 | This discussion was subject to adeletion review on 2024 May 8. For an explanation of the process, seeWikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result of the discussion was:Keep. There is a fairly solid consensus that this falls within the acceptable bounds of project-space essays. There is a minority who disagree with that interpretation, but it is insufficient to overcome the solid majority who interpret theWP:PAGS as allowing this essay.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)15:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a political screedcoatracking as an essay. People are free to believe what they will as long as they do not act in a manner that is disruptive. The "No (fill in whichever group or set of beliefs you want banned)" essays are getting out of hand. Trying to elevate social conservatives and gender critical beliefs tothe same level as Nazism is an abuse ofWP:ESSAYS and also ofWP:NOTADVOCACY andWP:NOTFORUM. It smacks of an attempt to turn Wikipedia into an ideological echo chamber. We need to draw a line somewhere and this seems like a good place to start.Ad Orientem (talk)01:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Redirect toWikipedia:Hate is disruptive All queer people should feel welcome to edit here. My own brother is queer, but we are both on the same page on this topic. However, this does not mean we have to indef everyone who does not agree with all of the LGBT community's demands. I know I am not.Scorpions1325 (talk)02:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essays may be moved into userspace as user essays (see below), or even deleted, if they are found to be problematic.This discussion will establish whether or not the essay is problematic; I am proposing the first option as an alternative to the second, if that is indeed found to be the case.Girth Summit (blether)17:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the advice or opinions ofone or more Wikipedia contributorsor the sheer number of pages inCategory:Wikipedia essays, for evidence that the community has historically not seen consensus as a prerequisite for putting something in projectspace.
a political screedis an insult without justification. If you don't like the essay, you can suggest improvements, be bold and make them, or write why you don't endorse it.
Trying to elevate social conservatives and gender critical beliefs to the same level as Nazismwhere does it do this? NONAZIS was the first essay of this sort written, but we also haveWP:No racists.Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk)16:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval.- they are not subject to the same scrutiny as mainspace articles and do not represent all editors views, but as has already been proven by multiple people having endorsed the essay, it clearly does represent the view and consensus of some editors on Wikipedia. One last point I'd like to make is that this essay captures some of the essence of the disruption that LGBTQIA+ topics and editors often experience, which is why we even have a mainspace article onLGBT and Wikipedia as this kind of disruptive editing has even brought large attention of reliable source media on multiple occasions. It is most certainly not just a coatrack, but very much a valuable essay on itself as the topic of LGBTQ coverage and the harassment that users trying to improve its content do have to regularly experience as the article in theNY Times from 2019 has summarized quite well.Raladic (talk)19:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the relevant policies that applyexplained to them.——Serial Number 5412919:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, white supremacists, white nationalists, identitarians, and others with somewhat-less-than-complimentary views on other races and ethnicities – hereafter referred to collectively as Nazis. This was explicitly addressing a gap NONAZIS doesn't fill because one can be disruptively queerphobic without being a Nazi: we have 3 essays on why racism and openly identifying with racists is bad, one on general reasons we don't tolerate bigotry, and this single essay on queerphobia. I think a deletion discussion about the solitary one on queerphobia instead of all of them is misguided at best as many editors' arguments include dislike of the type of essay as a whole.Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk)20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 2,000 essays ... Essays can be written by anyone and can be long monologues or short theses, serious or humorous. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints ... Many essays ... are obscure, single-author pieces.Wikipedia:Essays (itself an essay!) indicates that essays can be moved to userspace or deleted if problematic, typically because they contradict existing community norms. I do not believe this essay does so. It outlines some information that is uncontroversial (e.g. medical fact or Wikipedia behavioural policies) as well as some opinion by the author about how Wikipedia policies should be enforced and what queerphobia looks like in the context of Wikipedia. None of it violates a core policy such asWP:NPOV. Though I support its contents, I would object to it being upgraded to an explanatory supplement or guideline etc.The highly referencedWP:NONAZIS is a contentious essay that some Wikipedians disagree with (for instance, those who believe somebody should only be blocked foractions, notbeliefs). It lists views that are widely held e.g. supporting forcible sterilisation of disabled people (which is done on a large scale today) and describes them as beliefs that characterise modern-day Nazism. Nonetheless, it hasenormous support and consensus at MfDs have found that its status as a Wikipedia-space essay is appropriate. This is because there has been widespread disruption to Wikipedia caused by neo-Nazis and Nazi-adjacent editors and it is an ongoing problem that requires a high level of knowledge and organisation among the community to combat. A similar analysis applies to "No queerphobes". —Bilorv (talk)20:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
groups known for spreading misinformation about and legislatively targeting the LGBT community" -- what in the world does this have to do with editing Wikipedia? There is then the non sequitur claim that these groups "
and affiliated groups" should be avoided as sources. Is the idea here that if you have good enough politics opinions, you can bypassWP:RS entirely and just write a polemic essay deciding which sources are bad? This is silly.jp×g🗯️22:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
random progressive activist tweets being said in wikivoice- have examples?
