Jump to content

Talk:Anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title

[edit]

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

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

 Done boldly. Thanks for pointing it out. Raladic (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "21st-century" part can be scrapped as overly precise. I'd suggest Anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom as consistent with titles such as Transgender history in the United Kingdom and Transgender rights in the United Kingdom. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While not an unreasonable view, I would disagree on the grounds that just as the 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States is its own topic distinct from that of the 1980s or earlier, so too would I say the British anti trans movement that began in the mid-late 2010s is its own topic Snokalok (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If we remove the 21st C framing, then it gains a much wider scope. There is a particular set of events that have happened this century which is different from the last century. Lewisguile (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's debatable. Prosser (2022) explicitly ties the current anti-trans backlash to developments of the 1970s and 1980s, writing that opposition to trans rights in the US and UK is in many ways, an old story.
According to article naming policy, titles should be no more precise than necessary to unambiguously define the scope of the article. Since we don't have an article named 20th-century anti-trans movement in the United Kingdom, putting the year/decade/century in the title doesn't help readers to identify the topic.
Several sources also use "anti-transgender" instead of, or addition to, "anti-trans". See for instance:
  • McLean (2021): This article examines the development of anti-transgender debates within the United Kingdom
  • Duffy (2023): a worrying trend of discourse has appeared in social and media spaces in the United Kingdom – that of anti-transgender advocacy under the guise of protection of (cisgender) women’s and children’s rights
So I still think Anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom is the most clear and precise title without being too precise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Movements against some transgender rights" would be more neutral AndyGordon (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, neutrality means following published, reliable sources. Please present one more sources that put the focus on "some transgender rights" as opposed to general anti-trans sentiment. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, McLean's article talks about the transgender right to self-id. He also talks about the GC claim for single-sex spaces, which is contrary to self-id. But he does not talk about the protected characteristic of gender re-assignment from the Equality Act. No "anti-trans" group that I'm aware of is campaigning against that transgender right. Just saying "against transgender rights" would lack precision, possibly suggesting groups are campaigning against all transgender rights. AndyGordon (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel you could really make that argument about anything. “The Nazis aren’t against all Jewish rights. They let Jews keep their fingernails, the Nazis never fought for Jews to have their fingernails removed. Therefore we can only say the Nazis were against SOME Jewish rights.” Snokalok (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that we have a wiki page of specifically transgender rights, and the organisations and individuals this page seems to be about are only campaigning against some of them, not all. The example you've come up doesn't involve a specifically Jewish right.
"Anti-transgender" or "anti-trans" are labels contested by the orgs themselves and used by a small minority of the reliable sources that talk about them.
How about "Movement against some transgender rights in the UK"? AndyGordon (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am swayed, @Sangdeboeuf (mostly by the lack of a "20th century" article). I would accept either title (i.e., with or without the "21st century" part), and it may not be a bad idea to have a broader sense of the history here. Lewisguile (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, whether GC feminism and related groups are "anti-trans" or "anti-transgender" is contested by different parties as reported by reliable sources, so we can't use these terms in wikivoice in the title.
I'm going to spell this out because I can tell other editors disagree with me. If I'm wrong with this reasoning, please help me out.
McLean's article itself notes that "Lobby groups who campaign against trans rights are usually at pains to stress their support for trans people." and then quotes several groups: this is a reliable secondary source.
It's easy to find many examples of reliable secondary sources (eg mainstream UK newspapers) reporting GC feminists (and other individuals who could be seen as part of this movement) denying that they are "anti-trans".
However, we also have some reliable sources (including some above) saying that these orgs are "anti-trans".
So Wikipedia:WIKIVOICE applies: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." In particular, we can't use the "anti-trans" or "anti-transgender" phrase directly in the title. AndyGordon (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fully disagree.
Think how many anti-gay groups say “We support gay people, just not homosexuality itself”. Think how many racist groups say “We’re not racist, we just believe in protecting the American way of life or something”. Reliable sources still describe them as racist and anti-gay, even if they don’t describe themselves that way; and wikipedia does as well. Just because a prominent TERF says “I’m not anti-trans, I just think we need reasonable restrictions” does not make that a statement worth treating as reliable, per WP:FALSEBALANCE Snokalok (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rosie Duffield, Ann Sinnott, J. K. Rowling, Ricky Gervais, Kathleen Stock, and Denise Fahmy can say and believe whatever they like. It's fallacious (not to mention false balance) to conclude anything about a broader anti-trans movement in the UK based on these statements. None of the above sources deny that such a movement exists, and we have multiple reliable, scholarly sources that explicitly describe it as anti-trans. Do any equivalent scholarly sources seriously contest that characterization? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our first sentence says that GC feminism is part of the anti-transgender movement in wikivoice, implying that GC feminists are anti-trans, which they contest, as reported in reliable secondary source (doesn't matter in wiki policy if they are scholarly or not). This is Wikipedia taking sides.
