The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more trans women. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Some people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBT WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard. |
A fact from Sarah Jane Baker appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 November 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk 17:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by GRuban ( talk). Self-nominated at 14:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sarah Jane Baker; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
I do not think we should be promoting this person. Putting this person on the front page of the English Wikipedia is promoting the person. The person is selling books and a cause, and may run for office again. We are promoting them when we put their cause and image on the main page. I hope that was clearer. Lightburst ( talk) 00:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
in response to RoySmith's belief, below, that a DYK hook should completely describe the subject, no that's not what I believe. You don't have to completely describe the subject, but if the majority of WP:RS describe the subject primarially as a "transgender activist", then IMHO, that's what we should lead with as well. RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Please refer to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity. The article as written commits multiple violations of the manual of style regarding gender identity. From the style manual:
Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent)
My suggested re-write is:
She escaped for three months, during which she had a son.
The style manual also notes regarding deadnaming:
If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name
Sarah Baker is only notable as the UK's longest serving transgender prisoner and as a transgender rights activist. Her article was created in 2023, a decade after her transition in 2013. As such, there is no need to use her deadname outside of the reference list. As written, the article uses her dead name in three places, in clear violation of Wikipedia's style guide.
Sarah Baker is also implicitly misgendered by being referred to twice "as assigned male at birth" rather than as a trans woman. She is also referred to as a "transgender female" rather than as a trans woman which is non-standard terminology.
The article as written also references Sarah Baker's gender identity unnecessarily often. Such references should be minimized, as per the style guide:
Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis.
Due to these issues, I strongly recommend revision to all or most of my suggested changes to the article. Suphlatus ( talk) 14:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
had a son.
had a soncould be misinterpreted as gave birth to a son; I think the current wording is better. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
"Assigned male at birth" states the gender Sarah Baker isn't (male) without specifying the gender she is (female). That is a form of misgendering.That seems like a stretch to me. BilledMammal ( talk) 13:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
She escaped for three months, during which time she met a woman by whom she had a son.This does not say that the son was born during the 3 months – it says she met the woman during the 3 months. And only female bodies conceive i.e. become pregnant. Baker was never pregnant. The correct verb for the male is ‘beget’ (past tense begat or begot) but nowadays this word is rare outside the King James bible. So please self-revert: your change is unnecessary, and the wording you have chosen is not correct. Sweet6970 ( talk) 20:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The article as written commits multiple violations of NPOV in service of an anti-transgender agenda.
At the 8 July 2023 London Trans+ Pride Parade, Baker called for attendees to punch any TERF (a derogatory term for transgender critical feminists) they see in the face; her statement was videotaped and widely distributed.
Here the parenthetical statement should be removed as it is a gender critical feminist framing of the use of the acronym. The claim that TERF is a derogatory term for gender critical feminists, often stated succinctly as "TERF is a slur", is itself a strategic, gender critical talking point used to weaponize website moderation to shut down any critique of the views of gender critical feminists. TERF was in fact coined as a "deliberately technically neutral description". The term TERF is discussed in TERF (acronym) and Gender-critical feminism and so there is no need for this debate to be recapitulated in this article. A link to TERF (acronym) or Gender-critical feminism would suffice.
Asked for reaction, London Trans+ Pride organizers said that while they condemned violence, they supported her expression of what they referred to as her "righteous anger".
Here "what they referred to as" is an unnecessary hedge. The use of quotes by itself make it clear that it is London Trans+ Pride that is referring to her actions as "righteous anger". The addition of "what they referred to as" does not serve to clarify, rather it serves to imply doubt on the part of Wikipedia that the action constituted righteous anger, violating the NPOV principle.
She led a protest at the inaugural event of transgender critical feminist philosopher's Kathleen Stock's The Lesbian Project, where her violent history contributed to Stock's nerves.