Is the idea here that if you have good enough politics opinions, you can bypass WP:RS entirely and just write a polemic essay deciding which sources are bad- The list, since deleted, concerned multiple groups people have tried to cite as sources which are known for misinformation. Off the top of my head, here's the last time somebody tried to cite one[1] (who cited the groups dozens of times on other wikis and is a pretty good example of who the essay is talking about). These are groups which reliable sources concur are known for misinformation about the LGBT community, which is not only confirmed by a quick read of their articles but by RSN itself.[2][3][4] Which of the deleted ones do you think actually counts as anything close to aWP:RS?Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk)22:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That cisgender or heterosexual people are "more oppressed than" or "actually oppressed, unlike" LGBT people. What does this even mean? "Pete Buttigieg is more oppressed than Malala Yousafzai"? "Ellen DeGeneres is more oppressed than Anne Frank"? Is it about aggregates across populations? How can that even be measured? Is this sentence also saying "oppression from war and famine is directly comparable to oppression from homophobia, becausethis is a single quantity that exists along a single axis, and also the second is worse than the first"? Is the essay saying these sentences are true? Is it saying that they're true and also somebody who disagrees with them should be removed from the project? Ignoring, for the moment, that most LGBT people are either one or the other of those things (e.g. most homosexual people are cisgender) -- the sentence just does not make sense. It's either meant to be read at face value, in which case it's utterly ludicrous, or it's meant to be read as a hashtag-like statement of vibes where the words do not actually mean what the words say, in which case it is a vague activist tweet. I understand that writing stuff that doesn't have a coherent literal meaning for the purpose of signaling political coalitional allegiances is important. However, I am opposed to an essay that goes way out of its way to emphasize "Muslims/Catholics/Presbyterians aren't welcome on Wikipedia unless they recant".jp×g🗯️00:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their race is the most oppressed, often justified by convoluted logic, rather than actual examples of oppressionas an example.
However, I am opposed to an essay that goes way out of its way to emphasize "Muslims/Catholics/Presbyterians aren't welcome on Wikipedia unless they recant".Religion is not an excuse to be an ass. One can be religious without being queerphobic, and it's silly and frankly insulting to frame "don't be an asshole to this minority" as religious persecution. One can be queerphobic regardless of religion, one can treat people with respect regardless of religion, so this essay has fuck all to do with religion. Also, I'm not as devout as I should be (sorry grandma if you ever see this), but y'know I'm a Muslim right? I've managed to 1) edit 2) not be queerphobic while 3) not recanting...
