![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I proposed this as a first sentence:
For some months the first sentence has instead been
Obviously the high amount of attention to this organization is for one reason only: it "seeks to exclude transgender people from LGBT Movements and to oppose the transgender rights movement". There is not a disagreement or dispute here. The LGB Alliance exists for this purpose.
I am aware of previous discussions such as the one at Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_6#RFC_on_opening_sentence. In this and other discussions I see various commentators saying that something is in error, but not identifying what it is. The error is failure to say what the organization does. I think this is it.
Does anyone here think I am mistaken in my interpretation of the consensus of the sources? Speak up! Bluerasberry (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC) s
‘Court told’i.e. this is an allegation made by one side in a legal case. Therefore, it is not a suitable source. Wait until the case has been completely heard, and there has been a judgment. Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group known for its opposition to the transgender rights movement and the belief that there is a "conflict between trans rights and the rights of [ cisgender ] LGB people".Primarily because their anti-trans advocacy should be the lead and that they attempt to separate trans people from cisgender LGB people is a part of that rather than the other way around.
most recently, such public conflicts at the intersection of transgender and lesbian identities have manifested in movements and organizations specifically intended to separate sexual identities from gender identities (e.g., the British charity and advocacy group LGB Alliance).
TERFs are not feminists, because they actively endorse the oppression of trans women (and sometimes other gender groups). Worryingly, some trans-exclusionary LGB movements have begun to form around TERF ideology (for example, the LGB Alliance in the United Kingdom and the Red LGB movement in Spain).
LGB Alliance was founded in 2019 to oppose LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall's pro-transgender inclusion policies. LGB Alliance’s text (n.d.) is their official statement of their position against the GRA reform, in which they claim allowing people to self-identify “would spread confusion and would inevitably be a threat to our rights” and that there is a “conflict between trans rights and the rights of LGB people” which has “been exacerbated because of a radical change in the demands of trans people”.(Emphasis added)
These issues are taken up by the UK anti-trans-inclusion organizations like Get The L Out, Lesbian Rights Alliance and the LGB Alliance, for example, which I mentioned earlier in this chapter.
The plan to separate trans people from their feminist and LGB allies was initially conceived shortly after the Supreme Court made marriage equality the law of the land in 2015. A key document developed by the anti-LGBT group Family Research Council signaled the anti-queer movement’s effort to “drop the T” from the LGBTQ acronym. Since then, a British group called the LGB Alliance, which pushes an exclusively anti-trans message while claiming to be a charity for lesbian and gay people, has popped up and even received charity status in the U.K.That seperating the T from LGB is a far-right tactic is covered by the Southern Poverty Law Center in more detail here
TERFs are not feminists
clearly an opinion piece, the object of your ire ought to be WP's policy framework for reliable sourcing, and not the content of this article. Editors are not really supposed to factor in their original interpretations of primary sources in determining article content. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
goes into lala landand should therefore be ignored as
opinionis pure venting in your part; it is simply not the job of editors to determine whether a reliable source has
properly sourced itself, and your POV axe-grinding on this topic is a perfect example of why editors are supposed to rely on policy rather than WP:OR to
judge the fitness of a reference.
no single definition of feminism, but that doesn't mean that scholars using a particular definition of feminism in a specific piece of work are totally unreliable. It is also unreasonable for you to conclude that RS cannot be cited when they include an argument that certain positions are contrary to feminist principles and values. The slight of hand you are doing between fact and opinion - essentially, accusing sources of being biased in service of your own biases - isn't based on WP policy and really ought to be ignored in determining article content. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
no single definition of feminism, but that doesn't mean that scholars using a particular definition of feminism in a specific piece of work are totally unreliable.
that a source is saying something it can't know or which is logically impossible- well, I'm afraid you haven't done that. What you have actually done is to focus a hostile lens on a peer-reviewed, academic source and in so doing, misinterpreted it. That kind of WP:OR is out of scope even on Talk pages.
