed from politically sensitive articles. Same goes for attempts to cherry-pick WP:PRIMARY sources and SPS. Two sides can play at that game, too.

And lastly, disappointing that people are seriously okay with "pointed out" as ostensibly neutral in disregard of common sense and WP:SAID. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would primary sources saying she gave a presentation at the IWL be cherrypicking? And the O'Toole statement would be based on the person saying it. There's already plenty of sources in the article quoting or noting the opinions of others on Stock. So long as they are notable people, then they appear to be okay to include. Silver seren^C 23:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because selecting bits and pieces of primary sources simply is cherry picking, especially to make a point about Ireland and self-ID. The opinions of those others are noted only because published WP:Secondary RS report them. We don't go and cherry pick favored op-ed authors. Two sides can do that. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about MOS:SAID and would not object to changing that choice of language.

The quotation that O'Toole attributed to Stock "They’ve got self-id in Ireland, and it’s all fine there" is verifiable per the conference talk. Per WP:RSOPINION Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. it goes on to say A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion. Saying that these are the words of O'Toole and published in The Irish Times, with an inline citation is fine and satisfies WP:RS.

I disagree that using a primary source here is cherry picking. One of the objections to using this source was relying on it for a statement of fact. I agree, we can't do that. But we can use a primary source, namely one of the three linked before to satisfy that statement of fact. WP:BLPSPS states Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. The link to either Stock's website, or the YouTube video satisfies that as it is a source written/published by the subject of the article, though I'd accept an argument that Stock's website is the better fit of the three choices per policy, if not the most logical per content.

An op-ed is also not a WP:PRIMARY source. WP:SECONDARY states [A secondary source] contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The primary source in this instance is the presentation Stock gave at the conference. The opinion piece in the Irish Times very clearly gives that author's analysis on the events of that conference.

Having said all of this, I might actually have my own objection now per WP:INTEGRITY, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. This is because of how the piece uses Stock's words. In order to verify that Stock did indeed say that, you need preform OR, you need to watch Stock's presentation at the conference. Also because of the way that sentence is worded in the piece, we would be required make a delineation between what Stock said at the conference, and O'Toole's reaction to that. While part of the following paragraph in the Irish Times piece continues about self-ID working in practice in Ireland, it would possibly be SYNTH to combine those points in a logical manner. That said, I'm not entirely sure, and would like feedback from other editors before categorically saying I object. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your additional reasons to not use the opinion source. I'm skeptical that Stock said 'self-ID in Ireland is fine' unless quoting her opponents, since it contradicts her argument. As for PRIMARY, Stock has written and said a great deal of things, including a whole book on this topic. The only reason to pick one thing out of all of that - something that secondary reliable sources have apparently not - could be to support some POV. Regarding PRIMARY/SECONDARY, opinion pieces are not reliable sources; when Wikipedians say "secondary sources" we mean secondary reliable sources, not just, say, some blog analyzing some other blog. And as for opinion pieces in general, while they are not banned per se, they almost always do not meet WP:DUE. Across articles on politicized topics, it is the case that opinion pieces are routinely reverted. There is no end to stacking them up on each POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that when Stock said "self-ID in Ireland is fine" it was as a summary of the arguments she had received from people on social media and elsewhere in response to her statements against self-ID. She wasn't agreeing with the statement, just saying that it was a summary of the arguments she had received as a counter to her own position. Both the editorial and the conference talk to make that clear.

I obviously disagree with your interpretation of WP:DUE, WP:RS and what I think is a tangential reference to WP:RSOPINION. WP:RSOPINION does allow us to use op-ed pieces, as long as we're not relying on them for statements of fact, and that we correctly attribute the passages used as the opinion of the author who wrote the piece. I read WP:DUE in a more narrow context than you do, and certainly would not use that to blanket the majority of opinion pieces. If it was to be interpreted that narrowly, why would RSOPINION exist? I would ask the same question with regards to WP:RS, if opinion pieces are not reliable sources, why does the policy point RSOPINION exist in a form that says we can use opinion pieces albeit carefully? Although I also recognise that those questions are taking us away from the content at hand, per WP:NOTFORUM and I'd be happy to continue this discussion at on either of our respective talk pages. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And Silver seren, what is the point of this comment? Or is it just a WP:FORUM violation? Crossroads ^-talk- 23:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out another source available for quotes from university groups, including the philosophy department and the Sussex Centre for Gender Studies, as we still have the web archive of the article. Silver seren^C 23:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is retracted, it is not a reliable source. Doesn't matter why - and it may well have misrepresented her words for all we know. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Views being misrepresented

Kathleen Stock's views on single-sex/gender spaces are being misrepresented. Here, an IP claiming "Minor changes" removed the clause "who have male genitalia". Because of the newly-instituted 1RR restriction, and since I had already reverted something else, I had to tag it with a "failed verification" tag, with the reason "was recently changed by IP - source specifies a subgroup of trans women, this is a falsehood by omission". Silver seren has now reverted the tag, claiming it "was clearly trying to force transphobic views into the article."

How so? No, accurately representing a BLP's views is required, not "transphobic". Here is what the source says: Dr Kathleen Stock, a reader in philosophy at the University of Sussex, told The Argus women-only areas should not allow transgender people who still have male genitalia. [Quoting Stock:] "However, many trans women are still males with male genitalia, many are sexually attracted to females, and they should not be in places where females undress or sleep in a completely unrestricted way." Stating that she wished to exclude simply "trans women" is misinformation and false. This is a BLP violation.

Per the notice at the top of this page, any edits challenged must not be reinstated without talk page consensus. This is the recently added "consensus required" restriction. There is clearly not a consensus for the IP's edit, yet it seems people are WP:TAGTEAMing for it.

Above all, this IP edit that started this mess should be reverted. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good, another IP reverted it. Anyone reinstating the non-consensus BLP-violating version will be reported to WP:AE, per the "consensus required" restriction. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, an IP reverted it and you noted that here within 2 minutes of that being done. An IP on a rotating address and that, rather than just making the change and not leaving an Edit summary as most IP editors without a Wikipedia background would do, they specifically noted not only the edit summary from the prior IP, but also specifically noted the IP name. Interesting. Silver seren^C 22:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silverseren you're wrong if you think I'm Crossroads. Now you made that change referred to without reading the source. And your stance that the article being accurate is *clearly trying to force transphobic views into the article* is a POV push. 2001:8003:C821:E801:D41A:CF27:CA56:D5C9 (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) So you're casting WP:ASPERSIONS then. As if I would be so stupid to post all about this and also make an edit I had just been talking about as an IP, while also somehow editing this very talk page twice in that same minute (21:41, 24 October 2021). Any passing CheckUser is welcome to verify that me and the IP are on different continents.

Also, there have been quite a few IP edits today, and with edit summaries. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makes me wonder more if this is being brought up somewhere else on the internet, due to the short timing of everything. Especially with said IP then responding here so quickly and clearly being an experienced editor. That sort of brigading has been common in this topic area, hence why discretionary sanctions were made in the first place. Either way, I don't care particularly much. Stock has been reported in numerous reliable sources saying in general "“trans women are still males with male genitalia”" without any qualifiers, so her stance on the matter has been made clear. But that's fine with the qualifier being in there, since Stock hasn't specifically stated yet that she thinks all trans women should be disallowed. Silver seren^C 22:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a source for Stock's exclusion of trans women from women's spaces to be limited on the basis of genitalia? I don't think we do. Newimpartial (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do - it's the source I cited in opening this section. Obviously, the burden of proof that she believes otherwise is on those saying that. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the same source also says of Stock, A university lecturer has called for transgender women to be excluded from women’s changing rooms and any other places where they undress, as its lead sentence, without any "genitalia" qualification. So I am not convinced that it can be used to support the "genitalia only" statement against the more general exclusion statement (which is how you seem to be using it your debating points here), since it actually supports both. Perhaps you are selecting the one you prefer? Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For those alleging "misinterpretation" of Stock's views (supposedly qualified by "male genitalia" I offer this quotation from her own words, published in The Economist:

The category of self-declared trans women includes many with post-pubescent male strength, no surgical alteration of genitalia, and a sexual orientation towards females. And, even currently, gender reassignment can legally change sex category on birth certificates. This leaves the future of “same-sex” spaces unclear. Note that this is emphatically not a worry that self-declared trans women are particularly dangerous or more prone to sexual violence. It’s rather that we have no evidence that self-declared trans women deviate from male statistical norms in relevant ways. There’s also a separate worry that violent males who do not consider themselves trans will eventually take advantage of increasing confusion about social norms about such spaces. Sex offenders already go to great lengths to access vulnerable females; there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t use this situation to their advantage. The construction of social spaces is necessarily coarse-grained. Once sex-based protections are gone, we can’t easily keep out only the dangerous people

(emphasis added).

Note that here, Stock is expressing concerns about people who have undergone gender reassignment as still being subject to "male statistical norms" and therefore being "dangerous people" who ought to be excluded by "sex-based protections". This isn't limited to those with male genitalia. Newimpartial (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Especially with said IP then responding here so quickly and clearly being an experienced editor." In case you haven't noticed by now, many IP editors are well-versed in editing Wikipedia, and many have been doing so for years since Wikipedia does not require that accounts be created in order to edit articles. It's not a conspiracy. Furthermore, it's easy for ~~Admins~~ Checkusers to investigate the IP addresses of registered and non-registered Users, and compare edits made by them. As for "said IP...responding here so quickly": I learned long ago that those who have an interest in a particular article will lurk the article and its talk page. Kathleen Stock has been a target since 2018, so it's no surprise that there are many people within and outside the UK, on the port and starboard, keeping an eye on her Wikipedia biography. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC) ; edited 09:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC) [meant to say C not A][reply]