"However, I am opposed to an essay that goes way out of its way to emphasize "Muslims/Catholics/Presbyterians aren't welcome on Wikipedia unless they recant"So am I, thank god no-one here proposed such an essay. C'mon man, you're being patently ridiculous. --Licks-rocks (talk)21:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
groups known for spreading misinformation..was just a week ago the center of such a focus in light of the Cass Review, there was a discussion of some sources from the UK that contribute to it, directly linked to LGBT topic on theTalk:Cass Review#Don't use sources by The Telegraph and The Times, which has now led to anRFC prep to discuss the limiting of them as RS for transgender topics due to their regular coverage spreading of misinformation. This is not just a theoretical topic, but the lived reality of people trying to uphold Wikipedia's values and trying to improve LGBT content on Wikipedia and the uphill battle that it often represents. As you can see from there, editors are now collaborating to collect the evidence and will subsequently bring it for discussion, following the processes we have in place for such discussions.
I've had many colleagues in this effort, from all walks of life. All of us were able to behave as colleagues- How many of them have repeatedly said the majority of people like you (trans youth) are mentally ill and indoctrinated by a cult? And keep trying to put it in wikivoice? How many times have you seen editors say your opinion should be invalidated because you're openly LGBT? Without repercussions naturally.
to be a Wikipedian you have to treat other editors with respect100% agree - it is simply my unfortunate experience and that of many LGBT editors that
to be a Wikipedian, you have to put up with a baseline level of accepted queerphobia, while being extremely careful about ever calling it out because you're more likely to get in trouble than the person saying "LGBT editors shouldn't edit LGBT articles and LGBT magazines are inherently unreliable on all LGBT topics".
We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression, and denial of my humanity, and right to exist.Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk)19:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
editors say your opinion should be invalidated because you're openly LGBT? Without repercussions naturally" -- if this is a genuine description of an event happening on Wikipedia (i.e. people are actually saying this, and not doing some other thing which you are summarizing as saying this), please let me know who is doing it, and I can block them immediately on the basis of thetwenty-two year old policy against personal attacks.jp×g🗯️19:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributorsand are not
one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelinesnor
thoroughly vetted by the community.Perhaps with a template of some kind...? –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝)14:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete/userfy/redirect/do whatever to get this out of projectspace per Queen of Hearts. Also agree with JPxG; this essay is of questionable utility. There's the potential to mis-use this essay to subtly attack or intimidate those they're in disagreement with in LGBT-related content or MOS discussions.Some1 (talk)00:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.right at the top, like all essays in wp-space. So I'm not really sure what the reason for deletion is here. The idea thatWP:HATEDISRUPT already covers this topic doesn't make much sense to me as a deletion reason either. Look at how many redundant essays we have on notability! --asilvering (talk)04:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Partisan"is one of the concerns listed, and one could easily argue that the groups and editors notified could be seen as having a particular bias towards the subject and this has lead to what I could only describe above as
votestacking.Kcmastrpc (talk)11:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...the notice seemed quite partisan as it didn't even attempt to include any potentially dissenting voices.Suggestions that notifying WP:LGBT on LGBT issues inherently constitutes canvassing? Almost makes me feel nostalgic for the early 2010s when that issue was settled. If an editor wants to be notified about LGBT-related discussions, they should watchWT:LGBT. Not sure how capturingdissenting voices fits into that equation.--Trystan (talk)13:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That LGBT editors have aconflict of interest and cannot write or speak neutrally about LGBT-related topics because of their identity.—Bilorv (talk)18:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not send inappropriate notices, as defined in the section directly below.
No one has yet demonstrated any actual partisanship- I’m aware of that, and said as much in my reply to you. My point is just that it is possible for notifying a WikiProject to be a CANVASS violation.BilledMammal (talk)00:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison of support and opposition to past proposals based on affiliation with the WikiProject | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison of !votes on this proposal based on affiliation with the WikiProject | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
biased or partisan editorsdisrupt that and produce a false consensus.