lying to people about the rulesis both unsubstantiated and un WP:CIVIL - please don't do that. If you think you have identified a problem with the source, besides noting that it employs a specific definition of feminism, I'd love to hear it - so far you have simply laid down a barrage of WP:IDONTLIKEIT against a high-quality source without identifying any potential problem with the way it is currently used in this article. Disagreeing with a source and questioning its premises does not make said source unusable, regardless of the high stock you apparently place in your own
Advocatingwork onwiki. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
the source being imprecise or biased in this area makes it inappropriate for this article- that is directly at odds with what WP:BIASEDSOURCES would lead us to conclude, and has simply been an unsubstantiated assertion on your part. If you want to argue that the article's stance that trans-inclusion is essential to feminism is not only wrong but disqualifies the source from being used in thus article, you have to actually make an argument rather than merely gesticulating. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
The LGB Alliance has been described ... by articles in two scholarly journals as "trans-exclusionary". The idea that the article in question is not appropriate for this attributed statement in mainspace reads like special pleading not based in any of the WP:UPPERCASE to which you have gesticulated in this conversation.
claiming to speak for all feminists, that is nothing more or less than a misinterpretation of the piece. Meanwhile, you assert that to discredit this caricature of the article, and thereby presumably to
determine if it can be used,
we need find only one self-identified feminist who is pro single-sex spaces. Discrediting peer-reviewed scholarship by means of our our own original arguments is exactly what WP:NOR/ WP:SYNTH tells us not to do, and your convenient misinterpretation of the Monque piece in order to discredit it offers a perfect example of why editors are not supposed to do that. We are supposed to evaluate the fitness of articles for statements they could be used to support, but not by WP:POV-based exercises in OR debunking. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
a slur as much as any directed at transfolk, I'm sure that TERFS feelings get hurt as much as trans people fear for their safety when they here "tranny" walking down the street. I'll be sure to tell all the trans people I know who've been abused, called slurs, or made homeless by their family that it's just as bad to call bigots making life harder for them TERFs. Totally equivalent... Not just bigots whinging at all... Reverse transphobia one might say, in the same vein as reverse racism.
Women just want single-sex spaces to remain single-sex- really? Women in general want to exclude trans women from spaces that are defined as belonging to women only? What is your evidence for this?
TERF is a word Antifa uses in its signs and online threats towards women- Antifa? Seriously? You are going to inscribe your conspiracy theory about persecuted "TERFs" within a broader conspiracy theory about Antifa, without offering evidence for either? That is really how you want to play this?
A male claiming to be trans won't be stopped when following girls into the bathroom, or have the police called on him for loitering in the shower, so of course any male aggressor - and there are enough to warrant the creation of single-sex spaces - is going to use this defense.You think that you can convince editors of the righteousness of your cause by recycling unsubstantiated transphobic tropes? This is where dog-whistle politics enters the realm of clearly-audible-whistle politics, IMO.
slur, without any recognition that the higher-quality RS do not actually support this characterization.
trying to slander and slur their opponents rather than present facts or engage with claims- and this is exactly what you are doing in this discussion with your demonizing trans people as rapists. Are you sure you haven't previously been banned from discussing gender and sexuality on English Wikipedia? Because this discussion is starting to feel tediously familiar. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
slur, without any recognition that the higher-quality RS do not actually support this characterization
self-contradictory, much less that there is some policy-based reason to think it unreliable for the claim sourced to it in the article. You have, however, convinced me that YOUDONTLIKEIT and that you demand a good deal of SATISFACTION from your interlocutors, although you have some difficulty remaining CIVIL as you pursue your POV. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
a peer-reviewed academic sourceand say
the object of your ire ought to be WP's policy framework for reliable sourcing, and not the content of this article.But [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP] says:
Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.So this Master’s thesis could not be a ‘reliable source’ for Wikipedie. And Inverse Zebra is correct when they say:
Your source doesn't claim they are opposing trans rights, only that they say "Stonewall's pro-transgender inclusion policies" conflict with homosexual rights.Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
the TERF slur- and yet there is no agreement among scholarly sources that TERF is a slur. You are assuming the thing you purport to prove, once again. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what the correct wording is for the first paragraph but I also think the present wording is not an accurate description of who they are, just who they say they are. To repeat what I said in an earlier discussion I don't think that taking the LGB Alliance's website at face value is sensible. Like other groups that are considered by some to be a hate group what they say on their website and what they do are quite different. One example from their website; "We fully support trans people in their struggle, for dignity, respect and a life lived free from bigotry and fear.", this is not present in their opposition to making conversion therapy for trans people illegal in the UK.