Once again, this sentence violates NPOV. Here with the use of the phrase "where her violent history contributed to Stock's nerves" we are adopting a framing of Sarah Baker as the aggressor/perpetrator of violence and Kathleen Stock as a victim. This is, if anything, a reversal of the objective framing, as Stock is a leading figure in a hate movement dedicated to the elimination of human rights protections for transgender people such as Sarah Baker. The framing in the article privileges imagined, hypothetical violence against Stock over the actual violence of Stock's political movement against a marginalized population. A simple fix would be to shorten this sentence to "She led a protest at the inaugural event of gender critical feminist philosopher's Kathleen Stock's The Lesbian Project." and thereby avoid adopting the anti-transgender perspective on the protest.
Due to these issues, I strongly recommend revision to all or most of my suggested changes to the article. Suphlatus ( talk) 14:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
what they referred to as her righteous anger’: it is not clear that this is the view of London Trans Pride unless this is specifically stated. We should not have this in wikivoice – that would be a very serious breach of NPOV.
where her violent history contributed to Stock's nerves’: this should, perhaps, be attributed to Kathleen Stock. I don’t have access to the source – do you have a suggestion for an attributed wording?
Asked for reaction, London Trans+ Pride organizers said that while they condemned violence, they supported her expression of what they referred to as her "righteous anger".
Asked for reaction, London Trans+ Pride organizers said that "We do not condone violence...We do condone righteous anger and the right to the free speech".
the term is now typically considered derogatory or disparagingand the SJB article reflects this by saying that the term is derogatory.
Stock produces a baseball cap and sunglasses. “It’s my Kendall Roy look.” Because at 6ft tall, androgynous, with cropped grey hair, she is a striking woman. In her home town she’s left alone. But The Lesbian Project, which she recently co-founded to “stop women getting erased from the LGBT rainbow”, receives vicious threats and a protest at its inaugural event was led by Sarah Jane Baker, a trans activist who served 30 years for torture, kidnap and attempted murder.
Is she nervous? “Yes!” she cries, then tells Rob and me not to be too nice “or I’m likely to cry”. She says Oxford has never been a happy place for her: it was where she delivered her first ever philosophy paper to “terrifying Oxford postgrad students who were cerebral and robotic. I was nearly sick.” Stock is an odd mix of steely and vulnerable. She’s no bombastic, come-at-me blowhard like Jordan Peterson, who courts controversy, surfs opprobrium. When, as a philosophy professor at Sussex University, she published her first gender-critical blog, causing students and colleagues to denounce her, Stock fell into depression, wept and drank too much gin. Yet — as she told me two years ago — she wouldn’t, couldn’t recant. In fact, she kept writing: “I had to keep meeting every blow.”
where her violent history contributed to Stock's nerves, as this is not justified by the source. As the Times says SJB led the protest, and this is not contradicted by the other sources you have provided, this should stay.
In multiple places, the article incorrectly uses the term "transgender critical feminist". The correct term is gender-critical feminist. The phrase "transgender critical feminist" in fact implies a feminist who is transgender and engages in critical feminism. Suphlatus ( talk) 14:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
As discussed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious_labels:
Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight
As such, I recommend re-writing the following sentence:
After her release in 2019, Baker became an outspoken and controversial political and transgender rights activist.
My suggested re-write is as follows:
After her release in 2019, Baker became an outspoken transgender rights activist.
This change removes "controversial" (which is a vague and subjective term) as the article already does enough to establish why Baker might be controversial given her history of legal trouble.
Additionally, the word "political" in this sentence is redundant, as transgender rights activism is inherently political. I also suggest making transgender rights activist a hyperlink to the relevant Wikipedia article.
Furthermore, the article opens with the lead sentence:
Sarah Jane Baker (born in 1969 or 1970) is a British transgender rights activist, former violent felon and long term prison inmate, author, and artist.