If you want to make the argument thatWP:CANVASS should be amended to prevent notifying certain WikiProjects on their topics of interestThe current situation is that CANVASS already forbids notifying WikiProjects of discussions they are partisan on. Most WikiProjects are not partisan, and notifying them is encouraged - no one is making the argument that a general ban on notifying WikiProjects on their topic of interest is either necessary or desirable.BilledMammal (talk)04:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To do a selective notification on-wiki, you basically need to ping people.Or, as ArbCom has made clear, youprovide a notice in a forum mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience. It doesn't matter that a different audience could, in theory, join the forum; if they don't, and in this case they didn't as my analysis has proven, then notifying the forum is a CANVASS violation.BilledMammal (talk)05:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion., whereasWP:INAPPNOTE makes no specific mention that informing the Wikiproject that hasinterest in the topic under discussion is inappropriate (as that would be in direct contradiction of the first line of APPNOTE).
interestedin a topic and being
partisanon a topic are not the same thing, and it is a strawman to equate the two and make arguments on that basis. I've already addressed the rest of your points and I won't repeat myself.BilledMammal (talk)05:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
prove that this person did it intentionally- I'm not alleging that they did. However, it's important for the closer to be aware that canvassing - even unintentional canvassing - took place, and for the editor to be aware that they should not issue such notifications in the future.
the notified wikiproject is indeed inappropriately biased- The reason a group is biased or partisan isn't relevant to CANVASS
Many people are drawn to edit Wikipedia in order to promote anti-LGBT views, mistakenly believing that their beliefs are protected by the WP:NPOV policy....says who? I find myself agreeing with ——Serial Number 54129 here. This is not needed.Lightburst (talk)19:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is well within the scope of the disruptive editing policy to block editors for queerphobia perWP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE andWP:NORACISTS. This essay expands them by laying out common queerphobic beliefs and how to handle users who consistently express and advance them.The biggest problem is that the "queerphobic beliefs" listed on this poorly-written slop are not even related to editing, but rather their viewpoint. Additionally, a couple of the "queerphobic beliefs" can easily be in good faith; most notably
transgender rights conflict with feminism, the rights of cisgender womenbeing listed as "queerphobia" is problematic. For example, as a common debate is mixing trans women and cisgender women in prisons, where I can easily see the argument for why trans rights genuinely conflict with feminism in this case (separating them would invalidate the trans identity to some opinions, while other opinions would say that the trans women are a danger for potentially getting the cisgender women pregnant). While queerphobia is a real thing, this page takes it way too far with what is considered "queerphobia". This essay page just brushing potential good faith beliefs off with extreme hostility is very unconstructive; it claims that it is trying to combat hate, but it is only doing so by using its own hatred. As for the common "keep" argument that essays are allowed to follow fringe viewpoints, read the top pfWP:ESSAY:
“Essays…that contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace”, and it is clear that this essay does not reflect a widespread consensus with the amount of people who have requested its deletion.Unnamed anon (talk)04:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That page isn't fit for mainspace and it's not even related anyways, and Licks-rocks' summary for the reversion of your was
page still exists, so this seems premature.
That page isn't fit for mainspacehas not been proven - if this MFD concludes that, feel free to remove the links then, but until then that is your opinion rather than consensus.