What are the rules around this and where has this kind of issue come up before and been resolved well?
John Cummings ( talk) 10:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
to exclude transgender people from LGBT Movements and to oppose the transgender rights movementthen they should (a) direct us to the source, and the quote saying this, and (b) explain what this could possibly mean. How could any organisation ‘exclude transgender people from LGBT movements’? The wording proposed by Bluerasberry, and inserted by them without gaining consensus for it, is nonsensical and is not supported by the body of the article. Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
JaggedHamster has suggested (11:42, 4 October 2022) as an alternative wording: in opposition to the extension of the charity Stonewall's focus from LGB rights to LGBT ones
. Something along these lines makes better sense than the wording which has been promoted by
Bluerasberry. Is there any general support for JaggedHamster’s proposal, or anything similar?
Sweet6970 (
talk)
15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
...formed in 2019 in opposition to the LGBT charity Stonewall's advocacy for trans rights.-- Trystan ( talk) 23:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Previous ideas are insufficient for failure to state what the organization does. Here is one option -
Who has other ideas? If you oppose stating what the organization does, then explain why. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 in opposition to LGBT charity Stonewall's support for transgender rights. The LGB Alliance advocates against gender identity education in schools, a ban on conversion therapy for trans people in the UK, medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform.-- Trystan ( talk) 14:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 to oppose transgender rights. They advocate against gender identity education in schools, a ban on conversion therapy for trans people in the UK, medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform.Loki ( talk) 14:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment:, please can suggesters link to the sources that support their suggested sentences, this will make it easier to see that they're supported by sources. Thanks,
John Cummings (
talk)
17:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 that takes the position that a conflict exists between those who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, and those who are transgender, and advocates for the LGB side of such conflicts. They were formed in opposition to LGBT charity Stonewall's transgender focus.(Sources: [1] [2]) *Dan T.* ( talk) 14:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
transgender focus, but the fact they advocate for trans people at all. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 14:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
lie" or "to promote its view that gender identity is a pernicious ideology", if you'd allow the paraphrase. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
lie, this view is unsupported by the wide consensus of reliable sources in the relevant fields and is therefore WP:FRINGE. If
quite respectable public figuresdispute the scholarly consensus on climate change or on the Nazi Holocaust, we do not therefore present BOTHSIDES on the matter, nor do we present groups of climate change or holocaust deniers as taking any thing other than a FRINGE position. The same is true here. We never base WP articles on the range of opinion that is or isn't expressed in WP:RSOPINION sources and I see no reason why this topic would be different: no matter how many WP editors happen to take a view at odds with scientific consensus. Newimpartial ( talk)
The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group which opposes the transgender rights movement) is very similar to the argument that it should not be a charity, because it is supposedly campaigning against transgender rights, rather than for the interests of LGB people. So this wording would make Wikipedia agree with Mermaids’ side of the current legal dispute.