No admin can see any more information about someone's IP than you, only a checkuser can, and they are expressly forbidden from connecting IP addresses to user's accounts for reasons of privacy. — Bilorv (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: your edit just now, referring to Stock's "opposition to gender self-identification", needs reconsidering. Have you had a look at this section? At a minimum, we'll need a source for that formulation -- and since I've provided a source given a more nuanced formulation I really think we can't have "opposition to gender self-identification" in the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomoskedasticity: thanks for bringing this to my attention, I didn't read that far back (only up to and including "Irish Times editorial"). I take it that my edit makes my opinion clear. I don't see why you would support "She has opposed transgender self-identification" (in the body, undisputed) but not "opposition to gender self-identification". However, any number of rephrasings would make the sentence useful, rather than a "hook" devoid of facts that may as well read "Stock is, controversially, either supportive of pineapple on pizza, or opposed to, or has an opinion somewhere inbetween". — Bilorv (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't say I support it in the body. I don't. I was working with edits to the lead. In any event: we can't have a specific statement that isn't clearly supported by reliable sources. A more generic hook is an appropriate placeholder until we get to agreement on what the more specific formulation might be. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv, I've edited the lead in a way that takes account of your point (making clear what her view is, rather than simply referring to "her views") while also sticking more closely to the source and avoiding the possibility of misrepresentation via the summary phrase that doesn't appear in the source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. Given the wikilink to gender self-identification in the stable version,the possibility of misrepresentation does not seem to be a real or likely "possibility". Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity has re-inserted. I don't think it's quite right because the words inside quotes appear to be The Guardian's paraphrase, putting them inside quotes can cause the wrong impression that's exactly what Kathleen Stock said. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is also now an ongoing AE case about said edit. Prior to that filing, I had asked the responsible Admin what the correct procedure is when disputes arise relative to the "consensus required" provisions. I hope it isn't a trip to AE each time. Newimpartial (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's literally not a quote from her whatsoever. Framing it as such should in itself be a BLP violation. Silver seren^C 22:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make this shit up. I'm reinserting the original wording that I removed a few days ago, because it's better than a long and jargon-heavy quote implicitly attributed to Stock, but not a quote by Stock at all. It's not a good summary, either, and we're not a press release platform so we don't give highly controversial figures free reign to describe their own views, but say what reliable sources assess the figure's views as. See, for instance, the alt-right figures who are not uncritically quoted in the leads of their bios as being "classical liberals". (To go into more detail, I know the quote is actually The Guardian but they're paraphrasing Stock, with the modifier "What she says she opposes ..." making it clear it is not the newspaper's own voice.) — Bilorv (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Views on gender self-id" works for me. We can try to improve on it, but at least the current version won't amount to a BLP violation, from anyone's perspective. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Bilorv: I wonder if anyone else will see the doublethink in your posts. Here in this section, you say "we're not a press release platform", where you are all wrought up about the notion that the quote from the Guardian is rooted in how Stock expresses her opposition ("it's not the newspaper's own voice" -- but rather Stock's!). But at AE your concern (no doubt sincerely held?) is that we're putting words in Stock's mouth by using that quotation -- a BLP violation!! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: the two aren't mutually exclusive and both can be true. The quote that Bilorv just replaced read Her opposition to "the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters, that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex" has become a contentious issue. with an inline citation to an interview with Stock in The Guardian. In the context of the article on Stock and how we used it, the obvious reading is that Stock said the section within quotation marks. However if you read the source, it is clear that Stock didn't say that. The interviewer said it as a paraphrase of what Stock told her. In the interview the section reads What [Stock] says she opposes, though, is the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters – that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex. Emphasis mine.

To use it as we previously did, in the way that we used it, would be a BLP violation. We were saying that Stock said exactly that quotation. However Stock didn't say exactly that quotation. Stock said something different that the interviewer paraphrased into that form. We don't know exactly what Stock said, because the interview doesn't include that and we don't have the raw transcript of the interview. All we know is that it was a paraphrase.

Now because it is a paraphrase of Stock's words, it is also not the newspaper's own voice. The article isn't reporting on the facts of what Stock is being criticised for. It is a paraphrase of what Stock says she is being criticised for. Those are two very different things. That is why Bilorv also made the comment about Wikipedia not being "a press release platform". To use that quotation as we did is as you said at AE "unduly self-serving" because it is a paraphrase of Stock's words. It is not the words of The Guardian, at best it is the words of the interviewer. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be perhaps more precise about this, Nomo's previous version read, Her opposition to "the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters, that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex", without in-text attribution to The Guardian. There are two ways a reader could understand this, and neither is acceptable per WP:V and NPOV policies. The first and most obvious reading, as has been pointed out ad nauseum by now, is that this might be something Stock said. This is unsupported by The Guardian source and therefore a policy vio. The other is that this is how The Guardian characterizes her position - which Nomo's version then juxtaposes with her critics. This is also unsupported - the pseudo-quote is framed by The Guardian as what Stock says she opposes, which is enough to distance the passage from being in The Guardian's own voice as a characterization of Stock'd position. The passage does not, however, carry The Guardian's editorial authority; it is The Guardian's paraphrase of Stock's POV on the issue. It would certainly be inappropriate to present this idea in wikivoice, as I pointed out before Nomo inserted this material (and the quotation marks certainly did not improve anything). So for those following at home, Nomo clearly violated the "consensus required" restriction, although the ~~ill-informed~~ uninvolved admin at AE seem convinced by the CRYBLP defense. There isn't consensus for "views on self-identification" either, of course, but Bilorv was essentially engaged in a self-revert (reverting to text that they had changed in the first place) so I think that gets them off the hook. :) Newimpartial (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the two new sources from today, post resignation, as well as the quotation in this section above from The Economist, and the research paper by Zanghellini I do wonder if perhaps we should revert to the language used on 7 October, "Views on transgender people" instead of "Views on gender self-identification". As the criticism of Stock's views is certainly wider than just what she has said on self-ID. The paper by Zanghellini in particular criticises not only her words on self-ID, but also what she has said on conversion therapy and trans-exclusionary practices. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will be posting a new set of sources below shortly, but as I said before, the Zanghellini source is by someone taking a clear side in the dispute, rather than being secondary to the dispute. That Economist article is no good for the same reason, though it is by someone from the opposite side (Stock herself). What counts as "conversion therapy" and as "trans-exclusionary" are themselves part of the dispute over the place of gender self-ID. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument. A research paper is inherently WP:SECONDARY, and secondary sources are not necessarily independent or uninvolved. That you don't like the source is immaterial to its reliability. Nor is your argument that "taking a clear side" is valid, given that The Times and The Telegraph have clearly also taken a side in favour of Stock. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection and sock puppetry

Given the appearance of gaming the 1RR system with IPs(regardless of if this is the case it sure is the appearance) I have indefinitely semi-protected the article to extended-confirmed level. Multiple IPs showing up right after the 1RR restriction was put in place to tag team a controversial edit is highly suspicious. To be clear anyone caught sock puppetting in this area will be blocked, possibly indefinitely. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified the restrictions to mention that the BLP may still be enforced and is an exemption from these restrictions. If you use this exemption you are responsible for making sure it is indeed required under the BLP policy and be sure to mention it in your edit summary. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who could have predicted an invasion of IP editors after the 1RR was implemented? Not I, that's for sure. Another thing we definitely won't be able to predict is a bunch of inactive editors coming back from the dead solely to edit this article, accompanied by a horde of "new" editors who become EC editors remarkably quickly, with a suspiciously firm grasp of all the WP:Rules required to WP:Wikilawyer in this topic area. Tewdar (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sarcasm. It is sooooo helpful in this situation. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for implementing the 1RR, editing this article is now more exciting than playing Mr. Pop! 😁 Tewdar (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gender self-identification

This link Gender self-identification has disappeared from the article altogether that we translated in french on saturday. Is there any reason for this ? Nattes à chat (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nattes à chat:, there are multiple discussions above about changes to the lead, including ones that add and remove the gender self-identification link. Thank you for your translation work. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DOB

The only source outside library authority files I can find for her birth date is Companies House, which expressly states "Companies House does not verify the accuracy of the information filed". I propose removing this information from enwiki per WP:BLP and WP:V. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I went ahead and removed the info, pending any RS. If we find just one source that reports on it, we should probably consider just listing the year of birth per WP:DOB. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible "consensus required" vio in lead

I liked the version we had for a couple of hours there. Anyone else? Tewdar (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made you a new section. Did you intend to explain your revert somewhere else? Tewdar (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus required restriction - Crossroads, this revert to the stripped down "views on gender self-identification" text does not have consensus, as I have indicated here when I said, There isn't consensus for "views on self-identification" either, of course and as other editors have also noted. Crossroads, will you self-revert your violation of the consensus-required restriction? Newimpartial (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~When was the last time we had "views on" in the lead? If it was before the CRR started, I'd count it as a revert but not a CRR vio.~~ Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC) striking at 00:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I grow less confident in my CRR interpretation by the second. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you believe is the "consensus" version? Why would I revert to a version that had just been written as though it was consensus?

"Views on" dates back to October 9th [15] and lasted until October 25th when the present dispute began. I agree with Bilorv that that was the status quo. It has vastly more claim to consensus than any other version. It had WP:SILENTCONSENSUS since it had not been disputed for an extended period of time. That a couple of editors perhaps silently didn't like it, but acquiesced to it, is not relevant here; they could not have WP:FILIBUSTERed it anyway. It was the stable status quo. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, as I understand it, the consensus required restriction does not have an exception for what version you think counts as stable. views on self-identification was disputed by myself and other editors on this Talk page continually from before October 9 to present - the fact that I had other editors largely refrained from reverting it does not imply acquiescence, and you cannot apply SILENTCONSENSUS to an issue that was explicitly interrogated here at Talk again and again over the period you felt it was acquiring its patina of silent consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, please provide a diff of the version you consider to have consensus then.

You claim it was disputed again and again on the talk page. In which discussions? And I don't merely "think" it was stable, I demonstrated that it was stable.

I feel that you are attempting to engage in WP:GAMING to get me to revert to your preferred version, though it clearly also does not have consensus. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am still trying to wrap my head around "consensus required" myself, but certainly a phrase that was disputed in this section and in this section does not have consensus for inclusion.

Just to be clear, you can self-revert and then propose a new version afterwards, though my 1RR error proved that it is hard to do so without inadvertently reverting some text by accident. "Consensus required" applies to reverts not to new edits, so it shouldn't stop you from doing anything productive. Anyway, I am not gaming anything; I want to see this article move forwards rather than staying stuck where it has been. A conundrum of "consensus required" is that there is no guarantee of a past version that had consensus (the last version of this article that was actually stable and undisputed was the pre-October version, but that version itself no longer has consensus in key respects and is also wildly out of date). The solution to this conundrum, as I see it, is to propose new text, but that won't work of people apply a philosophy of revert-warring to the article.