it's not even related anywaysalso just doesn't make sense given 1) the nazis weren't particularly LGBT friendly 2) the essay was inspired by No Nazis (and the essays it inspired). As such, please self-revert.Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk)20:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is "misconstru(ing) perfectly valid viewpoints, that can be held in good faith" hereyet the essay lists:
That being LGBT is a conscious choice
That LGBT children cannot know their identities
gender dysphoria [is] the result of mental illness
That transgender healthcare is unsafe and should be banned or otherwise made inaccessible for adults and/or youth
sex changes should be inaccessible for youthsis party to some "debunked conspiracy theory", then you've spent far too much time in your ideological echo-chamber. Someone who believes an individual who is too young to legally purchase a beer is also too young to undergo a sex change is not "queerphobic" by proxy, like you and this essay are trying to insinuate. Attempting to foist this ideology into projectspace does not improve Wikipedia, it merely divides its userbase further, and appears to be a concerted effort to expand the boundaries of what is considered 'wrongthink' on this site. No need to grandstand and announce your vote change either, as if the whole project holds its breath to see what DanielRigal casts their vote for.Durchbruchmüller19:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
LGBT children cannot know their identitiesis a
perfectly validviewpoint? Or are you commenting about things like hormone replacement therapy and think that transgender minors should be forced to go through an incongruent puberty?Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk)20:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LGBT children cannot know their identitiesas being an example of a good faith viewpoint being vilified by the essay. No one questions and lambasts parents who tell their underage children "no" when they ask to get a tattoo, as the parent is just looking out for what they believe is in the best interest of their child, and they believe the child does not yet have the life experience to grasp the permanence of such a choice. Likewise, a parent may refuse to allow their child to be administered hormones (or some similar treatment), because they do not believe it to be in that child's best interest. That does not automatically make that parent a hateful "queerphobe". That I'm even having to articulate this so exhaustively shows how far the POV of so many of this site's users has been skewed.Durchbruchmüller20:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
By "sex change" I meant, as an umbrella term, any medical procedure administered to change ones sexual perception of themselves, be it surgical, administration of drugs, etc.So - you believe transgender minors should be forced through an incongruent puberty? That's what happens when transgender youth are denied medical care - I'm not going to sugarcoat that as anything other than medical abuse.
Likewise, a parent may refuse to allow their child to be administered hormones (or some similar treatment), because they do not believe it to be in that child's best interest.- That is only ever because they do not believe their child is actually transgender. I have never once met, read anything written by, or heard anything about any parent who believes their child is trans and denies them medical care. The only reason to deny it is, as you said, worries about
permanence of such a choice- which you're only worried about if you think your kid isn't actually trans. It is 100% queerphobia (and, often results in needing to spend more on medical care years later to undue the damage of the incongruent puberty).
permanence of such a choice- the amazing double standard by which permanent pubertal changes are ok if the trans kid very explicitly doesn't want them, but obviously not ok if the trans kid explicitly does (because they might change their mind and apparently only trans puberty has permanent changes...)Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk)20:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a political screed(from the nomination) and
Additionally, a couple of the "queerphobic beliefs" can easily be in good faith(from a vote)? The latter is directly disagreeing with a part of the essay, and as for the former, you don't usually call things you agree with "political screeds".Pinguinn 🐧09:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could have a political norm that says "transphobia is bigotry"...I grow tired of seeing this false paradigm presented as being far more simple than it really is. "Transphobia", "queerphobia", or whatever "phobia" you want to use as an example is inherently far more problematic vis-a-vis essays or policy being harbored in project space, because the definition of what constitutes those things is far more nebulous than, say, being a Nazi or American Confederate. Nazism and 'Confederate-ism' are ideologies predicated on racial hatred, among other things, and racial hatred is obviously not constructive for the purposes of this project. However the criteria for what constitutes "queerphobia" is infinitely more problematic. Everything from expressing the view that 'youths should not be allowed to undergo sex changes' to simply identifying a given person by their biological sex or birth name can be construed as "queerphobia", per what is written in the essay. Is it really in the interest of this project to finger wag at people and call them "queerphobes", from a piece enshrined in projectspace, for holding a good faith view, or identifying an individual on an indisputable, factual basis?Durchbruchmüller19:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
identifying a given person by their biological sex or birth name(ie,misgendering anddeadnaming people) is in fact
a good faith viewand
identifying an individual on an indisputable, factual basisand shouldn't be
construed as "queerphobia"...Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk)20:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedias should not obfuscate plain facts simply because a group demands it.What are we obfuscating??? And which group is demanding it? Articles on people who were famous pre-transition still mention their deadname. Our articles about trans people say they're trans - what are we hiding? What does
identifying a given person by their biological sexmean? Does it mean replace every instance of the word "trans woman" with "man"? Does it mean use pronouns following people's sex at birth rather than their gender identity? Your complaint is vague and meaningless.