As noticed in Words to Watch,
Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
As such, I recommend removing "former violent felon". While technically correct, it is a value-laden label that does not explain why Sarah Baker is notable, as a lead sentence ought to. Violent felon is entailed by the details of Baker's criminal history, and so does not need to be stated here. To better explain Sarah Baker's notability in the opening sentence and avoid value-laden terminology, I suggest the following re-write:
Sarah Jane Baker (born in 1969 or 1970) is a British transgender rights activist, author, artist, the UK's longest serving transgender prisoner.
This re-write makes the lead sentence consistent with the infobox's "Known for: UK's longest serving transgender prisoner" section. Suphlatus ( talk) 15:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
political candidate', but I don’t think this is accurate – she has announced her intention to run as an independent candidate. Since she has no party to represent, I don’t think she would count as a candidate until an election has been called and she has filed nomination papers. So I think this should be amended to ‘
has announced her intention to stand for Parliament as an independent candidate in the Richmond Park constituency.' Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I would really appreciate any information you could give me regarding sexual offenders treatment.. I am part of a research team from teeside university, if possible we would really appreciate to hear from the inside rather than trusting the gov data.. many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.92.66 ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
There was a "FAQ" presented at the top of this talk page as if it is the result of consensus. It wasn't - it was written by one editor a few days ago and transcluded. This gives a false impression of talk page consensus, when it's a single editor positing an opinion. As such, I've unlinked it. If the editor wants to posit opinions on the page, they should do so with their signature as one editor's opinion, rather than falsely creating the impression of a broad consensus - let alone citing it in an edit message as if it was anything other than their personal views - David Gerard ( talk) 16:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
The text 'Baker called for attendees to punch any
TERF ("trans-exclusionary radical feminist", typically considered derogatory) they see in the face'
is hard to read because of the multi-claused parenthetical statement splitting up the sentence. I think we could make three improvements.
Firstly would be to report exactly what Baker said. This isn't straightforward as many news media blank out the expletive to varying degrees (e.g.
BBC and
Telegraph,
Independent and
Pink News). Some simply report she asked the crowed to "Punch a Terf" as though that's actually the words she said. Rowan Moore,
writing in The Guardian, doesn't shy from writing out the words, but it's an opinion piece. Anyone got a reliable source that spells it out? Would it be reasonable for us to assume what "f******" or "f**king" is? If so, I think the best text would be for us to say 'Baker asked the crowd "if you see a
TERF, punch them in the fucking face"'
. The coarse language is very much part of the statement and Wikipedia is not censored.
Secondly, I think the TERF word linking needs fixed, as I did just above. When editors originally wrote this, it linked to the [[TERF]]
article, which explained the meaning of the label and the controversies surrounding it. But its content was recently moved entirely to
TERF (acronym).
TERF currently redirects to
Gender-critical feminism, which is an article on this controversial branch of feminism. Baker here is clearly using it in the more general sense that the
OED has of anyone perceived as hostile to transgender people, rather than asking the crowd to locate some radical feminists and enquire as to how trans-exclusionary their definition of feminism is.