And at risk of repeating myself, it doesn't matter how stable a version is (how well those objecting to it refrain from edit-warring over it) when it is disputed explicitly at Talk - SILENTCONESUSUS does not apply, and the "stable" version is not a consensus version in that circumstance. Frankly, I wish we could agree on what WP principles say and then try to apply them to specific editing situations; it is exhausting to interact with people who derive their interpretation of policy directly from the imperative to "win" the dispute at hand. Newimpartial (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're actually concerned about having the version be one that has consensus, then simply reverting myself isn't the answer, since that version definitely has no claim to consensus or stability. And why are you singling me out when all I did was restore Bilorv's version? If my edit violates consensus required, then so does his. They are the exact same text. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it, Crossroads, what I suggested above is that the "right to self-revert" trumps even the consensus required provision, which is why Bilorv's reset revert was ok and also why your self-revert would also be ok. It was also quite explicitly my rationale for my own self-revert, since I was referring to a version which I myself, along with several others, believed not to be compliant with policy. At least this helps verify that I want everyone to operate by the same set of rules... Newimpartial (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except the version Bilorv was writing over was not his own but had been altered significantly since then. It was not a self-revert but getting rid of someone else's text. He was right, but let's be clear here. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv restored the altered text to the version immediately preceding their earlier edit. Technically a rollback, I suppose, but I think it counts as a self-revert in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The version from the 9th didn't last until the 25th. There were multiple additions/removals/changes to the sentence between those dates. It's trivially true that the words "views on" were present during that period, but it doesn't help anyone's case. Tewdar's version that you undid also includes "views on". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Views on gender identification" and "views on gender self-identification" are only trivially different. They are very different from Tewdar and Newimpartial's version which embellishes significantly. You also have not supplied any diffs of changes between the 9th and 25th. Like Newimpartial, you are welcome to present a version that you think is the one that had consensus. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming any version has consensus. I am disappointed to see that revision history detective work is a part of this process. But, as we work on a new lead, I would afford little/no status quo bias to a version that was substantively altered 3 days later. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an alteration of that text, but where the 600 philosophers' letter was added. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence changed from "She has gained public attention for her views on gender identification" to "She has gained public attention for her views on gender identification, and her views have been described as unscholarly "transphobic fear mongering" in a letter signed by 600 philosophers." If you view that as an edit that doesn't affect stability, we could rapidly come to some compromise language here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FFS, Crossroads, this version and this one were different from the one you claimed to have consensus, and so were this one and several previous ones. Do I have to offer diffs now for the colour of the sky? Newimpartial (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only that first diff has to do with the text in question here, and it was reverted less than an hour later by Nomoskedasticity. You then began to edit-war and were reverted. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FFS, again; I am trying to AGF here, but did you actually read the versions I linked to as diffs? They were all from between the 9th and 25th, and they all had different versions of the lead without views on ... self-identification. If you need to know exactly when they were added, how long they lasted and who reverted them, you can do that on your own time but they clearly show that the phrase in question did not have consensus between the 9th and 25th as you have previously, incorrectly asserted. Newimpartial (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that the 3rd diff, from the 12th and about other text, also showed this text reading slightly differently, but that all was reverted right after by yet another editor. I had previously forgotten about the edit war on the 16th by you, of which your first two diffs are part, but in any case, my point stands that the version I and Bilorv reverted to has vastly greater claim to stability and the status-quo than does the version you are trying to get me to revert to. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't see anything in the (scant) guidance about "consensus required" that asks editors to compare which of two versions has a "better claim" to stability or the status quo. If it doesn't have consensus, you don't revert to it - the restriction reads to me as a bright line. The language you reverted to didn't have consensus on the 25th and didn't have consensus when you reverted - so you violated the restriction by reverting. This seems simple to me. Newimpartial (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that I have been disputing the "gender self-identification" language since it was first proposed on 8th October. It has repeatedly and consistently been challenged by both Newimpartial and myself since then. Claiming it is the stable version, and has consensus is not valid. Instead of focusing on this repeated pointless WP:BATTLEGROUND, we should be working on a new version that does have consensus. I said at AE about a lack of constructive feedback, and this is another prime example. Instead of focusing on the content, the focus has been on which prior version to revert to. We should just drop that argument entirely, and work on the new content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did start this section right below about reaching a new consensus. Bogus claims about a brand-new version somehow having consensus were the issue. This whole waste of time has shown that the consensus required restriction is worthless and just creates new meta-disputes. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admin HighInBC levied the Consensus Required restriction at 7:36 24 October. At the time, the article looked like this, and the sentence read "Her views on gender self-identification have become a contentious issue." I understand consensus to be required for changes from this. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's how "consensus required" restrictions work - they can't retroactively grant consensus to text that was contested at the time the restriction was placed. Do we have to take this question to AE, too? Newimpartial (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I explained above, it had been stable there for a long time. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reading WP:CRP, I concur with Newimpartial, I do not think consensus required works that way. Though short in nature, and only an essay it is pretty clear that it apples to any challenged by reversion edits, without date restriction. That said, I can't seem to find any policy that it links back to on WP:ACDS, WP:DE or WP:EW which it says it is an explainer for, nor does it appear on other obvious places like WP:RESTRICT, WP:CON, or WP:GS. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Crossroads, you meant "had been there a long time, while people objected on Talk and proposed alternative text by editing the article." FTFY. Newimpartial (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you just change "Her views on gender identity and transgender rights, which include the belief that not all trans women should have access to women-only spaces, and her opposition to the idea that a person's legal sex should be entirely determined by how they self-identify, have become a contentious issue" ----> "Her views on gender identity and transgender rights have become a contentious issue", instead of starting yet another crappy interminable debate? Clearly it is not just her views on gender self-identification that are contentious. Tewdar (talk) 08:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You can propose this below. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence in lead summarizing her views

I reverted the rewrite because it seems WP:UNDUE in its emphasis, especially regarding the sources quoted at the end of the sentence. Most that I know of focus on self-ID, and not the more vague "transgender rights"; the emphasis on 'women-only spaces' also seems undue, and even how to describe such spaces - as single-sex, women-only, or otherwise - is something that we have to be very careful about. I will post in a few hours a new array of WP:MAINSTREAM media sources and how they summarize the dispute. Then we can reach a consensus on the talk page as to how to change it, if it should even be changed at all.

Meanwhile, the status quo in place (originally from October 9th) is informative enough and is BLP-safe. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, you have reverted to a version that had been explicitly challenged on Talk before your revert. See above.

Also, your proposed future course of action seems to violate WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY principles, as your practice of dismissing highest-quality, more specialized sources that you don't like in favor of The Times and The Telegraph violates our sourcing policies. But my all means, propose what you like on Talk, just don't revert-war the article any more. Newimpartial (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not an accurate description of what happened, per the above section, or of how I edit, and you should stop being focused on me. The WP:WIKILAWYERING above has been addressed. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the promised quotes from mainstream media sources on what views of Stock's the controversy is focused on. I also included most of the ones already being cited for it:

The controversy centres on her view that a person’s self-declared gender does not trump their biological sex, “particularly when it comes to law and policy”. The Independent
The University of Sussex's vice chancellor has defended a professor after protesters tried to have her sacked for her views on gender identity. BBC News
A professor accused of transphobia for her views on gender identity is quitting her post at the University of Sussex. BBC News
Kathleen Stock, the philosophy professor at the centre of a row over her views on gender identification and transgender rights, has announced her resignation from the University of Sussex. The Guardian
A university has said it will not tolerate threats to “academic freedoms” after a professor faced calls to be sacked over her views on gender identification. The Guardian
An academic who was subjected to “bullying and harassment” by her students because of her views on transgender rights has resigned. The Times
Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor and a trustee of the LGB Alliance, was due to appear at the charity’s conference today but was forced to withdraw after a campaign by students to get her sacked from her position at Sussex University. In recent weeks, students in balaclavas have carried banners around Brighton reading “Stock Out”. Stock has previously argued that institutions should not prioritise gender identity over sex and said she does not believe in reform of the Gender Recognition Act to allow self-identification. The Times
The academic has been repeatedly accused of alleged transphobia over the past month for her views on gender identity, with a group of students actively campaigning for her to be fired. The Argus
“It is quite a strange situation to work somewhere where people make it clear that they loathe you,” reflected Kathleen Stock, professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, on the backlash she faced for her views on gender identification. Times Higher Education
A professor at the centre of a row over her views on gender identity is leaving the University of Sussex. Evening Standard
Kathleen Stock, a professor of philosophy, had been the subject of a protest campaign at the University of Sussex because of her views on gender identity. i News

Even now, it is clear that if we are to follow the WP:WEIGHT of the sources as a whole, the controversy centers on gender self-identification or gender identity. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC) updated Crossroads ^-talk- 03:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding stuff from the above sources, only content from the first few paragraphs:

From the first Independent source: "A philosophy professor who became embroiled in a row over transgender rights..." and "had faced calls to be sacked over her stance on gender identity."
From The Times: "stepped down after protests in Brighton over her 'transphobic' views."
From the first Guardian source: "amid accusations of transphobia."
From Express & Star: "Kathleen Stock, a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, faced calls to be sacked amid accusations of transphobia."

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads: the sources you provide do not seem to support your conclusions; at least, they support other conclusions just as well.

To be more specific, The controversy centres on her view that a person’s self-declared gender does not trump their biological sex is not accurately paraphrased as being about "self-identification", and neither are all of the references to gender identity. If you mean to imply that all of these are actually about self-identification, that is OR, and you should snap out of it. Your leaving out all the factual PinkNews pieces, while including The Argus and Times Higher Ed (neither having much of a track record in this subject matter), ie also telling in itself, particularly given your recent comments about what you do (and don't) recognize about your own editing. Newimpartial (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources not listed above:

"Students have been organising under the slogan “Stock Out” since 6 October, when they launched a campaign calling on the university to terminate Stock’s employment over her trans-exclusionary views and position as trustee of anti-trans charity LGB Alliance." PinkNews
"has faced death threats and calls from students that she be removed from her post amid accusations of "transphobia", which she denies." The Telegraph

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we're analyzing this to determine the best language for the lead, we should be aware that Crossroads and I have both focused on newer sources which have come out since the resignation announcement. Predictably, they have highlighted the controversy focused on the university, and not other flare-ups of contention. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't include PinkNews because unlike the other sources, they openly have a clear editorial slant in covering the debate. I know that WP:BIASEDSOURCES can still be reliable, but that does still have to be accounted for. Even adding them in, they don't outweigh all the other sources.

As for when the sources mention "transphobia" as quoted above, they are attributing that claim to her opponents. I see no good NPOV reason to describe the controversy in their terms (even with attribution) rather than with the neutral description of the secondary sources. 'Her views on gender self-identification/identity' (whichever we end up with) is far more informative to readers than a vague 'she's been called transphobic for her views'. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't follow your argument. Are you suggesting, for instance that "... her views on gender self-identification/identity" is good but "... her views on gender self-identifcation/identity, which have drawn allegations of transphobia" is too vague? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bring the Zanghellini paper back up here again. It's from April 2020, so predates the current situation by approximately a year and a half. Also at some point the Express & Star article was removed, so I'm adding it back in again as it is an RS and Firefangledfeathers has referenced it. Note that the Express & Star is neither the Daily Express nor the Daily Star and hasn't as far as I can see been raised at WP:RSN as unreliable.

A professor at the centre of a row over her views on gender identity is leaving the University of Sussex. Express & Star

Crossroads your reading of the passages that Firefangledfeathers highlighted is not accurate. The Independent, The Guardian, and The Express & Star all use transphobia in their own voice. The Times is the only one that uses quotation marks for the word transphobia, however it does say in its own voice that what Stock is being criticised for is her views on transgender rights, which is significantly wider than transgender/gender self-identification. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers, "allegations of transphobia" would just get a "by whom?" tag. And rightly so, since that is a WP:WEASELly attribution for that WP:LABEL. A lot more sources describe it in terms of identity or identification than "transphobia".