As I said, McLean, a reliable primary source, concedes that "anti-trans" is contested by the groups he labels as such. BTW, we really need secondary sources who quote McLean.
Here is a reliable secondary source that Rowling, most prominent GC feminist in UK, denying that she is part of an "anti-trans movement", with the BBC conceding that it was an opinion not a fact. BBC says sorry for debate about ‘anti-trans’ Rowling
I really don't see how WP:FALSEBALANCE applies. Please explain in detail. We have a vague label "anti-trans" (not a scientific concept) that is applied by groups and media on one side of a major debate in the UK, but is not used and in fact is denied by the other side of the debate. GC feminism is not a fringe POV as per WP:FALSEBALANCE. Come on, Wikipedia is about neutrality. We can't use the label in wikivoice in the title. AndyGordon (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality on Wikipedia means reflecting the predominant views of published, reliable sources, not seeking a middle ground between "both sides" of a debate. You're conflating the gender-critical movement with a handful of people who happen to espouse gender-critical views. Rowling's protests are irrelevant to this article, which is about the UK anti-trans movement more broadly.
McLean (2021) provides evaluation and interpretation of the contents of primary sources, making him an independent secondary source regarding the topic of this article. The source is published in a refereed academic journal, which are considered among the most reliable sources on Wikipedia. Describing this and other scholarly sources as merely one side of a major debate (with some random celebrities on the other side) is the epitome of false balance.
McLean succinctly describes the subject as a toxic discourse [...] in which it has become entirely reasonable to question the extent to which trans people should be allowed into the public space promoted by lobby groups who campaign against trans rights. Nothing vague about that. There's no problem using Wikipedia's voice to label the overall movement as "anti-trans(gender)" while acknowledging that certain groups deny that label. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Sangdeboeuf
There is exactly a problem "with labelling the overall movement as "anti-trans(gender)" while acknowledging that certain groups deny that label". This is directly against WP:WIKIVOICE. "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."
By using the title "anti-transgender movement" and immediately saying it include GC feminism, we are labelling GC feminists "anti-trans" in wikivoice.
Although some reliable sources call GC feminists "anti-trans", some reliable sources reject that label:
  • McLean (2021) acknowledges that: "Lobby groups who campaign against trans rights are usually at pains to stress their support for trans people."
  • McLean explicitly identifies LGB Alliance as part of "anti-trans movement", but LGB Alliance denies the label, saying they "not anti-trans".
  • Lamble (2024) speaking about some GC feminists, writes "These feminists generally position themselves as ‘pro-women’ rather than ‘anti-trans’"
  • BBC: Re GC feminist Rowling being part of "anti-trans movement", BBC acknowledges that "our contributors gave their opinion as fact".
You've brought up WP:FALSEBALANCE, but it's about what is presented in the page from the section "What to include and exclude". Here to apply WIKIVOICE, we are discussing whether or not "reliable sources make conflicting assertions".
Moreover, it's not an extremely small minority who reject the "anti-trans" label: following the formulation in WP:DUE, the viewpoint that GC feminism is not "anti-trans" is held by a significant minority, at least: its easy to name prominent adherents such as Rowling or Stock.
As I've said, a resolution to this difficulty would be to make the page be about GC feminism in the UK. AndyGordon (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following your logic, every individual or group mentioned in an article on white supremacy is being labeled as "white supremacist", which is just another word for "racist", which is a contested label. Therefore we shouldn't use article titles such as Neo-Nazism, Racism, Sexism, Terrorism, or White supremacy, which is obviously absurd. Article title policy does not apply to material within articles, and non-neutral but commonly used names are allowed.
Equating the views of political lobby groups and multiple peer-reviewed scholarly sources as just differing opinions is the epitome of false balance. Both scholarly sources you mention explicitly label the movement as anti-trans(gender). The BBC article about J. K. Rowling is irrelevant; Rowling is not mentioned in the article at all (and soundbites in the news media are not the same as peer-reviewed academic research). The topic is broader than just gender-critical feminism in the UK; see the sources I listed under §NPOV below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lobby groups as described by McLean (2021) are not reliable sources. Lamble (2024) is contrasting left-wing anti-trans feminists with vocal anti-trans conservatives who do not generally claim to be feminist. They are not saying gender-critical advocacy is any different from being anti-trans. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lobby groups who campaign against trans rights – this isn't a very convincing argument against anti-trans movement. Against trans rights is another way of saying anti-trans rights. Lewisguile (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a rough consensus here for Anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom. If there are no further objections besides the ones already answered, I'll move the page to that title. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this provided that we can agree that this is a name derived from reliable sources as per WP:NPOVTITLE, rather than a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors.
I believe considering it a name is in line with @Barnards.tar.gz who said: @Sangdeboeuf has cited some scholarly articles that talk about an anti-trans movement in the UK. Those sources are suitable and the article should be based on those. Not on random news articles that have been synthesised into a narrative not directly stated by any of them.