Lastly, I don't think we need the parenthetical at all. Anyone who has got this far in the article clearly is interested in the topic and knows what a TERF is. Frankly you'd have to have been living in a cave to not know in 2023. Explaining the nuance of "Well, in 2008 it originally meant someone who was a radical feminist and excluded trans women from the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, but today it means, well, anyone who is or is perceived to be in any way trans hostile." is not really the purpose of this article, and certainly doesn't fit in a parenthetical remark in the middle of a sentence. -- Colin° Talk 15:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Stephen: Re your revert of my revert of your edit: this was discussed on this Talk page. I am not aware of any policy reason why the information should be excluded. Please explain your precise objection to including this information in the article. Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Since there has been no response to my comment, presumably there is no objection to me reinstating the deleted text. Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
(The word "TERF" is an acronym for 'trans-exclusionary radical feminist', but more generally is a derogatory term for someone who is or is considered to be hostile to transgender people.), which was immediately after:
At the 8th of July 2023 London Trans+ Pride Parade, Baker gave a speech to the crowd where she said "if you see a TERF, punch them in the fucking face", a statement that was videotaped and widely distributed.Sweet6970 ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The article gives no indication of the motive for the attack for which Baker & three others were imprisoned. They aimed to find Baker's stepmother, so why was that very quickly replaced with kidnapping & torturing the stepmother's brother? When they arrived at the stepmother's residence, how could they have thought something like We're here to find her, so it's disappointing she's not here. Oh, forget about her - I have a much better idea: we'll kidnap & torture her brother instead.? Jim 2 Michael ( talk) 19:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The Imprisonment section says that, due to having self-harmed, Baker wasn't allowed access to pencils in prison, yet was allowed to use needles. That makes no sense - it's easier to self-harm using needles than pencils. Jim 2 Michael ( talk) 13:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Is her deadname notable enough for inclusion? While she was clearly convicted under her birth name, surely she is only notable for her transgender status and activism (including being a relatively-high profile trans woman in the UK's male prison estate), so the inclusion fails MOS:DEADNAME.
I'm going to remove it from the lead and infobox now, but I think we should probably remove it from the first sentence of "Early life" too. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
She is not only notable for her transgender status and activism, she is also notable as an author, whose works have been internationally reviewed, the first of which was published under her birth name, and a violent felon in multiple instances which also received noticeable coverage. Specifically, before her transition, and using her birth name she:
The reliable sources don't require "searching for" since they are in the article. Every source before 2017 uses her birth name, and they are numerous, and mostly non-trivial. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the recently re-added text:In November 2023 it was reported that a prison doctor, employed by the private company Practice Plus Group has refused to prescribe her oestogen. saying they would only prescribe testosterone, forcing her to detransition
What the source actually says is:The Free Sarah Jane Baker (FSJB) campaign says the activist “is suffering severe menopausal symptoms” now that her estrogen treatment has been stopped by physicians at the high-security men’s prison (HMP) where she’s incarcerated.
and “The only treatment she is being offered to manage this is testosterone, at a dose that would give her the same level as if she still had testes,” a campaign statement reads.
So, according to the source, the information that SJB’s oestrogen treatment has been stopped is from the ‘Free Sarah Jane Baker’ campaign – the source does not say that they have verified what the campaign says. I think this is sufficiently dubious that I would not include this in our article, and I am deleting it.
But if we are going to have anything about this in our article, we have to say something like: According to the Free Sarah Jane Baker campaign, as at November 2023 Baker’s oestrogen treatment has been stopped; the healthcare practice providing services to the prison said this was a ‘temporary measure’.
But I’m not convinced that we should be including in our article material that is sourced to a campaign organisation.
Sweet6970 (
talk) 13:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Herewith the source. [3] Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
According to the Free Sarah Jane Baker campaign, as of November 2023, [update] Baker’s oestrogen treatment has been stopped and she has instead been offered testosterone, which the campaign describe as "amounting to a medical detransition". The healthcare practice providing services to the prison said this was a "temporary measure while the healthcare team fulfils their duty of care to ensure that the benefits of any drugs we prescribe outweigh any risks".
They say the protocol “amounts to a medical detransition.”So instead of
which the campaign describe as "amounting to a medical detransition".I would have
which the campaign says “amounts to a medical transition”. Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I have included updated information that has been one of the most widely published pieces of information about SJB and is included further down. Her page has been visited much more in response to these article on her speech made at trans pride and I believe it has been taken down in bad faith.
"She was arrested after a speech at London Trans+ Pride in 2023, and charged with "commissioning an offence". She was found not guilty of the charge, but recalled to prison because she was on probation." [4]
This was the subject of many national and local news sites and is something that many people will be visiting her wiki page for confirmation.