I replaced Express & Star in my list because the article appears to be a word for word duplicate of the Evening Standard article.

Sideswipe9th, there appears to be confusion over "what their own voice" means. In their own voice would be if they said something like, "Stock has been controversial due to her transphobia." None of them have done that. They attribute the "transphobia" claim to her opponents, usually the student campaigners. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: that is a very narrow definition for what counts a source's own voice. Could you perhaps link to policy for that? As I can't seem to find anything to back up that assertion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIKIVOICE talks about this. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-read that several times now, including the inline FAQ, and I can't see how that supports your definition. WP:ASSERT maybe, but that relies upon the definition of transphobia being subjective. A direct parallel would be a racist or homophobe claiming they are not racist or homophobic, eg David Starkey comes to mind. If we were in one of those other situations, with the same source selection, but simply transposing transphobia for racism or homophobia, how would we proceed? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sideswipe9th, just to be completely clear, the argument you are making is that we can take sources saying Stock's opponents called her transphobic, and use that to justify outright saying in the article text "Stock is transphobic"? Crossroads ^-talk- 00:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, that's clearly a misinterpretation of MOS:WEASEL in at least two ways. "They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." and views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your second quote, the sources do attribute the transphobia accusation more specifically than you proposed. I guess I had forgotten that WEASEL had that first quote about the lead, although my personal view is that, even though it may technically be permitted, the same reasons given against weasel words in the body apply in this case. And regardless, WP:LABEL definitely does still apply to accusations of transphobia, which states that such labels should be widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject if used, and in which case use in-text attribution. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: that's a pretty bold and somewhat fallacious interpretation of my question. At the moment I'm trying to understand your thinking, so that I can better understand your objections, rather than stating my own. Perhaps you could address that before trying to guess at my own thinking on this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have two or three sections about the same thing: Why didn't you just change "Her views on gender identity and transgender rights, which include the belief that not all trans women should have access to women-only spaces, and her opposition to the idea that a person's legal sex should be entirely determined by how they self-identify, have become a contentious issue" ----> "Her views on gender identity and transgender rights have become a contentious issue", instead of starting yet another crappy interminable debate? Clearly it is not just her views on gender self-identification that are contentious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tewdar (talk • contribs) 08:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as Stock has resigned her position, at the University. I'm guessing that 'might' affect the intro. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why or how that would affect this sentence we're discussing. That's not really connected to this sentence about her views. Silver seren^C 17:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the first sentence of the lead has already been updated in reference to her resignation. This discussion is about other sentences in the lead. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tewdar, only a minority of those sources present it as about "transgender rights". It's a vague term - rights to what? The sources are clear that the issue is gender self-ID as a right. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying The sources are clear that the issue is gender self-ID as a right, but that isn't actually the consensus view of the sources, and your repeating it over and over again does not make it true. Many of Stock's objections to trans women in "women's spaces" - such as her contention that legally and medically transitioned people may still be "dangerous to women" - have nothing at all to do with self-ID. Yet these are still part of Stock's discourse that is perceived as trans-exclusionary and labelled "transphobic" by her critics. Newimpartial (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know (remember?) where she has supposedly made this claim or where you are quoting those words from. I am the one who presented sources describing the controversy as a whole. With few exceptions, they speak of it as about gender identity or gender self-identification. We do have to follow WP:WEIGHT. We should be imitating the reliable secondary sources rather than deep-diving into her and her opponents' writings for sound bites or to synthesize our own interpretations about her views or the controversy. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I presented Stock's piece here. And several of the sources you have offered for "it's about self-ID" don't actually say that, but rather describe the issue as gender identity or accusations of transphobia. But you insist on your own OR interpretation that the issue is all about self-ID. As an editor who pays attention to nuances, I find your insistence on "it's about self-ID" (which is unsupported by your own selected evidence) incredibly frustrating, especially now that it has become your one-against-many crusade. Newimpartial (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't present sources with the goal that it would say "self-ID" forever, but for discussion. The sources above variously say "gender identity" and "gender identification", among other things. The latter clearly to me is about gender self-ID, and the former I think can be understood that way in the light of the context and the other sources. Maybe some will disagree and that's fine. You are arguing against a dogmatic invented version of me, not my actual points or what I'm trying to help with here. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and thanks for the sources. I am probably also being misled by the dogmatic invented version. One part of that is that you have repeatedly opposed additional descriptors of Stocks views. Are there any that you'd support in the lead? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps present proposals for article's intro & see which one gets a consensus. We may require an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of "views on gender identity and transgender rights" proposed wording

Quick consensus check: would you support or oppose "Her views on gender identity and transgender rights have become a contentious issue" (first proposed by Tewdar, I think) as compared to the current version? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. I have reasons to oppose this compared to what I view as the "ideal" version, but I see this as an incremental improvement. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support but only when compared to the current version. I'd be interested to see Firefangledfeathers' ideal version, and this as an interim improvement pending another one later seems like a good idea. I Oppose Crossroads' proposed alternative. As I've said before, Stock's views go beyond those of just gender self-identification, as well as the proposal being somewhat redundant. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC) addition to alternative Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because "transgender rights" is a vague term, which just links to "transgender rights movement". 'Rights to what?' people will think. Yes, a few sources do use the term, but the context of those same sources, as well as other sources listed above, go on to make clear what specifically is meant - gender self-identification. This also applies to sources that use "gender identification". (e.g. [16][17]) I therefore propose instead: Her views on gender identity and gender self-identification have become a contentious issue. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support "gender identity and transgender rights" is a reasonable basic description of the areas which have been controversial. The various sources in the article certainly do not "make it clear" that "gender self-identification" is all that is meant by "transgender rights". And as for "rights to what?" - you reverted the answer to that question, Crossroads...it was right there in the lede. Tewdar (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I prefer the new suggestion: Her views on gender identity and gender self-identification have become a contentious issue. — on the following basis:
"Changing the concept of “woman” will cause unintended harms", by Kathleen Stock (6 July 2018).
"Why self-identification should not legally make you a woman", by Kathleen Stock (1 October 2018)
"#140 Kathleen Stock: When “Gender Identity” Meets Material Reality", interview with Kathleen Stock (5 May 2021)
"Material Girls: A Conversation With Kathleen Stock", interview with Kathleen Stock (14 May 2021). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I prefer the alternative proposal from Crossroads. AndyGordon (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crossroads' suggestion, and any suggestion which does not include the word "transgender", as this is the crux of the matter and the relation of a phrase like "gender self-identification" to the transgender community is thoroughly unapparent to a layperson. Rather than "transgender rights" in the original proposal, I would prefer "transgender people". — Bilorv (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you support "transgender rights" as an improvement over the current version, or is that change the condition for your support? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I certainly support it as an improvement over the current version. — Bilorv (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources frame it as "transgender people". That would be POV and a BLP violation. A lot of people (off-wiki) who advocate for certain policies use this framing on this topic to conflate critiques of specific policies with attacks on a set of people - thus allowing them to tar any critics of those specific policies and ideas as attackers of transgender people. This is despite the fact that a number of transgender people, like Buck Angel, Blaire White, Debbie Hayton, and others disagree with such unelected advocates and their self-proclaimed "allies". I don't endorse the views of the named individuals, but my point is that the trans community, like any other, is not a monolith.
  If you want the word "transgender" specifically used, "transgender identity" or "transgender self-identification" are possibilities.Crossroads ^-talk- 23:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Transgender identity" would make sense to me, but I have no idea why you repeatedly raise Blaire White as an example to me in situations where she is completely irrelevant. I am more than familiar with her and her views. I don't believe I ever said she disagreed with Stock, nor implied it in my suggested text. As an analogy, many individual women are misogynistic (we might call it "internalised misogyny"), but that does not mean that misogynists are not bigoted against women. — Bilorv (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this proposal has consensus over the current version and will be implementing the change. I will happily self-revert if someone shows that I've misinterpreted the consensus here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 supports and 3 opposes. This clearly does not have consensus. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv also supports the wording, though they didn't include a bolded !vote, and Newimpartial said in the section below that they prefer this wording to the previous status quo. And based on what I wrote in the same section, I think it's fair to count me as a weak/tentative support (though I am interested in seeing Newimpartial's response to your related query). Colin M (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I count 6 support, 3 oppose. The three oppose are Crossroads, Pyxis, and AndyGordon. The 6 support are Firefangled, myself, Tewdar, Newimpartial, Bilorv, and ColinM. Note that the later three are noted in the subsequent subheading below this one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support = 3
Oppose = 3
Oppose Crossroad's suggestion = 1.
All the yada-yada shows only 7 editors (so far) participating in this discussion. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No; please read the following sections. Sideswip9th has counted correctly. Newimpartial (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "Support" or "Oppose" declarations in the following sections. We cannot read people's minds -- and we should not be expected to read between the lines.
If someone can write a block of text, they can certainly take a moment to add "Support" or "Oppose" to whatever they're going on about. This specific section is titled: Discussion of "views on gender identity and transgender rights" proposed wording and requests a "Quick consensus". Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pyxis, consensus is determined based on the opinions expressed by editors (as far as they are compatible with policy), not based on their use of bold text. To use myself as an example, I offered a ranked choice below that was precisely formulated and which clearly expressed my preference for the text under discussion here over the version to which Crossroads had reverted. There was no reason for me to make a bolded !vote in this section to do so - and as neither version was the one I most preferred, I chose to express my preference below, rather than here. Not to speak for Bilorv, but that case seems quite similar. Newimpartial (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Newimpartial on this. WP:NOTBURO applies here. Colin M (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary: please don't misrepresent my position again. I made it entirely clear that I was in support of the proposal. You do not need to read my mind, but the words I wrote (which you're seemingly unwilling to do if they're not in bold). Discussions are not votes and no "vote" is required, preferred or given additional weight to a comment. Sideswip9th, Newimpartial and Colin M are, obviously, correct in this matter. — Bilorv (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary: to confirm counting for Crossroads' proposed version there were 3 support, and 3 opposed. The three supports were Crossroads, Pyxis, and AndyGordon. The three opposed were myself, Bilorv, and Newimpartial. The three who have not voiced a direct opinion on Crossroads' proposed version but did vote previously were Firefangled, Tewdar, and ColinM. The most strongly supported version per consensus was the one proposed by Firefangledfeathers. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of "accused of transphobia for her views on gender identity" proposed wording