If most reliable sources support the claim…. I was simply rebuking the point expressed in the post I replied to, that using the wording would break NPOV regardless of sourcing. Madeline ( part of me) 12:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
LGB Alliance claims its purpose is to see “lesbians, gay men and bisexuals living free from discrimination or disadvantage based on their sexual orientation”. But ever since its inception, the organisation has campaigned to erode trans rights and paint the trans community as dangerous to women and children....Over the following months, the group targeted the census for asking respondents to list their “sex registered at birth”, inclusive sex and relationships education in schools, and reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) to make legal recognition easier for trans people.
campaigned to erode trans rights and paint the trans community as dangerous to women and children.Newimpartial ( talk) 19:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
general mediasources are preferable to PinkNews in this context. Of course scholarly sources are preferable. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
PinkNews is an obviously biased source, and the article quoted is more of an opinion piece than a factual news report. Sweet6970 ( talk) 09:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. In terms of those criteria in particular, I think PinkNews stands up well as an Independent, Reliable source on this article's topic. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The article now lists chapters in Ireland, Iceland, Australia, and I have a source for a new one in Vermont. Wouldn't it be more apt to open with saying the group is International, founded in the UK (or specific UK country), with several chapters worldwide? - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I think this is everything proposed above. Did I miss any, or does anyone have further proposals?
Does anyone see a way to get consensus here, or should we do an RfC? Ideas for what's next? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 to oppose transgender rights and LGBT charity Stonewall for it's support of themThank you for laying them out, I think that helps us look for a consensus here more informally. If we can't moving it to an RFC seems the best move. Also, I prefer transgender rights to transgender rights movement since they aren't critical of a movement but the rights themselves, with attacking organizations that support trans people being a part of that. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 20:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in 2019 in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues.This is the current wording. Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks very much Bluerasberry for supporting this discussion.
I don't think that 1 is sufficient, again it just talks about their history and who they say they are, not what they actually do, I don't think that any of these options are incorrect, just what we chose to emphasise. I agree with the above comment about clarifying they are against the rights themselves, not the movement. My suggestion would be to leave the founding information until after a description of what they actually do:
If this is taken to an RFC my suggestion would be first to agree on what whould be included and then which order we put the information.
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 12:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I proposed this as a first sentence:
For some months the first sentence has instead been
Obviously the high amount of attention to this organization is for one reason only: it "seeks to exclude transgender people from LGBT Movements and to oppose the transgender rights movement". There is not a disagreement or dispute here. The LGB Alliance exists for this purpose.
I am aware of previous discussions such as the one at Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_6#RFC_on_opening_sentence. In this and other discussions I see various commentators saying that something is in error, but not identifying what it is. The error is failure to say what the organization does. I think this is it.
Does anyone here think I am mistaken in my interpretation of the consensus of the sources? Speak up! Bluerasberry (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC) s
‘Court told’i.e. this is an allegation made by one side in a legal case. Therefore, it is not a suitable source. Wait until the case has been completely heard, and there has been a judgment. Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group known for its opposition to the transgender rights movement and the belief that there is a "conflict between trans rights and the rights of [ cisgender ] LGB people".Primarily because their anti-trans advocacy should be the lead and that they attempt to separate trans people from cisgender LGB people is a part of that rather than the other way around.
most recently, such public conflicts at the intersection of transgender and lesbian identities have manifested in movements and organizations specifically intended to separate sexual identities from gender identities (e.g., the British charity and advocacy group LGB Alliance).
TERFs are not feminists, because they actively endorse the oppression of trans women (and sometimes other gender groups). Worryingly, some trans-exclusionary LGB movements have begun to form around TERF ideology (for example, the LGB Alliance in the United Kingdom and the Red LGB movement in Spain).
LGB Alliance was founded in 2019 to oppose LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall's pro-transgender inclusion policies. LGB Alliance’s text (n.d.) is their official statement of their position against the GRA reform, in which they claim allowing people to self-identify “would spread confusion and would inevitably be a threat to our rights” and that there is a “conflict between trans rights and the rights of LGB people” which has “been exacerbated because of a radical change in the demands of trans people”.(Emphasis added)
These issues are taken up by the UK anti-trans-inclusion organizations like Get The L Out, Lesbian Rights Alliance and the LGB Alliance, for example, which I mentioned earlier in this chapter.