Twistflam (
talk) 17:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on about the editing of this article at WP:BLPN Sweet6970 ( talk) 18:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more trans women. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Some people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBT WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard. |
A fact from Sarah Jane Baker appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 November 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk 17:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by GRuban ( talk). Self-nominated at 14:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sarah Jane Baker; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
I do not think we should be promoting this person. Putting this person on the front page of the English Wikipedia is promoting the person. The person is selling books and a cause, and may run for office again. We are promoting them when we put their cause and image on the main page. I hope that was clearer. Lightburst ( talk) 00:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
in response to RoySmith's belief, below, that a DYK hook should completely describe the subject, no that's not what I believe. You don't have to completely describe the subject, but if the majority of WP:RS describe the subject primarially as a "transgender activist", then IMHO, that's what we should lead with as well. RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Please refer to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity. The article as written commits multiple violations of the manual of style regarding gender identity. From the style manual:
Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent)
My suggested re-write is:
She escaped for three months, during which she had a son.
The style manual also notes regarding deadnaming:
If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name
Sarah Baker is only notable as the UK's longest serving transgender prisoner and as a transgender rights activist. Her article was created in 2023, a decade after her transition in 2013. As such, there is no need to use her deadname outside of the reference list. As written, the article uses her dead name in three places, in clear violation of Wikipedia's style guide.
Sarah Baker is also implicitly misgendered by being referred to twice "as assigned male at birth" rather than as a trans woman. She is also referred to as a "transgender female" rather than as a trans woman which is non-standard terminology.
The article as written also references Sarah Baker's gender identity unnecessarily often. Such references should be minimized, as per the style guide:
Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis.
Due to these issues, I strongly recommend revision to all or most of my suggested changes to the article. Suphlatus ( talk) 14:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
had a son.
had a soncould be misinterpreted as gave birth to a son; I think the current wording is better. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
"Assigned male at birth" states the gender Sarah Baker isn't (male) without specifying the gender she is (female). That is a form of misgendering.That seems like a stretch to me. BilledMammal ( talk) 13:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
She escaped for three months, during which time she met a woman by whom she had a son.This does not say that the son was born during the 3 months – it says she met the woman during the 3 months. And only female bodies conceive i.e. become pregnant. Baker was never pregnant. The correct verb for the male is ‘beget’ (past tense begat or begot) but nowadays this word is rare outside the King James bible. So please self-revert: your change is unnecessary, and the wording you have chosen is not correct. Sweet6970 ( talk) 20:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The article as written commits multiple violations of NPOV in service of an anti-transgender agenda.
At the 8 July 2023 London Trans+ Pride Parade, Baker called for attendees to punch any TERF (a derogatory term for transgender critical feminists) they see in the face; her statement was videotaped and widely distributed.
Here the parenthetical statement should be removed as it is a gender critical feminist framing of the use of the acronym. The claim that TERF is a derogatory term for gender critical feminists, often stated succinctly as "TERF is a slur", is itself a strategic, gender critical talking point used to weaponize website moderation to shut down any critique of the views of gender critical feminists. TERF was in fact coined as a "deliberately technically neutral description". The term TERF is discussed in TERF (acronym) and Gender-critical feminism and so there is no need for this debate to be recapitulated in this article. A link to TERF (acronym) or Gender-critical feminism would suffice.
Asked for reaction, London Trans+ Pride organizers said that while they condemned violence, they supported her expression of what they referred to as her "righteous anger".
Here "what they referred to as" is an unnecessary hedge. The use of quotes by itself make it clear that it is London Trans+ Pride that is referring to her actions as "righteous anger". The addition of "what they referred to as" does not serve to clarify, rather it serves to imply doubt on the part of Wikipedia that the action constituted righteous anger, violating the NPOV principle.
She led a protest at the inaugural event of transgender critical feminist philosopher's Kathleen Stock's The Lesbian Project, where her violent history contributed to Stock's nerves.