New proposal - using Crossroads' set of recent, mainstream RS - which I do not accept as neutral, but which are, if anything, biased in sympathy rather than opposition to Stock - the key terms that occur most frequently are "gender identity" and "transphobia". I would therefore propose She has been accused of transphobia for her views on gender identity, which is very close to the BBC's own language but is also similar to the language used in The Guardian, The Independent and many other sources cited above. What is more, there are no sources I know of that take the position that Stock has not been accused of transphobia - this is a basic fact about which everyone, including Stock, agrees, although there is certainly disagreement about the merits of the accusation. Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support the inclusion of allegations/accusations of transphobia, but I'm unsure about tying it so directly to views on gender identity. Not opposed, just unsure. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the BBC sources makes the connection directly, so it isn't SYNTH, and no other source casts doubt on it, that I've seen. Unlike "transgender rights" and "self-identification", each of which are unduly narrow IMO, "gender identity" actually does cover the range of topics for which Stock is criticized. Newimpartial (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Bilorv (below). I think this is an improvement over the current version. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support this new proposal, though it's not perfect either. — Bilorv (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this proposal as well as Firefangledfeathers' earlier one, and I'd still like to see the ideal ones that both Bilorv and Firefangledfeathers have mentioned. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only about half of the sources presented use this specific term, which doesn't seem to meet the widely used by reliable sources threshold named by WP:LABEL (and "transphobic" is one of the words specifically named there). This is an extremely morally charged word, and hence is not as informative. This doesn't seem to be an improvement. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Half is huge. I understood it was at least three, but it's very surprising to hear that as many as half of the relevant sources use this specific term when there are many terms and phrasings to choose from. I don't encounter such wide usage of shared language often in research for my own content creation. — Bilorv (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this isn't ordinary text but has to satisfy WP:LABEL. That guideline obviously isn't specific about what "widely used" means, and editors can have good faith disagreements about what it does mean in practice, but I would expect a healthy-margin majority before I would support it. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, I don't think your MOS:LABEL objection applies here: the way the guideline is framed, we are to avoid adjectives like this in wikivoice unless they are widely used. But thus doesn't put transphobic in wikivoice (or into the text at all); it puts accused of transphobia in wikivoice. That Stock has been accused of transphobia is (1) widely supported by sources, (2) not disputed by any sources and (3) the main reason Stock is better-known now than she was last December. I don't see any policy-relevant reason - certainly not LABEL - to exclude the accusations of transphobia from the lead paragraph. If you like, though, I would be happy for the BLPN to look at this question (although it seems clear cut to me). Newimpartial (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC

That is not correct. WP:LABEL does not allow for such labels in wikivoice at all, nor does it then leave attribution as a lesser option when there aren't enough sources. It first requires widespread usage to include it at all, and then requires attribution if used. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid nothing in WP:LABEL applies to accused of transphobia or similar constructions - that is a complete misreading of the guideline. If you insist on continuing your one-against-many crusade, I am fine to broaden the CONSENSUSLEVEL through an RfC, though that should not really be necessary. Newimpartial (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

are best avoided unless [1] widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case [2] use in-text attribution. -WP:LABEL. It always requires in-text attribution if used anyway. If "widely used" did not still apply then it would be meaningless. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, I agree with Newimpartial that LABEL doesn't apply here. We are not calling Stock transphobic. Newimpartial, I don't think an RfC is reasonable right now, and I also think it's too soon to call Crossroads' objections one-against-many. It's likely we'll see other contributors share their views in the next couple days. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of the eleven sources Crossroads provided at the beginning of this discussion, seven state that Stock is accused of transphobia in their own voice, though Crossroads and I have differences of opinion of what that means in practice (Independent, BBC 1 & 2, The Guardian 2, The Argus, The Evening Standard, i News), though i News does differ slightly in saying that she is alleged to be transphobic. The Times 1 and Times Higher Education also use transphobic, but do so in scare quotes. While we could add more sources, we're already well past the point of majority and depending on how you define it into a super-majority. How many more sources are needed? We can only use so many before we enter the realms of WP:OVERCITE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the MOS, MOS:LABEL is the wrong one to be using here. MOS:ALLEGED is a closer fit to what is being proposed, however with ALLEGED in mind I would also direct editors towards WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. As we can provide one or more attributions via undisputed reliable sources for the POV that Stock is accused to transphobia, I don't think there are any policy issues preventing it from being said. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"If you insist on continuing your one-against-many crusade...." Don't start riding the personal-jabs bus again. It's predictable and expected, yes, but it's also unpleasant. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's predictable and expected, yes, but it's also unpleasant - title of my sex tape. Newimpartial (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can be dismissive and you can mock, but the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA record is created and will remain. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As is yours, as has previously been noted (by others) in response to your contribution at AE. When incivility is directed at me, I may joke, but that seems more in tune with policy than escalating ' as other editors are known to do. Newimpartial (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"as has previously been noted (by others) in response to your contribution at AE." Keep it up. The register is ringing. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, our summary should roughly mirror the way the matter is summarized in RS. So instead of just counting how many sources use the term "transphobia"/"transphobic", I think it's important to consider where in the article they occur. I checked the sources linked above by Crossroads, and The Argus and this BBC article were the only ones that used the term in their first paragraph (or subhead) summarizing the controversy. The other sources generally led with wording that was more similar to the previously discussed options (i.e. speaking of her views on {gender identity,gender self-identification, transgender rights} as being the subject of {controversy,protests,a row}). For that reason, I still think those previous options are preferable. Colin M (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin M:, how would you feel about "Her views on gender identity and transgender rights have become a contentious issue"? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Between that option, the current wording, and the proposed "gender identity and gender self-identification" wording, I'm undecided on which is best. I think there's merit to being more specific (and it seems like there's consensus that Stock's only contentious views on transgender rights are related to gender self-id). But I also see Bilorv's point, that the term "gender self-identification" is sort of jargony, and less recognizable to the average reader than "transgender rights" (though at least we can wikilink the newly-created gender self-identification article). Colin M (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, Colin, I do not agree that all of Stock's views that are controversial with respect to transgender rights are related to self-ID. Her view that people who have transitioned medically and legally under the current (non-self-ID) UK legal regime should be excluded from "women's spaces" is one such transgender rights issue that is not about self-ID. Newimpartial (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for clarifying. In that case, I do think the broader "transgender rights" wording is looking more apt. Colin M (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial:, what are your thoughts on my proposal? As compared to the status quo, not your proposal? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By rank order, my preferences are:

(1) "accused of transphobia for her views on gender identity";

(2) "views on transgender rights";

(3) "views on gender identity and transgender rights" (I would actually prefer "views on transgender rights and gender identity", which would tie for (2));

(4) - tie - anything with "self-identification" which, as I have said before, defers unduly to the subject's preferred language and which is not supported strongly by the sources currently under discussion (selected by Crossroads), compared to (1)-(3). Newimpartial (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Order change is fine with me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, what is your source for the claim that Stock believes that people who have transitioned medically and legally under the current (non-self-ID) UK legal regime should be excluded from "women's spaces"? Perhaps specifying what is meant by "medical transition" would help. Ping Colin M since he'll probably be interested in the reply based on his reaction above. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: not withstanding Newimpartial sourcing it from another article, closest match in the current version of the article is from The Argus in 2018, cite ref 31 at the time of this reply. Note that medical transition does not require bottom surgery, nor does the stricter requirements for a Gender recognition certificate require it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, The Argus will do for that one - it isn't rocket science. Newimpartial (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the argument is based on a quote from her and saying that means we should use some other term. Seems pretty WP:SYNTHey. At least stick to arguments based on sources themselves summarizing the controversy. The Independent, for example, summarizes it as Stock believes that female-only spaces such as changing rooms should not be open to self-identifying trans women. Perhaps it is more up-to-date, or perhaps self-identification has different meanings in different contexts. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is that I haven't provided the optimal quote, here is one from Zanghellini (2020) Indeed, Stock (2018c) elsewhere clearly states that she favors a policy that would exclude “all [natal] males from female-only spaces”: this clearly covers all trans women, regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate and how they obtained it.

Anyway, perhaps I am not understanding you, Crossroads. Which proposed article text are you referring to as SYNTHey? Newimpartial (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a SYNTHey argument for giving extra weight to a certain phrasing. Lest anyone respond with 'but that's okay on a talk page', well, I'll note in the same vein that "Stock 2018c" cited by Zanghellini has been deleted by the author. My point about other sources who say it differently (like The Independent) possibly being more up to date or illustrating that self-ID has multiple meanings still applies. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The best-quality source we have makes this argument, and does so based on other Stock primary sources, not just 2018c; this reading is also supported by other secondary sources and Stock's own words. If you want to go down this road, it is your argument about more mealey-mouthed phrasings possibly being more up to date that is OR. And the idea that self-ID has multiple meanings that would cover such cases seems to be your most novel contribution here; your only argument in its support is original, indeed. Newimpartial (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, apart from the two that open with accusations of transphobia, The Independent leads with a row over transgender rights; The Times uses her views on transgender rights in the opening of one piece and the debate over trans rights in the second (which Crossroads neglected to mention); similarly, The Guardian goes for her views on gender identification and transgender rights (~~Crossroads somehow left out "transgender rights" in his quote from this source)~~.

Meanwhile, the second BBC piece goes for her views on gender identity as does the Evening Standard. Similarly, iNews uses her views about trans issues. Finally, in its other piece, The Guardian invokes her views on gender identification (but in the second paragraph specifies accusations of transphobia). Times Higher Education goes with gender identification.

Now, I am not convinced that "summary of summaries" is the best way to proceed - I prefer to summarize the body, per LEADFOLLOWSBODY. I am also not convinced that these opening paragraphs, which per modern web practice are usually one sentence long, are really comparable to our much longer lead paragraph where the text in question would be placed in the third sentence. However, if we were to base this part of the lede on the first paragraph mentions compiled by Crossroads, the non-SYNTH phrase would clearly be her views on transgender rights, per BALANCE and DUE. Newimpartial (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC) edited by Newimpartial (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not leave out "transgender rights" in my quote above at all. It's right there. And a source like The Independent clarifies what it means by "transgender rights" by saying over her stance on gender identity. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the correction above re: The Guardian (sorry), but you did neglect to include transgender rights in your selection from The Times. And I don't agree that the rest of The Independent article somehow negates the initial description in terms of "transgender rights". That sounds like selective use of sources. Newimpartial (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When The Times used the term in that article, it was in reference to Boris Johnson's comments on the LGB Alliance. That's why I didn't mention it. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meta discussion

Ya'll come to a compromise yet? Or, is an RFC gonna be required. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With only one editor objecting, perhaps my proposal has the necessary degree of consensus (as a "least worst", anyway) - in which case, no RfC might be required. Newimpartial (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make our readers aware that Germaine Greer, John Cleese, the BBC, the Guardian, Jess de Wahls, Michael Che, Dave Chappelle, Margaret Atwood, Bristol University Feminist Society, Leeds University, Sussex University, almost every UK university probably, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Rupert Read from the Green party have also been "accused of transphobia" in their article ledes (if they all even have articles here). Hey, perhaps we could add a slot to living persons' infoboxes for this purpose? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these figures or institutions is primarily known for accusations of transphobia and the impact of same on their careers? I'll wait.