I do not support it being used as a descriptive title. That's the position of @Snokalok. See discussion on Healthcare restrictions: Good Law Project claims about rise in suicides in this talk page. As a descriptive title its non-neutral and too vague to get agreement on what can and cannot be included. I believe that @Sweet6970 agrees with me on that. AndyGordon (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see sources explicitly arguing that anti-trans organizing in the UK was a pre-21st century phenomenon. Prosser's a relatively weak source and doesn't quite argue that it's a pre-21st century thing anyways: These reactions are, in many ways, an old story. Some feminist opposition to gender-inclusive bathrooms and changing rooms repeats exclusion of trans women from women-only spaces in the 1970s. The call to control how sex and gender is taught in schools by contemporary Conservative politicians in the UK echoes their predecessors’ attempts to control the “promotion” of homosexuality through Section 28 in the 1980s. - Saying "modern bigots are saying the same/similar stuff as old bigots" is not the same as arguing a social movement began earlier than it did. I think one could make a case for creating 20th century anti-LGBT movement in the United Kingdom focusing on gay rights and section 28 but trans people was never their focus
McLean (2021) argues the movement 1) began in opposition to the 21st century GRA reforms and 2) borrowed from the 21st century anti-trans movement in the US. [1] Duffy (2023) also argues the same that In the past number of years, a worrying trend of discourse has appeared in social and media spaces in the United Kingdom – that of anti-transgender advocacy under the guise of protection of (cisgender) women’s and children’s rights. and that This [2018] consultation on the Review of the GRA 2004 stirred up a high level of public debate in the UK, a large tranche of which was and remains extremely hostile to the concept of self-declaration and trans rights in general and The review of the GRA 2004, as announced in 2017 and carried out in 2018, “catalyzed a heated debate on trans rights and trans inclusion in the United Kingdom”.41 The proposed reforms led to the foundation of “multiple campaign organisations [which] were founded to specifically resist self-determination as the mechanism by which birth certificate sex marker can be changed” It also situates Irish anti-trans activism as an even later phenomenon It was not until 2020 that a small but vocal organised anti-trans lobby materialised in Irish activist spaces. [2]
Very slight opposition to changing anti-trans to anti-transgender - per WP:COMMONNAME there are 1280 post-2010 scholar results for "anti-trans" excluding "anti-transgender"[3] while only 610 for "anti-transgender" excluding "anti-trans".[4] Not entirely opposed though since enwiki naming conventions seems to be to use "transgender" instead of "trans" in article titles
Even if we do drop the "21st century" from the title, we'd have to note in the article "it started in the 21st century", which begs the question why are we departing from naming conventions like 2020s anti-LGBTQ movement in the United States which specifically identify the era of the social movement. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the title should be just precise enough to unambiguously define the topic. Since there is no 20th-century anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom, including the century itself is superfluous. Similar topics confined to certain time periods (but without the decade/century in the title) include Anti-gender movement (late 20th century–present) and Lavender Scare (1950s–1960s). 2020s anti-LGBTQ movement in the United States is a subtopic of the long history of persecution of LGBTQ people in that country.
Five of the top ten Google Scholar results for "anti-trans" AND "United Kingdom" all include the phrase "anti-transgender" even in the preview, which bolsters a WP:COMMONNAME argument. "Anti-transgender" is less WP:JARGON-y and does add clarity, unlike "21st-century". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not changed my view on this since my comment in January:
It is difficult to see how any of this article substantiates the title. A better description of the material would be – Events and people which are opposed/deplored by trans supporters. That seems to be the only connection between the various things mentioned. For instance, the section Legal status of gender-critical beliefs says nothing about any “anti-trans movement” – it is about discrimination practised by trans supporters. This whole article is misconceived. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article titling policy is not affected by the contents of articles. The notability of the UK anti-transgender movement itself is not seriously in question. Therefore this complaint seems off-topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we must be talking at cross purposes here. An article title must be related to the contents of the article. An article about cabbage should not be entitled ‘carrots’. And the link you have provided includes:The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles.. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this article is about the anti–transgender rights movement that got going in the UK in the early 21st century. Whether a given event or person belongs in the article is a WP:NPOV issue, not a titling issue. if you think the topic as a whole lacks notability, that's a question for WP:AFD. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, the use of the term "trans supporters" as though supporting trans people is some weird niche view is not making this argument any more compelling, and really just makes it read as POV pushy.
Anyway, I don't feel terribly passionate about the "21st century" part of the title, however I do maintain that it serves an important purpose in distinguishing it from, say, the rest of history. That is, if a trans person was hanged by the neck in 1700s England, that doesn't really have any relation to the material discussed here imo. Snokalok (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I initially thought the same wrt the "21st century" but think that it should be fine as "anti-transgender movement" refers to an identifiable social movement (which we can note in the article/lead began in the 21st century) so it would still definitionally exclude the 1700s hanging example. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, provided we make note that this is in the context of the 21st century in the article, then I support the move to Anti-Transgender Movement in the United Kingdom Snokalok (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sangdeboeuf I support your proposed move (anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom) per your reasoning. I do think that "anti-trans" is actually slightly more common, but there's a naming convention to use "transgender" over "trans" in titles even when "trans" is the COMMONNAME so that's a moot point. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOLDly done as per suggestion above. I too prefer "anti-trans" as more concise but also agree "transgender" has more usage on here. Lewisguile (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