Once again, this sentence violates NPOV. Here with the use of the phrase "where her violent history contributed to Stock's nerves" we are adopting a framing of Sarah Baker as the aggressor/perpetrator of violence and Kathleen Stock as a victim. This is, if anything, a reversal of the objective framing, as Stock is a leading figure in a hate movement dedicated to the elimination of human rights protections for transgender people such as Sarah Baker. The framing in the article privileges imagined, hypothetical violence against Stock over the actual violence of Stock's political movement against a marginalized population. A simple fix would be to shorten this sentence to "She led a protest at the inaugural event of gender critical feminist philosopher's Kathleen Stock's The Lesbian Project." and thereby avoid adopting the anti-transgender perspective on the protest.
Due to these issues, I strongly recommend revision to all or most of my suggested changes to the article. Suphlatus ( talk) 14:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
what they referred to as her righteous anger’: it is not clear that this is the view of London Trans Pride unless this is specifically stated. We should not have this in wikivoice – that would be a very serious breach of NPOV.
where her violent history contributed to Stock's nerves’: this should, perhaps, be attributed to Kathleen Stock. I don’t have access to the source – do you have a suggestion for an attributed wording?
Asked for reaction, London Trans+ Pride organizers said that while they condemned violence, they supported her expression of what they referred to as her "righteous anger".
Asked for reaction, London Trans+ Pride organizers said that "We do not condone violence...We do condone righteous anger and the right to the free speech".
the term is now typically considered derogatory or disparagingand the SJB article reflects this by saying that the term is derogatory.
Stock produces a baseball cap and sunglasses. “It’s my Kendall Roy look.” Because at 6ft tall, androgynous, with cropped grey hair, she is a striking woman. In her home town she’s left alone. But The Lesbian Project, which she recently co-founded to “stop women getting erased from the LGBT rainbow”, receives vicious threats and a protest at its inaugural event was led by Sarah Jane Baker, a trans activist who served 30 years for torture, kidnap and attempted murder.
Is she nervous? “Yes!” she cries, then tells Rob and me not to be too nice “or I’m likely to cry”. She says Oxford has never been a happy place for her: it was where she delivered her first ever philosophy paper to “terrifying Oxford postgrad students who were cerebral and robotic. I was nearly sick.” Stock is an odd mix of steely and vulnerable. She’s no bombastic, come-at-me blowhard like Jordan Peterson, who courts controversy, surfs opprobrium. When, as a philosophy professor at Sussex University, she published her first gender-critical blog, causing students and colleagues to denounce her, Stock fell into depression, wept and drank too much gin. Yet — as she told me two years ago — she wouldn’t, couldn’t recant. In fact, she kept writing: “I had to keep meeting every blow.”
where her violent history contributed to Stock's nerves, as this is not justified by the source. As the Times says SJB led the protest, and this is not contradicted by the other sources you have provided, this should stay.
In multiple places, the article incorrectly uses the term "transgender critical feminist". The correct term is gender-critical feminist. The phrase "transgender critical feminist" in fact implies a feminist who is transgender and engages in critical feminism. Suphlatus ( talk) 14:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
As discussed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious_labels:
Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight
As such, I recommend re-writing the following sentence:
After her release in 2019, Baker became an outspoken and controversial political and transgender rights activist.
My suggested re-write is as follows:
After her release in 2019, Baker became an outspoken transgender rights activist.
This change removes "controversial" (which is a vague and subjective term) as the article already does enough to establish why Baker might be controversial given her history of legal trouble.
Additionally, the word "political" in this sentence is redundant, as transgender rights activism is inherently political. I also suggest making transgender rights activist a hyperlink to the relevant Wikipedia article.
Furthermore, the article opens with the lead sentence:
Sarah Jane Baker (born in 1969 or 1970) is a British transgender rights activist, former violent felon and long term prison inmate, author, and artist.