You are comparing things that are not really comparable. Newimpartial (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is JK Rowling "primarily" a transphobe, then? Tewdar (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She is primarily known among gen Zs for her trans-exclusionary views, and the controversies surrounding them, - according to the RS - if that is that you mean. To get back to Stock, "Trans-exclusionary" is the term used in the available academic source, as I recall, but Crossroads' preferred "mainstream" sources talk about "accusations of transphobia". Note that, in this conversation, you are the only one ~~calling~~ inquiring whether ~~Stock~~ anyone is a transphobe in your own voice, so you might want to clamp down on that for BLP reasons. Newimpartial (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC) corrected by Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC) more corrections by Newimpartial (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Jess de Wahls is pretty much only notable for this. Tewdar (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I call anybody a transphobe in my own voice? You been drinkin' the Newfoundland Screech again? Tewdar (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Too early in the day for screech, even on NL time (GMT -2.5).

Thanks to that gentle nudge, I went down the rabbit hole and return with awareness of the central western time zone in Australia. Newfoundland doesn't have the world's most obscure time, after all. Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More corrections made once I noticed when the conversation was supposed to be about Rowling and when it was on topic for this page. Clearly alcohol was required. Newimpartial (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@13:55: "Too early in the day for Screech"
@14:47: "I haszh fixshed all th'errorszhh, now,thankshh to Shcreeecshh..." 😁 Tewdar (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do all yourselves a favour & open an RFC on the matter. Tempers appear to be flaring & we don't need to have editors reporting each other to boards. Input from more editors, may break the logjam. I'll set up the RFC & let each of you put forward (in green letters) your proposals. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do appear to have rough consensus at the moment. However, I'm sure there is always an RfC in the horizon - given the recent shift in the sourcing, it may be time to RfC the way "accusations of transphobia" are integrated in the lead, for example, now that they feature so prominently in the RS (much more so than the last time we had that discussion). Newimpartial (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Do all yourselves a favour & open an RFC on the matter." – It's time. Let the chips fall where they may, and then move on to the next indubitable battle over wordage. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary: we have a pretty strong consensus here of 6/3 for a certain wording, I'm not sure an RfC is really necessary right now. Also lay off the WP:BATTLEGROUND aspersions. Wikipedia is not about WP:WINNING after all. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better references for the Open Letter against her OBE

Hi, I noticed that the 2 references to the letter in protest of her OBE (41,46) in the Honours section, are not sources about the letter itself, but articles that just briefly mention it while discussing something else. They don't say anything more than what's already included in the wiki page. Why not link to an article about the letter or the letter itself?

I don't know what sources are considered proper around here, I'll suggest a couple: one from Daily Nous here; one from shethepeople here; or the letter itself here.

Sorry if I wasted anyone's time, I didn't find that the references given cleared much. --109.52.196.230 (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense to link the actual letter, and I've added it to the article. Thanks for the idea. We often focus on the secondary sources first, as they're needed to establish the importance/relevance of primary documents. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know we had a link to the actual letter at one point in the lead, but it was lost/removed at some time over the last month. I agree that it's important to link it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date

I'll let ya'll figure out the intro stuff. But, does anybody have a clue (or source) as to when Stock was born? GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed "November 1972" from the article after the brief discussion at #WP:DOB. I was not able to easily find any secondary sources that mentioned even the birth year. More dedicated searchers might succeed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers any reason why the LoC date of 1972-11-18 should not be a source? https://lccn.loc.gov/n2007021111 --Fano (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fano, please see WP:DOB, specifically "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." WP:BLPPRIMARY reinforces the point. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious enough to do some digging in the archives of WP:RSN and found a few related discussions on this topic:

I don't really see a clear consensus across these discussions. It seems like it may be okay if the source cited by the authority file for that piece of data is itself a reliable source (in this case, they seem to be citing New waves in aesthetics, a book she edited). But I think it would be much safer if someone could verify the information directly from the book. Colin M (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Colin M, verry helpfull links, highly apreciated! (Even if I do not agree with the argument against using LOC just because in very rare cases there might be an error. Particular seeig what other shit sorces like IMDB and find a grave sometimes are used without problems in other articles (and Wikidata). But not important enought for me to get involved in this.) --Fano (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selected works

I propose removing journal articles from this section and renaming it to "Books" - no clear criterion for picking some articles and not others. She (at least currently) has a Google Scholar profile, which we can link to instead. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd divide it into sections, "Journal articles", "Books" and any other types of media Stock is known for writing, but these sections in general are pretty standard. It doesn't matter that there's no clear criteria: they're just examples. Pick a couple of each type of media, a bit of a range in dates across the times Stock has been active, a good variance of topic among the things she writes about. Maybe bias towards open access links. However, we probably don't need as many as 10 selected works. The last one of these sections I wrote myself was when creating Aaron Bastani a month ago, and I've never had negative feedback to doing so, or really seen any controversy over such sections existing. — Bilorv (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You generally go with whichever ones are most cited for the journal articles and give about 3-5 examples. Not sure what is generally done for books and things, especially since most of her chapters in books are just republishings of her earlier journal articles, outside of her one published book. Silver seren^C 16:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Bilorv said, "these sections in general are pretty standard. It doesn't matter that there's no clear criteria: they're just examples." You can have a section similar to the one in, for example, the Sara Ahmed, Nancy K. Miller, Andrea Smith, or Monique Wittig biographies. No camel's back has been broken because of them. Don't forget: Wikipedia articles are created for the general public -- not the cognoscenti. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AndyGordon edits

@AndyGordon: I've reverted your edits adding the Natacha Kennedy material from The Times. If you're unaware, this page is under WP:CRP and WP:1RR, so reinstating edits like this is gonna require consensus. My thoughts are generally this: the BLP issues are big here. The claim that a rando trans Goldsmiths prof organized a systematic campaign to fire Stock and other academics is patently an example of [s]urprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources. The Times seems to be the only source reporting this outside of non-RS like the Daily Mail, so we would avoid covering stuff like this per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. And in a general sense, the article is extremely vague about the specific involvement of any of these parties in given actions; did Kennedy encourage attempts to fire Stock et al., or merely circulate a warning list of "professors to avoid" for trans students that was taken up by people who did? We need to be serious about getting BLP issues right and avoiding gossip. Material from the The Cut I'm less immediately concerned with, but it seems to devote an undue amount of coatrack on Rowling/Forstater on the basis of a v brief statement Stock once wrote an article abt them that which doesn't allow us to say much interesting about her or why in particular she cared about the case. Maybe the stuff about intentionalism is more useful? We don't have a lot of info about her non-trans-related work. Dunno what other people think.

(There's some prior discussion about the Times article at Talk:Aimee_Challenor#Smear_Campaign. Also, this is less important but using The phrase "This Is Not a Drill" is the title of Stock's post on Medium to summarize The Cut's “This Is Not a Drill” is the title of a Medium post on the case by the British philosopher Kathleen Stock is a little too WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASEy for my taste -- understand it's easy to get into this pattern where people are hyperconcerned w/ exact wording obvs, but "is the title of" just screams for rephrasing...) —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input on this. Have I got this right: your BLP concern is for Natacha Kennedy, essentially that the "smear campaign" is covered by only one WP:RS, the Times article? I cannot see other RS at this point. Fair enough, we should not cover the campaign by Kennedy based on a single RS, as per the presumption in favour of privacy in WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Thank you, I hadn't properly internalised that.

Thinking on it, what we should cover is that multiple RS do say that Stock's views make students "feel unsafe". Apart from the Times article we are discussing, here are four other RS:

“Kathleen Stock makes trans students unsafe, Sussex still pays her” Sussex University students campaign to have ‘transphobic’ professor Kathleen Stock sacked | News | The Times

"Of those who were willing to talk, all were supportive of the trans community at Sussex and were concerned about trans students feeling unsafe." Campus in the spotlight: how Sussex became focus of row over trans rights | University of Sussex | The Guardian

“Sussex is full of queer and trans students, and also the fact we’re paying £9,000 a year to feel unsafe on campus is quite interesting,” Sussex university students protest against professor Kathleen Stock (pinknews.co.uk)

"In her original email accompanying the flags, which I believe she has tweeted today, she mentioned ‘negative media coverage around the proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act’ which she claimed was making ‘trans students feel unsafe’."Kathleen Stock: Academic claims she was victimised by trans flags (pinknews.co.uk)

I would propose to insert the following text:

Stock has been accused by campaigners of making students feel "unsafe".[cite pieces above plus Times article] In 2018, Stock responded: "What would make a philosophy department unsafe is if its academics weren’t allowed to challenge currently popular beliefs or ideologies for fear of offending."[cite Times article] AndyGordon (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "is the title of" please go ahead and suggest a paraphrase. Thank you. AndyGordon (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I will make a new topic with my rewrite. AndyGordon (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, sorry, I'll do it here. This is my proposed rewrite of the reverted text about TheCut article. I would like a consensus to include it. Please give your views.

On 18 December 2019, Stock posted This Is Not a Drill on Medium, a call to support the cause of Maya Forstater following a legal ruling against her.^[1]^[2] Author J. K. Rowling also sided with Forstater and took to Twitter, making the first direct expression of her views about transgender issues, in a tweet that included the hashtags #IStandWithMaya and #ThisIsNotADrill.^[2] AndyGordon (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Stock, Kathleen (18 December 2021). "This is not a drill". Medium. Retrieved 30 October 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^ ^a ^b Fischer, Molly (22 December 2020). "Who Did J.K. Rowling Become? Deciphering the most beloved, most reviled children's-book author in history". The Cut (website of New York (magazine)). Retrieved 30 October 2021. "Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who'll have you. Live your best life in peace and security," Rowling tweeted. "But force women out of their jobs for stating sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill." The tweet marked Rowling's first direct statement on trans issues. "This Is Not a Drill" is the title of a Medium post on the case by the British philosopher Kathleen Stock, who had taken up Forstater's cause.

Still a professor or not

Before it gets out of hand, gentlemen. Work out your differences 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, GoodDay. I was looking to start a section here but you beat me to it. Our article states - based on the sourcing - that the article's subject is a former professor at Sussex. Unless she becomes a professor somewhere else, I believe that means she is best described as a "former professor".