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

I stared at this comment in amazement for several long minutes. To argue that it’s not anti-trans to ban trans healthcare and replace it with mandatory conversion therapy is a truly miraculous take that I’d go so far as to call WP:FRINGE.
Anyway, here are three sources that I found in as many minutes all calling trans care bans anti-trans.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/scotus-transgender-care-ban-12-04-24/index.html
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-HEALTHCARE/TRANS-BILLS/zgvorreyapd/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/05/trans-poll-gop-politics-laws/ Snokalok (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are equating provision of a specific treatment with provision of healthcare. If a treatment is beneficial, providing it improves healthcare, but if a treatment is not beneficial then not providing it improves healthcare. Those three links are all about US politics. Where are the sources that support the Cass Review / Wes Streeting being anti-trans? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Cass Review which multiple RS, as included in the article, have charged with advocating gender exploratory therapy, a form of conversion therapy? Here's WPATH et al calling it out for starters.[5] For funsies, here's an academic source on the myriad issues with the Cass Review which reviews multiple documents it produced and charges it with whitewashing "anti-trans prejudice", using "anti-trans" 24 times (and notes the support of GET).[6] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In none of those 24 uses of “anti-trans” does it claim the Cass Review is anti-trans. Therefore relying on this source to insinuate that the Cass Review is part of an anti-trans movement is synth. What about Wes Streting? Are you happy to paint him as part of an anti-trans movement without any sources to back that up? WP:BLP applies. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Snokalok. The POV tag was entirely unwarranted. The article appears well balanced and makes reference to reliable sources where necessary. HenrikHolen (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the {{POV}} tag because the user who tagged the article appears not to have done any research to attempt to solve the problem as indicated under WP:CLEANUPTAG. It's fine to have a discussion about possible POV problems, but not to use templates as a warning or a badge of shame. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I agree with @Barnards.tar.gz that the article is POV and we should restore the {{POV}} tag. AndyGordon (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been editing in this area for years and am very confident that no source exists that would support implying some of these people, events and organisation are part of an “anti-trans movement”, without attribution, and with no use of neutral sources which do not use this term. Now that you know that I have done the research, please could you self-revert your removal of the POV tag until the issues are resolved, which at a minimum means coming up with sources that support the desired content, per WP:ONUS, and fixing the BLP issues. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Barnards.tar.gz and @AndyGordon. This article is one of several -- LGB Alliance is another -- which are plainly not written from a neutral point of view. It should at least be made more clear that some gender-critical individuals and organisations strongly reject the accusation that they are "anti-trans". -- Alarics (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Wakefield would at one time strongly reject the accusation that he is an "anti-vaccine activist". We go by independent, reliable sources, not PR campaigns by individuals and groups with an obvious conflict of interest. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that a denial of an accusation is not a strong reason to give weight to the inverse of the accusation, per WP:MANDY. The problem here though, is that when neutral sources try to write neutrally about this topic, they don’t throw around phrases like anti-trans. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, reliable sources are not required to be neutral. Second, peer-reviewed scholarly literature from sources such as Amery & Mondon (2024), Duffy (2023), McLean (2021), and Pearce, Erikainen, & Vincent (2020) all refer to the movement using some variant of "anti-trans(gender)" or simply "transphobic". Those are just the ones I found after a quick search; there may be others. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are not required to be neutral, but when multiple significant viewpoints exist, articles are required to cover them all, with due weight - not just one. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The key word there is "significant". WP:BESTSOURCES like peer-reviewed scholarly journals are more significant than WP:ABOUTSELF denials for purposes of assigning weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what BLP issues are you referring to specifically? Snokalok (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody who is named in this article is implicitly being described as being part of an anti-trans movement. “Anti-trans” is being used to mean transphobic. Take the passage on Nadine Dorries in the sport section. Where’s the source for Nadine Dorries being a transphobe? Scratch that, where are the overwhelming number of reliable secondary independent sources which commonly and consistently call her a transphobe? Because that’s the standard of sourcing you need to call someone a WP:LABEL in uncouched, unattributed wikivoice. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in the article is she called a transphobe. Her name is mentioned because she’s relevant to the timeline of events. Just because someone’s name is mentioned in the article does not mean the article is calling them anti-trans, otherwise every “Professor So and So of University of wherever described the anti-trans movement as” blurb would be calling them anti-trans because their name is mentioned; but you’re the only one applying such labels here. Snokalok (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If she is not anti-trans then what is the purpose of including her in an article about an anti-trans movement? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because in her official government capacity she played a notable and directly relevant role in the implementation of trans sports bans? You don’t need to call her directly anti-trans to list relevant actions conducted by her as a government figure. Snokalok (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So is a person who implements an anti-trans policy anti-trans or not? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the relevance this question has given that nowhere in the article is Nadine Dorries called anti-trans Snokalok (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about an anti-trans movement. Every person, organisation and event that forms part of the narrative is implicitly being called anti-trans. How else could they be part of an anti-trans movement? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They could simply be useful idiots for one. There's no value judgment in correctly labeling someone's politics as anti-trans, and WP:LABEL does not say we have to avoid basic categorizations like this. Should we also avoid labeling individuals as anti-immigration activists, anti-LGBTQ activists, or anti-monarchists? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-trans redirects to Transphobia making them equivalent to wiki readers, and transphobic is literally on the list of examples of LABELs. If you think there is no value judgement in calling someone anti-trans, are you making a case that the two mean something different?
We can use all of the labels you mention if the sourcing is adequate. At the moment there is zero sourcing to support Nadine Dorries being part of an anti-trans movement.
If you want to make a case for Nadine Dorries being a useful idiot that has unwittingly played into the hands of the anti-trans movement, then you need sourcing for that too.
You can’t just make damaging claims - implicit or explicit - about a living person with no sourcing. You have been here for years so you must know this. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So remove the WP:COATRACK material yourself. You're aware of WP:ONUS and could also cite WP:BLPREMOVE. Go ahead and be bold. Just stop wasting time complaining about how badly the article is written or asking others to provide sources that you say you are very confident don't exist in the first place. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bold move would be to redirect this article to Gender-critical feminism on WP:POVFORK grounds. Since I expect that would be immediately reverted, I am attempting to gain consensus first.
It's good if you now agree that the passage in question is inappropriate and can be removed. But I've got very little interest in grinding out this same debate one passage at a time until the article is empty.
We could save ourselves some time and just do the redirect. What do you think? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
POV forking refers to separate articles on the same subject. The UK anti-trans movement as a whole is a broader topic than gender-critical feminism. See:
  • Amery & Mondon (2024): By organised transphobia, we refer to this seemingly unholy alliance between liberal articulations of transphobia, often couched in feminist and even pro-LGB rhetoric, and deeply reactionary politics. [...] This type of transphobia has been particularly prevalent in the United Kingdom
  • Kettell (2024): public policy measures aimed at improving the lives of trans people are frequently resisted on the grounds that they pose a threat to social norms. These views are often promoted by right-wing figures in politics and the media
  • Lamble (2024): anti-trans politics in Britain defy conventional left-right divisions. Gender critical perspectives in Britain cross multiple constituencies as well as political and partisan lines [...] while there are right-wing women organising under the banner of gender-critical politics, for the most part they are not feminists
  • McLean (2021): a formidable international collection of groups hostile to trans emancipation already existed. These included, but were not limited to, evangelical Christians, conservative policymakers (not all), and (some) feminist groups
  • Morgan (2023): Britain’s anti-trans feminists are joined most visibly by conservative evangelicals
  • Pearce, Erikainen, & Vincent (2020): The backlash against the proposed GRA reforms, and the trans-exclusionary feminist movement that has taken shape in the UK in relation to it, did not emerge in a vacuum. Rather, they are a contextual expression of a wider trans-exclusionary political climate with international dimensions.