As noticed in Words to Watch,
Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
As such, I recommend removing "former violent felon". While technically correct, it is a value-laden label that does not explain why Sarah Baker is notable, as a lead sentence ought to. Violent felon is entailed by the details of Baker's criminal history, and so does not need to be stated here. To better explain Sarah Baker's notability in the opening sentence and avoid value-laden terminology, I suggest the following re-write:
Sarah Jane Baker (born in 1969 or 1970) is a British transgender rights activist, author, artist, the UK's longest serving transgender prisoner.
This re-write makes the lead sentence consistent with the infobox's "Known for: UK's longest serving transgender prisoner" section. Suphlatus ( talk) 15:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
political candidate', but I don’t think this is accurate – she has announced her intention to run as an independent candidate. Since she has no party to represent, I don’t think she would count as a candidate until an election has been called and she has filed nomination papers. So I think this should be amended to ‘
has announced her intention to stand for Parliament as an independent candidate in the Richmond Park constituency.' Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I would really appreciate any information you could give me regarding sexual offenders treatment.. I am part of a research team from teeside university, if possible we would really appreciate to hear from the inside rather than trusting the gov data.. many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.92.66 ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
There was a "FAQ" presented at the top of this talk page as if it is the result of consensus. It wasn't - it was written by one editor a few days ago and transcluded. This gives a false impression of talk page consensus, when it's a single editor positing an opinion. As such, I've unlinked it. If the editor wants to posit opinions on the page, they should do so with their signature as one editor's opinion, rather than falsely creating the impression of a broad consensus - let alone citing it in an edit message as if it was anything other than their personal views - David Gerard ( talk) 16:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
The text 'Baker called for attendees to punch any
TERF ("trans-exclusionary radical feminist", typically considered derogatory) they see in the face'
is hard to read because of the multi-claused parenthetical statement splitting up the sentence. I think we could make three improvements.
Firstly would be to report exactly what Baker said. This isn't straightforward as many news media blank out the expletive to varying degrees (e.g.
BBC and
Telegraph,
Independent and
Pink News). Some simply report she asked the crowed to "Punch a Terf" as though that's actually the words she said. Rowan Moore,
writing in The Guardian, doesn't shy from writing out the words, but it's an opinion piece. Anyone got a reliable source that spells it out? Would it be reasonable for us to assume what "f******" or "f**king" is? If so, I think the best text would be for us to say 'Baker asked the crowd "if you see a
TERF, punch them in the fucking face"'
. The coarse language is very much part of the statement and Wikipedia is not censored.
Secondly, I think the TERF word linking needs fixed, as I did just above. When editors originally wrote this, it linked to the [[TERF]]
article, which explained the meaning of the label and the controversies surrounding it. But its content was recently moved entirely to
TERF (acronym).
TERF currently redirects to
Gender-critical feminism, which is an article on this controversial branch of feminism. Baker here is clearly using it in the more general sense that the
OED has of anyone perceived as hostile to transgender people, rather than asking the crowd to locate some radical feminists and enquire as to how trans-exclusionary their definition of feminism is.