Also, GoodDay, gentlemen is a gendered - and in this case, misgendering - term. I believe you were grasping for "gentlefolk" or more simply, "gentles". Newimpartial (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She might be a "former professor at Sussex". But that doesn't mean she's a "former professor". Academics don't lose that title, once it has been attained. And I wouldn't want to imagine that you believe her entire BLP is to be framed in relation to her employment by Sussex. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your minor premise (that WP typically refers to former professors simply as "professors") is not supported by evidence. Wikipedia acknowledges lots of former professors. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, from primary evidence in the area (see page 9), in the UK context professor is a job title, and it's not granted for life. Upon retirement or leaving a role, an institution can grant emeritus professor status if they wish to remain associated with the individual but that has not been done in this case. With respect to secondary sources used to describe Stock, there is no consistency. Some still refer to her as professor, some as ex-professor, and some as former professor. It seems as though it's largely stylistic? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She is a former *Professor of Philosophy* (with initial capitals) at the University of Sussex. Tewdar (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that is how the short description should read, IMO, if we could only agree. Newimpartial (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It probably removes the ambiguity, what with different usages of "professor" in UK and US... Tewdar (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) We can't agree on that -- because it doesn't strike me as appropriate to frame her entire BLP around her employment by one university. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - "A British academic philosopher", perhaps? Tewdar (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm also mainly familiar with 'professor' in a US context. Are you saying that UK professors have that title for life, regardless of employment status? Is there anything, even unrelated to Stock, that evidences the claim? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd like to direct attention to my point above with respect to this question. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - In Nomo's version, it seems that being a UK professor is like an OBE: hard to lose once you have it. But Sideswip9th has cast doubt on whether that framing reflects current UK practice. Of course, presumably Stock will eventually announce new employment and this discussion will be deprecated. Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would "professor-emerita" be acceptable, or is that original research. I've no personal preference, other then wanting the intro to be stable. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would not as that's a very specific thing granted under certain circumstances. See my comment above. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment that would be OR, since many institutions have formalities around the status of emeriti/ae, and I don't think anyone has done the relevant legwork concerning Sussex. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these greybeards are retired, but still "professors"... Tewdar (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Professor emerita" is a special title over here, and definitely not applicable. Tewdar (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of y'all are trying way too hard to get "former" into the first sentence -- likely imagining that this word taints her by implying that she has lost something desirable. Get a grip, please. This is very easily resolved: she is surely a "British philosopher" (if you can't handle the idea that she is still in fact a "professor"). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"A British academic philosopher", perhaps? Tewdar (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then we don't need to mention her former employer at all. Tewdar (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Nomoskedasticity: don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS about one or more editor's emotional states. Stick to arguing for/against content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She is certainly a British philosopher - a British analytical philosopher, even. My concern was, and is, that including "professor" was/is misleading at present. So do we have any objections to "British analytical philosopher and writer" in the shortdesc? (Tewdar, I prefer he more specific "analytical" to the vaguer "avademic" in this instance, as it conveys more information to the reader.) Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Nomo, isn't this a bit BATTLEGROUNDey? Phrases like trying way too hard, imagining that this word taints her and Get a grip, please violate TPG norms and make absurd assumptions unsupported by my edits or comments. Let's stick to the topic, not the contributors. Newimpartial (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh -- perhaps best to file another request at AE... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louder, please? Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the discussion, I'd make this change myself except I'm not yet at the extended confirmed limit. In the current lead, the sentence From 2003 to 2021, she was a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex. is somewhat misleading. She wasn't a professor for that entire period, though I'm having trouble sourcing exactly when she was promoted to professor. Although slightly suspect, the best I can come up with is that at least prior to publishing this book in 2007 she was a reader, not professor. Not sure how to rephrase though. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to improve this. The wording is now a bit weaselly, but at least it's not straight up incorrect. Thanks for pointing out the issue. Colin M (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about combining it in some way with the final sentence of the lead? The two are interrelated and it isn't synth to say she held a role until her resignation at X date. Something like She was a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex until her resignation on 28 October 2021. or Until 28 October 2021, she was a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex. Position wise, either in the second sentence or at the end of the lead, using the same cite (14) for the resignation date. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to keep the resignation after we talk about the controversy, since the two are linked. (I'm tempted even to add something like "as a result of the controversy" to the last sentence, but it's tricky to get the wording right.) We could move the mention of her professor position to that last sentence, but since it's such a central part of the way she's described in RS, I prefer to introduce it in the first para. Colin M (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Her resignation from the University, creates the impression that the students are in charge of the University, from my PoV. But, I guess that's another kettle of fish. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Author or writer in shortdesc

Tewdar, I do not understand your motivation for this edit, and the edit summary does not help. Nobody is disputing that Stock is an author. My point in proposing the change is that she is also a writer in a more general sense - as a controversialist or what might in other contexts be called a "public intellectual". "Author", to me, does not at all convey this thread of Stock's career, and changing the term from the subset to the fuller set of writing activities seemed like an elegant way to do so. Do you have a better idea? Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: What should be in the lead?

What shall we have in the lead of this bio article? I leave it to you (plural) to put forward your proposals (preferably in green lettering) in this RFC. Anyone may expand this RFC into 'more' areas (beyond the four, I thought appropriate). I open this RFC for more input & to hopefully avoid any more editors reporting editors to WP:AE. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

A- lead section to open with, "Kathleen Stock is a British philosopher and author. Until 2021, she was a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, which she joined in 2003. She has published academic work on aesthetics, fiction, imagination, sexual objectification, and sexual orientation"

"Her views on transgender rights and gender identity have become a contentious issue".

The first paragraph & the opening to the second paragraph are fine with me. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification added per GoodDay. Newimpartial (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B- same as A, except the "her views" sentence would read, Her views on gender identity and gender self-identification have become a contentious issue. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
C - [...] She has been accused of transphobia for her views on gender identity. Loki (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
D - Place proposed option here
E - Place proposed option here
etc, etc.

Survey

~~D, because none of the presented options are good enough. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)~~ striking 02:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A - as it's my proposal. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
B, per the sources listed and discussed under #Sentence in lead summarizing her views above. "Transgender rights" is a vague term that exists only as a redirect, and the sources above show that the right being spoken of is gender self-identification. We should be specific about this, with an informative wikilink. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed in #Sentence in lead summarizing her views and previously, the RS document that Stock's controversial views on transgender rights are not at all limited to issues of "self-identification" so it would be whitewashing to be unduly specific and mislead readers by omission. Also, per the sources assembled by Crossroads, "Transgender rights" predominates in the introduction of the subject, on the "summary of summaries" principle. Newimpartial (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(invited by the bot) This seems more like opening a discussion than an RFC. But suggest leaving out "transgender rights". This can mean some many different things, including implying that she opposes rights which her and nearly everybody supports. In short, the range includes false unsourced negative characterizations of her in a BLP. North8000 (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, except that the characterization of the issue as transgender rights is not unsourced; the sources provided in the previous section (by Crossroads, who opposed this option) that emphasize "transgender rights" include The Independent, The Guardian and The Times (twice). This sourcing represents a wide range of political/editorial spectrum, and better sourcing from RS than has been offered for "gender self-identification". So neither false nor unsourced, then, and I don't see how "views on transgender rights and gender identity" can be negative since it doesn't characterize those views as pro- or con-. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A - I was hesitant to give a formal response, due to the WP:NPOV issues I have with the article as currently constituted. However, I am convinced that 'views on' transgender rights is something that can be, at a bare minimum, verified. To use B would be to take Stock's own framing of her views at face value, and reinforce making it the basis for the entire section on the controversy. JackWilfred (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
C first, A second, not B, but this is a strange format for an RfC that I'm not sure is necessary, and looks very much like a rehash of this discussion above that serves only to disregard the consensus established there. — Bilorv (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Edited to support C now that's been suggested. — Bilorv (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
D C: I most support Newimpartial's She has been accused of transphobia for her views on gender identity formulation from the above discussion. Both A and B are too vague and do not give a full picture of the situation from the sources, in which the exact phrase "accused of transphobia" appear many times and where all corroborate the general picture that the controversy is over accusations of transphobia. However A > B, and I specifically oppose any formulation that doesn't mention that the controversy is about transphobia in some form. ~~(Also: is there supposed to be an option C? I can't see it.)~~ Loki (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC), Edited Loki (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Transphobia" is specifically listed at WP:LABEL as a value-laden label that is best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. That does not seem to be the case here. And if it is used, then we are instructed, in which case use in-text attribution. Option C lacks this and is wide open to a "by whom?" tag. Such a writing style does not meet WP:BLPSTYLE (linked from LABEL). Crossroads ^-talk- 04:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. However, I would put gender identity first, followed by transgender rights. If you've read her writings, and listened to her interviews, her focus has been on gender. Trans this and trans that followed -- mostly by POV summations, assumptions, and editorializing. (I don't care if this RfC format is not the typical 2x2x2x2 format. All that matters is that the issue be settled and done with.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter what her focus is. It matters what the focus of reliable sources is. — Bilorv (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, yeah, yeah. And if the "reliable sources" narrow down to POVs, so what? Right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think The Guardian and The Times share a POV on this one, boss. But they both focus on the same thing. Newimpartial (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
C (or A as a distant second.) C is the only one that accurately states what the controversy over her positions actually is. Note that the invocation of WP:LABEL above plainly misapplies the policy. It does not apply to things that are broadly attributed, as this is; see [18][19][20][21][22][23] - many of these sources are sympathetic to her, but nonetheless describe her as being accused of transphobia, which shows that the simple fact that she has been accused of it is widely-cited, uncontroversial, and indeed central to her current notability. Similarly, WP:WEASEL does not apply because the lead can summarize opinions that are discussed in more depth in the body. It is certainly true that these accusations are contentious (and must be described as such), but they are widespread and provide essential context to a dispute that is central to the subject's notability, and therefore must be covered (neutrally, attributed properly somewhere in the article) and summarized in the lead. Omitting them simply because some people find them offensive or incendiary is contrary to the policies people are invoking to try and do so and falls afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED. B is obviously unacceptable, as it engages in vague and euphemistic phrasing; "transgender rights" is clear and reflects more worldwide sources. --Aquillion (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not B - "self-identification" is not a neutral term, and including it so early in the lead gives UNDUE prominence to the terminology preferred by the BLP subject, against the terms preferred by other recent RS. It also narrows the scope of the controversy in a way that is likely to mislead readers. Newimpartial (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A and B and leave the rest for the body of the article. LondonIP (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