A quick search of the scholarly literature reveals this to be a distinct subject. Are you sure you've done your research? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC) edited 16:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The overlap is significant, and the article is currently exclusively concerned with GC talking points. A better place to cover the conservative/evangelical perspective would be anti-gender movement. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-gender movement is about a worldwide movement opposed to reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, sex education in schools, and gender studies in higher education, among other issues. This article is concerned specifically with opposition to trans rights as it manifests in the UK in particular. Quoting Lamble (2024): the British gender-critical movement differs in significant ways from the global anti-gender movement.
Articles on distinct but related topics will have some overlap. I think there's enough significant coverage in the above sources for a standalone article, even if it's shorter than the article we have now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC) edited 16:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let’s take this logic to its conclusion. The Wikipedia article on Nazism talks about how Adolf Hitler took power because he was appointed chancellor by Paul von Hindenburg, who was the president of the party directly opposed to Hitler’s. Can we reliably say that Paul von Hindenburg was a Nazi, or just that he put one in power? If we can’t say he’s a Nazi, then do you think his name should be in the article on Nazism at all? Snokalok (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article explains clearly what his role was - and wasn’t - in relation to the Nazi movement, and has sourcing to back it up. Where’s the source that explains Nadine Dorries’ relationship to the anti-trans movement? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as the BBC source cited in the article says, she met with the heads of UK sporting bodies and said that women’s competitive sports should only be reserved for those “born of the female sex”, which was shortly thereafter followed by several sports implementing restrictions on trans athlete participation. The inner workings of her mind aren’t mentioned, nor are her personal relationships whatever they may be, because they’re not relevant, only her actions are.
For someone who is so confident that there aren’t any sources in the article backing up what it says, you don’t seem to have actually checked. Snokalok (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added two more RSP green sources as well - sky news and the independent, all saying the same thing. Snokalok (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read those three sources. ZERO of them mention an anti-trans movement. All three of them describe multiple viewpoints: the viewpoint that the policy change is being done for safety and fairness reasons, and the viewpoint that this is bad news for inclusion. This is a cracking example of how neutral sources describe this debate. They don't rush to condemn using one-sided language like "anti-trans movement". They present both sides. They explain the concerns of both sides in neutral terms, and they give quote space to the opposing parties to air their opinions.
Therefore, it is a gross violation of NPOV to pick one side and present that one as exclusively factual, adding in value-laden labels out of thin air (I repeat: the phrase "anti-trans" is not to be found in any of these sources!).
she met with the heads of UK sporting bodies and said that women’s competitive sports should only be reserved for those “born of the female sex”, which was shortly thereafter followed by several sports implementing restrictions on trans athlete participation - with the absolute best of faith, the only way I can make sense of this argument is that you must believe this sequence of events to necessarily constitute an anti-trans action, and to necessarily be part of an anti-trans movement, and therefore through some kind of WP:SKYBLUE argument believe that you don't need to source that conclusion. Is that right? If so, I can do no more than to recommend a much closer reading of WP:SYNTH. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, let’s start by getting the obvious out of the way.
Here are four RSP green sources describing sports bans as anti-trans policy.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/20/politics/house-transgender-sports-bill
https://time.com/6176799/trans-sports-bans-conservative-movement/
https://apnews.com/article/lgbtq-transgender-republicans-trump-christian-conservatives-election-83becc009d8123d96a75c2e4940ab339
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/watch-house-votes-on-anti-trans-school-sports-bill
It doesn’t matter which country they take place in, they’re still the same policy. But since you insist on a source specific to the UK, here’s a fifth source which directly lists sports (and GAC) restrictions as part of this movement, in which the paper also describes GCF as part of the wider UK anti-trans/anti-gender movement.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/10894160.2024.2356496?needAccess=true
But honestly even past all of that, it should be blindingly obvious that discriminatory restrictions on a minority group implemented during an established sociopolitical movement against the rights of that minority group, merit inclusion - regardless of whether the proponents of those restrictions say they’re justified. Snokalok (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do insist that an article about an anti-trans movement in the UK uses sources that cover an anti-trans movement in the UK.