Lastly, I don't think we need the parenthetical at all. Anyone who has got this far in the article clearly is interested in the topic and knows what a TERF is. Frankly you'd have to have been living in a cave to not know in 2023. Explaining the nuance of "Well, in 2008 it originally meant someone who was a radical feminist and excluded trans women from the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, but today it means, well, anyone who is or is perceived to be in any way trans hostile." is not really the purpose of this article, and certainly doesn't fit in a parenthetical remark in the middle of a sentence. -- Colin° Talk 15:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Stephen: Re your revert of my revert of your edit: this was discussed on this Talk page. I am not aware of any policy reason why the information should be excluded. Please explain your precise objection to including this information in the article. Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Since there has been no response to my comment, presumably there is no objection to me reinstating the deleted text. Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
(The word "TERF" is an acronym for 'trans-exclusionary radical feminist', but more generally is a derogatory term for someone who is or is considered to be hostile to transgender people.), which was immediately after:
At the 8th of July 2023 London Trans+ Pride Parade, Baker gave a speech to the crowd where she said "if you see a TERF, punch them in the fucking face", a statement that was videotaped and widely distributed.Sweet6970 ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The article gives no indication of the motive for the attack for which Baker & three others were imprisoned. They aimed to find Baker's stepmother, so why was that very quickly replaced with kidnapping & torturing the stepmother's brother? When they arrived at the stepmother's residence, how could they have thought something like We're here to find her, so it's disappointing she's not here. Oh, forget about her - I have a much better idea: we'll kidnap & torture her brother instead.? Jim 2 Michael ( talk) 19:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The Imprisonment section says that, due to having self-harmed, Baker wasn't allowed access to pencils in prison, yet was allowed to use needles. That makes no sense - it's easier to self-harm using needles than pencils. Jim 2 Michael ( talk) 13:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Is her deadname notable enough for inclusion? While she was clearly convicted under her birth name, surely she is only notable for her transgender status and activism (including being a relatively-high profile trans woman in the UK's male prison estate), so the inclusion fails MOS:DEADNAME.
I'm going to remove it from the lead and infobox now, but I think we should probably remove it from the first sentence of "Early life" too. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
She is not only notable for her transgender status and activism, she is also notable as an author, whose works have been internationally reviewed, the first of which was published under her birth name, and a violent felon in multiple instances which also received noticeable coverage. Specifically, before her transition, and using her birth name she:
The reliable sources don't require "searching for" since they are in the article. Every source before 2017 uses her birth name, and they are numerous, and mostly non-trivial. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the recently re-added text:In November 2023 it was reported that a prison doctor, employed by the private company Practice Plus Group has refused to prescribe her oestogen. saying they would only prescribe testosterone, forcing her to detransition
What the source actually says is:The Free Sarah Jane Baker (FSJB) campaign says the activist “is suffering severe menopausal symptoms” now that her estrogen treatment has been stopped by physicians at the high-security men’s prison (HMP) where she’s incarcerated.
and “The only treatment she is being offered to manage this is testosterone, at a dose that would give her the same level as if she still had testes,” a campaign statement reads.
So, according to the source, the information that SJB’s oestrogen treatment has been stopped is from the ‘Free Sarah Jane Baker’ campaign – the source does not say that they have verified what the campaign says. I think this is sufficiently dubious that I would not include this in our article, and I am deleting it.
But if we are going to have anything about this in our article, we have to say something like: According to the Free Sarah Jane Baker campaign, as at November 2023 Baker’s oestrogen treatment has been stopped; the healthcare practice providing services to the prison said this was a ‘temporary measure’.
But I’m not convinced that we should be including in our article material that is sourced to a campaign organisation.
Sweet6970 (
talk) 13:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Herewith the source. [3] Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
According to the Free Sarah Jane Baker campaign, as of November 2023, [update] Baker’s oestrogen treatment has been stopped and she has instead been offered testosterone, which the campaign describe as "amounting to a medical detransition". The healthcare practice providing services to the prison said this was a "temporary measure while the healthcare team fulfils their duty of care to ensure that the benefits of any drugs we prescribe outweigh any risks".
They say the protocol “amounts to a medical detransition.”So instead of
which the campaign describe as "amounting to a medical detransition".I would have
which the campaign says “amounts to a medical transition”. Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I have included updated information that has been one of the most widely published pieces of information about SJB and is included further down. Her page has been visited much more in response to these article on her speech made at trans pride and I believe it has been taken down in bad faith.
"She was arrested after a speech at London Trans+ Pride in 2023, and charged with "commissioning an offence". She was found not guilty of the charge, but recalled to prison because she was on probation." [4]
This was the subject of many national and local news sites and is something that many people will be visiting her wiki page for confirmation.
Twistflam (
talk) 17:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on about the editing of this article at WP:BLPN Sweet6970 ( talk) 18:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)