GoodDay, I don't think there can be a formal RfC that doesn't formulate at least one choice among specified alternatives. Can there? My sense is that these things are generally workshopped before the RfC is posted, though in some cases of course the alternatives continue to evolve, or new questions are added. At the moment, this looks like a Seinfeld RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in progress, so place your proposal(s) in the "proposals" section. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: none have been proposed yet in the RFC. Don't be shy. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: this is very improper use of an RfC. I'd direct you to WP:RFCQ and the specificity subheading. I'd also like to highlight the WP:RFCBRIEF infobox with good/bad questions, as this reads like a variant of What do other editors think about the discussions on this page? by asking uninvolved editors to propose content based on the prior discussions. An RfC needs to have proposals for uninvolved editors to comment on, it is not for uninvolved editors to fill in the proposals themselves. If an RfC is needed, which I don't think it is at this time, at the very least include the options that have been discussed previously. Honestly though I think this should be closed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators I growing frustrated with the goings on at this article. Multiple reports to WP:AE (all rejected) related to this article, will do that. The RFC is in progress. Recommend participating in it, instead of objecting to it. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can verify this. Speaking as an administrator who regularly gives opinions at AE we are getting very tired of the constant meritless filings and polarization. I am personally considering removing editors from this page on both sides. I think this RFC is a positive alternative to that. You should all make your desired outcomes known, discuss it and then try to form a consensus. Then accept the consensus even if it is not what you wanted. If you can work it out among yourselves that is the best possible outcome. Obstructing such efforts is very much unproductive. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: one of the reasons I'm objecting to this is that we already have established a consensus under the subsection Discussion of "views on gender identity and transgender rights" proposed wording, which is why I think this is unnecessary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: That may be true, but this will not be helping matters at all. It is not incumbent on the editors commenting on the RfC to provide the very content upon which they are commenting on. That is incumbent upon the filer, again see the specificity subsection on WP:RFCQ for how to do this. Note that I have two recommendations here, one that this RfC is entirely unnecessary per the discussion in "Meta discussion", and the other that this RfC should be closed until the filer can file it properly. If the filer files it properly, while I still think unnecessary, I will comment on. But not until then. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I started it & I'm not withdrawing it. It's up to the rest of you here. Either you (plural) will present your proposals as requested in the RFC 'or' refuse & continue forward as you (plural) have been, before I opened this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you wait one week and refile the RfC? It would give us time to draft and discuss actual proposals, and it would mean that incoming editors would have options to !vote on and discuss. Alternatively, would anyone else prefer WP:DRN? It has the benefit of moderation, word-limits, and an iterative drafting process. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favour of either of these two options from Firefangledfeathers. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs can last up to & beyond four weeks. You've plenty of time to get your proposals together. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a proposal. Passing editors and locals can "vote" on it and hopefully it won't be too much hassle. It looks like the admin wants us to do the RfC so we should let the RfC do its thing. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the spirit. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would add as somebody summoned by the bot to comment on this RfC that I have never seen an RfC formatted like this, and I went over previous edits because I mistakenly believed the other options had been deleted by a disruptive editor. There's not much point summoning us to comment when the options are yet to be formulated. JackWilfred (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Crossroads' suggestion and Newimpartial's response, my understanding is that 'transgender rights' and 'gender self-identification' are ultimately contiguous terms, the latter forming an integral part of the former. It's difficult when we have somebody such as Stock who attempts to make such a clear delineation separating the two, and we're being asked to ultimately render a particularly subtle decision on whether we take Stock's view that she does not oppose 'transgender rights' as honest or not. I would add here that I believe the article as a whole has WP:NPOV issues and a meandering tone, and if it was a bit clearer on Stock's objectionable actions and the resulting criticism beyond a few scattered quotes, I would be okay to lean towards taking Stock at her word in the lead, with the body providing balance. JackWilfred (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: neither Option A nor Option B indicates that Stock opposes transgender rights or self-identification; if we are to use a "views on" formulation in the first paragraph, as both of these options do, I think it is important to delineate the terrain where her views are "contentious" as accurately as possible, without hemming and hawing or obfuscation. Newimpartial (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure how your reply related to mine, but this article goes to some distance to avoid stating the issue at hand as being 'transgender rights', doesn't it? The only place "transgender rights" appears in this article currently is the one in the leading paragraph, and "trans rights" and variations only appear in quotes refuting that she opposes them. I think Wikipedia is capable of describing controversies with a bit more nuance than "Stock is accused of opposing transgender rights. She says she does not. Therefore, this is not an article/section about transgender rights." The Miller article, while experiencing its own WP:NPOV issues, is a lot more direct. JackWilfred (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that the body of the article should be improved; the body text on "trangender rights" is currently skewed in favor of WP:MANDY material. The recent sources listed by Crossroads, above, have certainly foreground "transgender rights" as a framing for the debate; my sense is that the academic source might be the best one to offer context and deepen this framing. Newimpartial (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The MANDY essay is of very dubious validity compared to the WP:BLP policy if you ask me. As for that academic paper in the open access megajournal SAGE Open, it's important to keep in mind that it explicitly takes a side in the controversy, and hence has to be weighted accordingly. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The paper in question is "taking a side" in the sense in which an academic interlocutor "takes a side", not the sense in which The Telegraph "takes a side". The author actually goes out of her way to be evenhanded with Stock's views, for example by incorporating more of Stock's terminology in the author's voice than would make me comfortable. I would love to have better secondary sources than this, too, but none have yet been offered. Newimpartial (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query - GoodDay, is your proposal to strip the lead section down to this one paragraph, and remove the rest? If so, the whole existing lead should be proposed as Option B. If not, I quite at a loss as to what your actual proposal is. Newimpartial (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm content with what's in the first & second paragraphs. By all means, bring forward your proposals. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for evaluating the status quo in case of no consensus closure: the wording in place currently, which matches Option A, was only inserted on Nov. 2nd, 2 days and a few hours before this RfC began. It was being debated under #Sentence in lead summarizing her views during the time between then and the RfC start. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough with me, on this note being mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And as anyone who reads #Sentence in lead summarizing her views can see, the amended (Option A) text was not in fact being debated...during the time between then and the RfC began, at least not apart from Crossroads' filibustering. The issue discussed in that period concerned how to count editors' expressions of opinion, and whether they amounted to a rough consensus, but not the merits of the Option A text (which had been evaluated by nine editors before the text was changed). Newimpartial (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Evaluated by 9, but opposed by 3 of those... don't leave that off. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar: There's no options C or D etc etc, because nobody's put any forward. There's no limit to how many options can be put in the 'proposals' section. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Loki (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, I also don't find this a good way to do things, since proposals can be added continuously, so whoever commented early on in the process would pretty much be forced to go back regularly to reassess what's been happening since. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's better then having any editors dragged before administrators or worst, arbitrators. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[pinknews-13-10-2021-1] Kellher, Patrick (13 October 2021). "Trans students 'shocked and dismayed' by uni's 'hypocritical' defence of professor Kathleen Stock".

[profile-2] "Kathleen Stock : University of Sussex". University of Sussex. 2021. Archived from the original on 9 October 2021.

[philpeople-3] Cite error: The named reference philpeople was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[guardian2021-10-4] Badshah, Nadeem; and agency (2021-10-07). "University defends 'academic freedoms' after calls to sack professor". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2021-10-07. A university has said it will not tolerate threats to "academic freedoms" after a professor faced calls to be sacked over her views on gender identification.

[bbc2021-10-5] Lawrie, Eleanor (2021-10-08). "University of Sussex backs professor in free speech row". BBC News. Archived from the original on 2021-10-08. The University of Sussex's vice chancellor has defended a professor after protesters tried to have her sacked for her views on gender identity.

[the2020-01-6] Grove, Jack (2020-01-07). "Kathleen Stock: life on the front line of transgender rights debate". Times Higher Education (THE). Archived from the original on 2020-01-07. "It is quite a strange situation to work somewhere where people make it clear that they loathe you," reflected Kathleen Stock, professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, on the backlash she faced for her views on gender identification.

[ucu-7] Cite error: The named reference ucu was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[guardian2021-10-12-8] Cite error: The named reference guardian2021-10-12 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[9] Baggini, Julian (September 13, 2021). "Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism - a review". The Philosophers' Magazine.

[10] O'Grady, Jane (April 30, 2021). "If biological sex is a myth, so is evolution". The Telegraph (London). ProQuest 2520054508.

[11] Patterson, Christina (April 25, 2021). "Fighting back about gender". Sunday Times (London). p. 26. ProQuest 2517754011.

[12] ttps://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/06/changing-the-concept-of-woman-will-cause-unintended-harms

[13] ttp://thebadgeronline.com/2018/09/conversation-kathleen-stock-transgender-identity/

[14] ttps://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/oct/30/uk-universities-struggle-to-deal-with-toxic-trans-rights-row

[15] ttps://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/10/14/universities-union-backs-trans-rights-in-row-over-anti-trans-professor-kathleen-stock/

[16] ttps://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1393/html/

[17] ttps://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/01/06/kathleen-stock-obe-transphobia-open-letter/

[18] ttps://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/10/28/kathleen-stock-quits-sussex-university-trans/

[19] Stock, Kathleen (18 December 2021). "This is not a drill". Medium. Retrieved 30 October 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[:2-20] Fischer, Molly (22 December 2020). "Who Did J.K. Rowling Become? Deciphering the most beloved, most reviled children's-book author in history". The Cut (website of New York (magazine)). Retrieved 30 October 2021. "Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who'll have you. Live your best life in peace and security," Rowling tweeted. "But force women out of their jobs for stating sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill." The tweet marked Rowling's first direct statement on trans issues. "This Is Not a Drill" is the title of a Medium post on the case by the British philosopher Kathleen Stock, who had taken up Forstater's cause.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 1,005: / Line 1,005: @@
 **Fair enough with me, on this note being mentioned. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 05:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 ** And as anyone who reads [[#Sentence in lead summarizing her views]]  can see, the amended (Option A) text was not in fact {{tq|being debated...during the time between then and the RfC began}}, at least not apart from Crossroads' filibustering. The issue discussed in that period concerned how to count editors' expressions of opinion, and whether they amounted to a {{tq|rough consensus}}, but not the merits of the Option A text (which had been evaluated by nine editors before the text was changed). [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
+***Evaluated by 9, but opposed by 3 of those... don't leave that off. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 04:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 {{ping|LokiTheLiar}} There's no options '''C''' or '''D''' etc etc, because nobody's put any forward. There's no limit to how many options can be put in the 'proposals' section. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:17, 7 November 2021

Allegations of transphobia

debate on sex and gender is hindered by labelling participants

Transgender identity

Sentence on published works in lede

See also David Miller

Better-source tag on Lesbian and Gay News

Campaign by students and reactions section

Lead

Balance

Alex Sharpe review

Use of "gender critical"

Google Scholar

Intimidation and harrassment

Potential sources

"opposition to gender self-identification"

summary of the difficulty

Sources on self-id

Reality check

Resolution?

"Philosophical Problems With the Gender-Critical Feminist Argument Against Trans Inclusion"

Irish Times editorial

Views being misrepresented

Extended confirmed protection and sock puppetry

Gender self-identification

Possible "consensus required" vio in lead

Sentence in lead summarizing her views

Discussion of "views on gender identity and transgender rights" proposed wording

Discussion of "accused of transphobia for her views on gender identity" proposed wording

Meta discussion

Better references for the Open Letter against her OBE

Birth date

Selected works

AndyGordon edits

Still a professor or not

Author or writer in shortdesc

RFC: What should be in the lead?

Proposals

Survey

Discussion

Leave a Reply