Taking a closer look at the paper you cited:
1) it treats “anti-trans politics” and “gender-critical movement” as synonymous throughout, lending weight to this article being a POVFORK of gender-critical feminism.
2) It doesn’t mention Nadine Dorries at all.
3) It mentions sports exactly once, and only in the most general terms, so it supports no claims about any specific policy change.
4) It is a biased source, as we can tell by the introduction where it discusses strategies for challenging gender-critical politics. Therefore attribution is appropriate.
5) It is a single primary source containing academic opinion, and therefore represents one viewpoint, not the final word on the subject. You previously cited three green RSes, each of which includes the viewpoint that the policy change is about safety and fairness. That viewpoint needs to be represented in the article.
6) Your “blindingly obvious” argument contains embedded assumptions and debatable premises that make it ultimately your opinion rather than a factual statement. There are multiple viewpoints available on this topic. That’s part of what makes it a WP:CTOP. You’ve been editing this area long enough to know this. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you @Barnards.tar.gz AndyGordon (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not ignoring this btw, it’s just holiday break and I feel like arguing on wikipedia over holiday break would be kinda miserable for me so I’m taking it easy and enjoying the time with loved ones. I’ll return after and continue after. Snokalok (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be simpler to just tag any parts you think aren't well sourced, and then someone can either source it or remove it. Or go in and suggest alternate wording. Worst case scenario, it gets reverted but we know what you have an issue with so can address it directly. Best case scenario, it's policy-based and NPOV, so everyone gives it a thumbs up and we move on. It saves us all a lot of back and forth. Lewisguile (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly the whole article isn’t well sourced. The fundamental issue is that the sources support events happening but do not support them being part of an anti-trans movement. They are here for SYNTH/COATRACK reasons. @Sangdeboeuf has cited some scholarly articles that talk about an anti-trans movement in the UK. Those sources are suitable and the article should be based on those. Not on random news articles that have been synthesised into a narrative not directly stated by any of them. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, let’s do this. We have multiple sources describing sports restrictions as example of anti-trans policy in the UK.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0038026120934713
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10894160.2024.2356496#d1e342
And this one while not using the word anti-trans, does link such restrictions to wider restrictions on trans rights in the UK.
https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/ssj/41/4/article-p325.xml
Additionally, the source you’d previously discounted on the grounds that it used anti-trans and GC interchangeably did not in fact. It used GC to mean anti-trans, yes, but did not use anti-trans to mean GC; much like how all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.
Regardless, since we have sources saying that yes, sports bans are part of the anti trans movement, then we should detail those sports bans accordingly, would you not agree? Snokalok (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you had a lovely holiday! Snokalok (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note the disclaimer in the first source: It self-discloses that It is important to acknowledge, however, that we ourselves do not write from a position of neutrality. Non-neutral sources are usable, but when we know there are other sources available giving other significant viewpoints, then those viewpoints need to be added too. For example, here's a paper that argues that sport policy changes are not being done for anti-trans reasons, but for safety and fairness reasons: [7]. Here's another perspective [8], which I would summarise as "this is a difficult problem on which reasonable people can disagree". Then there are all the news sources that you provided which don't call these changes anti-trans, but do describe differing opinions. So the article's framing that these policies are necessarily anti-trans is just one narrow POV. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Barnards.tar.gz the title is just one POV on this topic and lacks neutrality. Much of the page falls into WP:COATRACK. It's hard to find sources that even talk about this topic with appeal to unjustified synthesis. I'm unsure how to proceed to get to a consensus, though. AndyGordon (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to see how any of this article substantiates the title. A better description of the material would be – Events and people which are opposed/deplored by trans supporters. That seems to be the only connection between the various things mentioned. For instance, the section Legal status of gender-critical beliefs says nothing about any “anti-trans movement” – it is about discrimination practised by trans supporters. This whole article is misconceived. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enforced BRD?