The plan to separate trans people from their feminist and LGB allies was initially conceived shortly after the Supreme Court made marriage equality the law of the land in 2015. A key document developed by the anti-LGBT group Family Research Council signaled the anti-queer movement’s effort to “drop the T” from the LGBTQ acronym. Since then, a British group called the LGB Alliance, which pushes an exclusively anti-trans message while claiming to be a charity for lesbian and gay people, has popped up and even received charity status in the U.K.That seperating the T from LGB is a far-right tactic is covered by the Southern Poverty Law Center in more detail here
TERFs are not feminists
clearly an opinion piece, the object of your ire ought to be WP's policy framework for reliable sourcing, and not the content of this article. Editors are not really supposed to factor in their original interpretations of primary sources in determining article content. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
goes into lala landand should therefore be ignored as
opinionis pure venting in your part; it is simply not the job of editors to determine whether a reliable source has
properly sourced itself, and your POV axe-grinding on this topic is a perfect example of why editors are supposed to rely on policy rather than WP:OR to
judge the fitness of a reference.
no single definition of feminism, but that doesn't mean that scholars using a particular definition of feminism in a specific piece of work are totally unreliable. It is also unreasonable for you to conclude that RS cannot be cited when they include an argument that certain positions are contrary to feminist principles and values. The slight of hand you are doing between fact and opinion - essentially, accusing sources of being biased in service of your own biases - isn't based on WP policy and really ought to be ignored in determining article content. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
no single definition of feminism, but that doesn't mean that scholars using a particular definition of feminism in a specific piece of work are totally unreliable.
that a source is saying something it can't know or which is logically impossible- well, I'm afraid you haven't done that. What you have actually done is to focus a hostile lens on a peer-reviewed, academic source and in so doing, misinterpreted it. That kind of WP:OR is out of scope even on Talk pages.
lying to people about the rulesis both unsubstantiated and un WP:CIVIL - please don't do that. If you think you have identified a problem with the source, besides noting that it employs a specific definition of feminism, I'd love to hear it - so far you have simply laid down a barrage of WP:IDONTLIKEIT against a high-quality source without identifying any potential problem with the way it is currently used in this article. Disagreeing with a source and questioning its premises does not make said source unusable, regardless of the high stock you apparently place in your own
Advocatingwork onwiki. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
the source being imprecise or biased in this area makes it inappropriate for this article- that is directly at odds with what WP:BIASEDSOURCES would lead us to conclude, and has simply been an unsubstantiated assertion on your part. If you want to argue that the article's stance that trans-inclusion is essential to feminism is not only wrong but disqualifies the source from being used in thus article, you have to actually make an argument rather than merely gesticulating. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
The LGB Alliance has been described ... by articles in two scholarly journals as "trans-exclusionary". The idea that the article in question is not appropriate for this attributed statement in mainspace reads like special pleading not based in any of the WP:UPPERCASE to which you have gesticulated in this conversation.
claiming to speak for all feminists, that is nothing more or less than a misinterpretation of the piece. Meanwhile, you assert that to discredit this caricature of the article, and thereby presumably to
determine if it can be used,
we need find only one self-identified feminist who is pro single-sex spaces. Discrediting peer-reviewed scholarship by means of our our own original arguments is exactly what WP:NOR/ WP:SYNTH tells us not to do, and your convenient misinterpretation of the Monque piece in order to discredit it offers a perfect example of why editors are not supposed to do that. We are supposed to evaluate the fitness of articles for statements they could be used to support, but not by WP:POV-based exercises in OR debunking. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
a slur as much as any directed at transfolk, I'm sure that TERFS feelings get hurt as much as trans people fear for their safety when they here "tranny" walking down the street. I'll be sure to tell all the trans people I know who've been abused, called slurs, or made homeless by their family that it's just as bad to call bigots making life harder for them TERFs. Totally equivalent... Not just bigots whinging at all... Reverse transphobia one might say, in the same vein as reverse racism.