Since you've now arrived at comparing trans people to transracial people...Is there a meaningful distinction, besides the frequency with which the two groups manifest themselves? If Wikipedians are compelled to address biological males as "women" if they identify as such, does not an identical policy also apply to race? Should an essay titledWP:No Transracialphobes also be afforded projectspace, and does anyone who doesn't describe a given person as their self-identified race deserve to be censured, and be told they're a "bigot"? To reject the obvious parallels out-of-hand just seems disingenuous.Durchbruchmüller21:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
To reject the obvious [differences] out-of-hand just seems disingenuous. There's no psychological research, let alone a consensus, that I'm aware of that suggests A) transracialism is real B) transracialism may (or always does) involve symptoms of racial dysphoria C) the aforementioned ostensible dysphoria is alleviated by socially transitioning and others referring to the transracial person by the race other than their assigned race at birth (I won't abbreviate that like we do AGAB; it just muddies the point).Sincerely, Dilettante21:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no official statusand optional advice, wide latitude is traditionally given to their scope. No compelling reasons have been given for deletion. We're not as bad as other platforms, but the English Wikipedia community has a history of homophobia and transphobia. We've arguably made progress in some ways, blanking aSignpost article that poked fun at pronouns and moving the "humorous"Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles (WP:NOTGAY) to Meta, but we still have room for improvement. I think it would be irresponsible to userfy and thereby censor an essay that aims to create a space that is safer for editors that belong to marginalized groups.gobonobo+c19:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essays ... typically contain ... opinions of one or more editors. There's no doubt this fits that definition. There's no requirement to justify how the essay will be used.RoySmith(talk)21:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No "x"essays that serve functions that are already being served?Durchbruchmüller21:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
People are free to believe what they will as long as they do not act in a manner that is disruptive, but I'm not gonna fucking feel safe if people who want me dead are on Wikipedia, even if they don't edit gender stuff. Also,Tamzin brings out a great point: the anti-LGBTQ and neo-Nazi groups often overlap, so it could go either way, but to me I'm in the camp where an essay about how anti-LGBTQ editing is not compatible is necessary.LilianaUwU(talk /contributions)23:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That LGBT children cannot know their identities) or "I believe putting trans women in women's prisons could get the cisgender women pregnant" (problem on
That transgender rights conflict with feminism, the rights of cisgender women) is not the same as something legitimately harmful like "trans people should die". The problematic parts of the list can probably be removed, but as long as this essay is up I am certain they will always find a way back. Compared the others, it feels like the definition of what counts as "queerphobic" is relatively subjective, which is a problem for something that will inevitably be cited constantly. That being said, I will concede that this is likely a more common issue than NoConfed (an issue specific to the USA). In fact, I agree withTamzin that
a single, unified essay on bigotry is more aptand that these specific bigotry essays
focused on a relatively arbitrary subset of bigots, and that it faulted people for what they believe rather than how they behave.I'm tempted to suggest merging all four of these essays intoWP:HATEDISRUPT.Unnamed anon (talk)00:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I believe putting trans women in women's prisons could get the cisgender women pregnant"aren't transphobic in nature?LilianaUwU(talk /contributions)02:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am worried about children making such an irreversible decision they may regret at too young of an age->
I think children should go through irreversible changes they don't want because I'm convinced they're not actually trans. "irreversible decision" is bullshit fearmongering since those who talk about it never show any concern for the irreversible changes they're deciding against the child's wishes.
I believe putting trans women in women's prisons could get the cisgender women pregnant- is a factual statement.
That transgender rights conflict with feminism, the rights of cisgender womenis a non-sequitur as feminism does not conflict with the observation "people can have sex and get pregnant". The argument holds as much weight as "I believe the birds can fly, (problem on
That rights of this minority conflict with the rights of this majority)" If what you're getting at is the belief
I believe that putting trans women in women's prisons is a danger to cisgender women so they should be put in men's prisons- you're framing an entire demographic as inherently dangerous (when they're disproportionately more likely to be sexually assaulted) based on their immutable characteristics and consigning them to a place where they're at an incredibly high risk of sexual assualt, beatings, murder, etc.
trans people should die? No (though the second one does put trans women at a higher risk of being murdered), they're equivalent to
trans people should suffer. If your bar for
legitimately harmfulis straight up calling for people's murder - IDK what else to say except you should probably be aware people can be bigoted and/or hold bigoted beliefs without going as far as calling for murder.Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk)18:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content |
|---|
|
Differing viewsis precisely why I do not like the idea of separating all of these essays. I feel like having them separate encourages nitpicking what is considered part of that bigotry, as is clear on NoQuerphobes. With all of them under one page, something to nitpick is not front and center, and would be less likely to be added by people who are not already invested.Unnamed anon (talk)18:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
frequently think.