[edit]

@Lewisguile: You referred in your recent edit summary to: “Enforced WP:BRD in WP:GENSEX topic”. I’m not aware of any such requirement in GENSEX generally. I see that it applies to edits to the Cass Review, but I don’t know of any other GENSEX article where this is required. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. You could be right. I assumed it was topic-wide, as the enforcement in PIA is. Is anyone else able to clarify either way? Sorry in advance if I've made a mistake. Lewisguile (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From memory it was put in on just the Cass review page as a result from an AE. here is a discussion on the talk page (titled enforced BRD) discussing it being put in across GENSEX, and context assumes it's not in place. I'm pretty sure it's not enforced across GENSEX, however it is best editing practice so in the context of the message it's not that bad. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I remember now. VIR said they wished it were topic-wide, and WAIN said it would be cumbersome, therefore confirming that it isn't (currently) topic-wide. My bad! But as Luna says, probably decent advice for this page anyway. Lewisguile (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially relevent study recently published

[edit]

This was posted on the Talk:Cass Review page but on the 10th May, a study critiqueing the Cass Review was published. I've not had a chance to give it a read-through yet, but it may be of relevence to this article

The study in question: Noone, Chris; Southgate, Alex; Ashman, Alex; Quinn, Éle; Comer, David; Shrewsbury, Duncan; Ashley, Florence; Hartland, Jo; Paschedag, Joanna; Gilmore, John; Kennedy, Natacha; Woolley, Thomas E.; Heath, Rachel; Goulding, Ryan; Simpson, Victoria (2025-05-10). "Critically appraising the cass report: methodological flaws and unsupported claims". BMC Medical Research Methodology. 25 (1): 128. doi:10.1186/s12874-025-02581-7. ISSN 1471-2288. PMC 12065279. Bejakyo (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lux Magazine

[edit]

@Molikog

Golikom, the exact quotes from Lux Magazine are [9]

“Leading British journalists have admitted that their views on this topic are directly influenced by the forum”

and

“Mainstream media in the U.K. will likely continue to take its cues from Mumsnet, and recent studies have linked this constant anti-trans coverage to depression, anxiety and psychological distress in trans people.”

and the entire article is about how mumsnet is a transphobic echo chamber - with some notable quotes being

“ a message board that's come under fire for transphobia “

“ transphobia is out in the open there, too. The majority of posts on the woman’s rights forum are based on the fearful conviction that trans women — who many Mumsnetters insist on misgendering as men — are trying to infiltrate and destroy the women’s rights movement. “

“ “Mumsnet is the think-tank, campaign hub and archive of thinking about why #sexmatters,” prominent U.K. TERF Maya Forstater recently tweeted”

“ The community isolates its members in a bubble of transphobic thought that leaves them free to develop their bigotries without needing to encounter the human beings affected by them.”

“ Mumsnet’s influence takes a different form: effective lobbying, time with politicians across the political spectrum, and increasingly cozy relationships with the mainstream media.”


Soooooo what’s the problem? Snokalok (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also why did you make a new account Snokalok (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's crap sourcing for crap statements. Who are the leading journalists? The article it self is basically a blog.
I lost my password - I've declared the old account on this one and as you can see if you feel the need to check there have been no edits with that account since before this was created. Molikog (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. I agree that the leading journalists bit could be better, but I think that warrants a "Who?" tag more than a full deletion. Past that, the source appears reputable. Not widely known, but the quality of reporting is overall fairly solid and they seem to cite most of their info in text fairly well (leading journalists bit aside).
2. Should it not be Mokilog? Snokalok (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, but apparently someone got the first. Molikog (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... So about the content... Snokalok (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very poor source. If it's not clear who these journalists are than this really doesn't need to be in this article Molikog (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then Snokalok (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-transgender_movement_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1293452383"