Women just want single-sex spaces to remain single-sex- really? Women in general want to exclude trans women from spaces that are defined as belonging to women only? What is your evidence for this?
TERF is a word Antifa uses in its signs and online threats towards women- Antifa? Seriously? You are going to inscribe your conspiracy theory about persecuted "TERFs" within a broader conspiracy theory about Antifa, without offering evidence for either? That is really how you want to play this?
A male claiming to be trans won't be stopped when following girls into the bathroom, or have the police called on him for loitering in the shower, so of course any male aggressor - and there are enough to warrant the creation of single-sex spaces - is going to use this defense.You think that you can convince editors of the righteousness of your cause by recycling unsubstantiated transphobic tropes? This is where dog-whistle politics enters the realm of clearly-audible-whistle politics, IMO.
slur, without any recognition that the higher-quality RS do not actually support this characterization.
trying to slander and slur their opponents rather than present facts or engage with claims- and this is exactly what you are doing in this discussion with your demonizing trans people as rapists. Are you sure you haven't previously been banned from discussing gender and sexuality on English Wikipedia? Because this discussion is starting to feel tediously familiar. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
slur, without any recognition that the higher-quality RS do not actually support this characterization
self-contradictory, much less that there is some policy-based reason to think it unreliable for the claim sourced to it in the article. You have, however, convinced me that YOUDONTLIKEIT and that you demand a good deal of SATISFACTION from your interlocutors, although you have some difficulty remaining CIVIL as you pursue your POV. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
a peer-reviewed academic sourceand say
the object of your ire ought to be WP's policy framework for reliable sourcing, and not the content of this article.But [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP] says:
Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.So this Master’s thesis could not be a ‘reliable source’ for Wikipedie. And Inverse Zebra is correct when they say:
Your source doesn't claim they are opposing trans rights, only that they say "Stonewall's pro-transgender inclusion policies" conflict with homosexual rights.Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
the TERF slur- and yet there is no agreement among scholarly sources that TERF is a slur. You are assuming the thing you purport to prove, once again. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what the correct wording is for the first paragraph but I also think the present wording is not an accurate description of who they are, just who they say they are. To repeat what I said in an earlier discussion I don't think that taking the LGB Alliance's website at face value is sensible. Like other groups that are considered by some to be a hate group what they say on their website and what they do are quite different. One example from their website; "We fully support trans people in their struggle, for dignity, respect and a life lived free from bigotry and fear.", this is not present in their opposition to making conversion therapy for trans people illegal in the UK.
What are the rules around this and where has this kind of issue come up before and been resolved well?
John Cummings ( talk) 10:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
to exclude transgender people from LGBT Movements and to oppose the transgender rights movementthen they should (a) direct us to the source, and the quote saying this, and (b) explain what this could possibly mean. How could any organisation ‘exclude transgender people from LGBT movements’? The wording proposed by Bluerasberry, and inserted by them without gaining consensus for it, is nonsensical and is not supported by the body of the article. Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
JaggedHamster has suggested (11:42, 4 October 2022) as an alternative wording: in opposition to the extension of the charity Stonewall's focus from LGB rights to LGBT ones
. Something along these lines makes better sense than the wording which has been promoted by
Bluerasberry. Is there any general support for JaggedHamster’s proposal, or anything similar?