LGBT people... should be denied rights and protections, with highly contested vague and dogwhistley statements such as
trans people should be ... restricted ... from accessing gender-affirming healthcareand
transgender healthcare ... should be ... made inaccessible for ... youth- these are particularly egregious because the terms are slippery and the phrases admit all kinds of readings, everything from "trans people should be denied all types of healthcare" (very widely agreed to be hateful) to "genital surgery should not be prescribed to children" (which is the legitimate recommendation of nearly every MEDORG). There is currently a major international debatein the medical literature (not just in polemical media articles) about the rights and wrongs of transgender healthcare, and there are broad ranges of opinions that aren't in the least bit hateful, yet are manifestly within the scope of what this essay brands as hate. The effect will be to silence legitimate expression for fear of being branded a phobe.
That LGBT children cannot know their identities.
That transgender rights conflict with feminism, the rights of cisgender women, or the rights of cisgender queer people.
That trans people should be unable to change their legal gender, be excluded from gendered spaces, or restricted/banned from accessing gender-affirming healthcare.
That transgender healthcare is unsafe and should be banned or otherwise made inaccessible for adults and/or youth.
That deadnaming or misgendering transgender subjects is justified by "historical accuracy" or "basic biology".
That LGBT editors have a conflict of interest and cannot write or speak neutrally about LGBT-related topics because of their identityto the list of bad bullet points that should be removed; while it is true that often LGBT editors can escape the Conflict of Interest concerns, this seems to be an attempt at absolving the editor even when there clearly is a conflict of interest, like in this discussion (I have noticed that quite a lot of the "keep" !votes are coming from LGBT editors). Unfortunately, the essay's author has made it clear that she thinks that saying children can know their gender and that trans rights can't impede on feminism both qualify as "queerphobia". I'm not even going to argue with something so blatantly misguided, as this proved my suspicions that as long as this essay is up, there will be claims of "queerphobia" that will be used toWP:ICANTHEARYOU, even in cases where a legitimate debate is to be had.Unnamed anon (talk)02:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while it is true that often LGBT editors can escape the Conflict of Interest concerns, this seems to be an attempt at absolving the editor even when there clearly is a conflict of interest, like in this discussion (I have noticed that quite a lot of the "keep" !votes are coming from LGBT editors)- so only cis straight people are qualified to discuss LGBT issues neutrally without a conflict of interest?0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me)02:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the essay partly due to being sick of years of … writing … that "gender ideology" is real, that trans kids are actually just mentally ill cis kids …, or that all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists, or whatever elsedefinitely shows POV pushing and editing in one's own interest, and the bullet point can easily be used to say "No I don't have a COI, this essay says so!"Unnamed anon (talk)03:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
POV pushing and editing in one's own interest? All those beliefs you listed are 1) FRINGE to the max 2) blatantly offensive.