Sweet6970 (
talk)
15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
...formed in 2019 in opposition to the LGBT charity Stonewall's advocacy for trans rights.-- Trystan ( talk) 23:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Previous ideas are insufficient for failure to state what the organization does. Here is one option -
Who has other ideas? If you oppose stating what the organization does, then explain why. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 in opposition to LGBT charity Stonewall's support for transgender rights. The LGB Alliance advocates against gender identity education in schools, a ban on conversion therapy for trans people in the UK, medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform.-- Trystan ( talk) 14:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 to oppose transgender rights. They advocate against gender identity education in schools, a ban on conversion therapy for trans people in the UK, medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform.Loki ( talk) 14:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment:, please can suggesters link to the sources that support their suggested sentences, this will make it easier to see that they're supported by sources. Thanks,
John Cummings (
talk)
17:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 that takes the position that a conflict exists between those who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, and those who are transgender, and advocates for the LGB side of such conflicts. They were formed in opposition to LGBT charity Stonewall's transgender focus.(Sources: [1] [2]) *Dan T.* ( talk) 14:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
transgender focus, but the fact they advocate for trans people at all. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 14:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
lie" or "to promote its view that gender identity is a pernicious ideology", if you'd allow the paraphrase. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
lie, this view is unsupported by the wide consensus of reliable sources in the relevant fields and is therefore WP:FRINGE. If
quite respectable public figuresdispute the scholarly consensus on climate change or on the Nazi Holocaust, we do not therefore present BOTHSIDES on the matter, nor do we present groups of climate change or holocaust deniers as taking any thing other than a FRINGE position. The same is true here. We never base WP articles on the range of opinion that is or isn't expressed in WP:RSOPINION sources and I see no reason why this topic would be different: no matter how many WP editors happen to take a view at odds with scientific consensus. Newimpartial ( talk)
The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group which opposes the transgender rights movement) is very similar to the argument that it should not be a charity, because it is supposedly campaigning against transgender rights, rather than for the interests of LGB people. So this wording would make Wikipedia agree with Mermaids’ side of the current legal dispute.
If most reliable sources support the claim…. I was simply rebuking the point expressed in the post I replied to, that using the wording would break NPOV regardless of sourcing. Madeline ( part of me) 12:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
LGB Alliance claims its purpose is to see “lesbians, gay men and bisexuals living free from discrimination or disadvantage based on their sexual orientation”. But ever since its inception, the organisation has campaigned to erode trans rights and paint the trans community as dangerous to women and children....Over the following months, the group targeted the census for asking respondents to list their “sex registered at birth”, inclusive sex and relationships education in schools, and reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) to make legal recognition easier for trans people.
campaigned to erode trans rights and paint the trans community as dangerous to women and children.Newimpartial ( talk) 19:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
general mediasources are preferable to PinkNews in this context. Of course scholarly sources are preferable. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
PinkNews is an obviously biased source, and the article quoted is more of an opinion piece than a factual news report. Sweet6970 ( talk) 09:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. In terms of those criteria in particular, I think PinkNews stands up well as an Independent, Reliable source on this article's topic. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The article now lists chapters in Ireland, Iceland, Australia, and I have a source for a new one in Vermont. Wouldn't it be more apt to open with saying the group is International, founded in the UK (or specific UK country), with several chapters worldwide? - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I think this is everything proposed above. Did I miss any, or does anyone have further proposals?
Does anyone see a way to get consensus here, or should we do an RfC? Ideas for what's next? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 to oppose transgender rights and LGBT charity Stonewall for it's support of themThank you for laying them out, I think that helps us look for a consensus here more informally. If we can't moving it to an RFC seems the best move. Also, I prefer transgender rights to transgender rights movement since they aren't critical of a movement but the rights themselves, with attacking organizations that support trans people being a part of that. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 20:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in 2019 in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues.This is the current wording. Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks very much Bluerasberry for supporting this discussion.
I don't think that 1 is sufficient, again it just talks about their history and who they say they are, not what they actually do, I don't think that any of these options are incorrect, just what we chose to emphasise. I agree with the above comment about clarifying they are against the rights themselves, not the movement. My suggestion would be to leave the founding information until after a description of what they actually do:
If this is taken to an RFC my suggestion would be first to agree on what whould be included and then which order we put the information.
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 12:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)