that trans kids are actually just mentally ill cis kids- like seriously, you're defending that? Or
all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists? Please explain how either of those is in any way not queerphobic....Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk)14:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historical accuracyis my attempt at encapsulating a bad-faith argument which seeks to justify of misgendering/deadnaming, that I've encountered several times from editors who are (accidentally or maliciously) ignorant ofMOS:GENDERID or its bloody history. In long form, it is the argument that using a trans subject's current name and pronouns (either for their entire biography or for speaking about the period of time before they came out), and eliding quotes to follow suit is an inappropriate distortion of the historical record, or a betrayal of a supposed mission of Wikipedia to preserveindiscriminate trivia at the expense of respecting BLP subjects and their privacy. Is there a better way to phrase this? –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝)07:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under this essay, I should be blocked- Where does this essay say that?0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me)01:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page in a nutshell: It is well within the scope of the disruptive editing policy to block editors for queerphobia per WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE and WP:NORACISTS. This essay expands them by laying out common queerphobic beliefs and how to handle users who consistently express and advance them, in a list that includes reasonable debates over safety, such as the ones thatSome1 listed just above. I also want to respond to your endorsement on the essay's talk page, encouraging
others who have expressed opinions or sentiments without completely reading the essay to read it too.I have read the whole essay, and reading the full essay directly led to my disagreement with it. In fact, had I only read the title, I probably would actually endorse it, but because several editors who have worked on this essay have a very loose definition of "queerphobia" and are adamant about falsely shutting down legitimate debates as bigotry, I see more harm coming from it.Unnamed anon (talk)02:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
anyone that holds these queerphobic beliefs in this essay must be blocked on sight? That seems to be how you are interpreting it.0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me)02:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we don't have to treat every harmful edit as the result of non-malicious ignorance, and if real medical debates are seen as harmful according to this essay's list of queerphobic beliefs, that is a problem.Unnamed anon (talk)03:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a lot of people in this thread should be admonished—or, frankly, blocked—for bald-faced queerphobiaare the primary reason why I believe this essay should be deleted. It's really only going to be used to shut down discussions where legitimate debates are to be had, or be used to claim that editors do not have a conflict of interest even when it's obvious. I think this essay is in a pretty good state now that some editors have allowed the removal of particularly controversial definitions of "queerphobia" (particularly the ones regarding real medical debates, such as with transgender youth), as well as the template RoxySaunders added making this essay less accusatory, so if it stays up I won't be upset unless somebody adds the bad bullet points back or claims that this essay is a policy. However, I will not strike my delete !vote because essays like this will inherently be claimed by the people most affected and will likely be cited in a manner that is incredibly unconstructive to wiki discussions, as you have just shown by personally asking for blocking users in this thread. That was completely inappropriate and borders on apersonal attack. The only one who deserved a block was the legitimate Nazi sockpuppet, who is already blocked.Unnamed anon (talk)08:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very interested in how an editor may have no personal, affective animustells me that shutting down legitimate debates is okay. It isn't. Thank you for proving that this essay will likely be used to shut down real discussions, because that was a concern of mine that you proved to be correct. Whether you like it or not,
saying trans identification and healthcare should be age-locked, or that rights for trans women somehow threatens feminismare both real debates that I'm glad were allowed to be removed from the essay, because if the essay does stay up, it's at least not spouting controversial opinions as undisputed facts. They aren't. I think this essay should only consider the really obvious, undisputed stuff as queerphobia; anything that includes genuine concern for another group should not be under that umbrella, which is why they had to go. The listed beliefs that remain, any reasonable person would find offensive, which is good for a list like that. The recent excisions strengthen the essay to be taken more seriously. However, the original concern that you proved correct remains, and it's why I still think this essay should be deleted or merged or userfied despite its relatively good status; you just showed that it can and will be used to shut down legitimate discussions, and that is extremely disruptive.Unnamed anon (talk)05:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
genuine concern for another group, I don't want to know what such folks advocate for people for whom they aren't concerned. What I'm seeing is you showing that you value the idea of protecting the expression of transphobia above creating a safe editing environment. And while in this post you speak of the essay's
relatively good status, it's hard to regard that credulously when your initial comment described the essay with terms like
extreme hostility,
very unconstructive,
its own hatred, and
fringe viewpoint.Hydrangeans (she/her |talk |edits)06:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essays like these will inherently be claimed by the people most affectedmay be the case - but that isn't a bad thing. The people who are subjected to bigotry are the people most likely to want the communities they engage with to not be bigoted.Simonm223 (talk)15:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]