Talk:Lesbian erasure/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Redirect target

The term "Lesbian erasure" is being used increasingly, and a redirect was needed pending possible creation of an article. After searching around and not finding any really good article or section candidates for it, I created it as a section link to Compulsory heterosexuality#Lesbian erasure. This target is not ideal, as this article is about a specific essay by Adrienne Rich that touches on lesbian erasure, but isn't a general treatment of it.

It was surprising to me that there is no section called "Lesbian erasure" in any of these: Feminism, Feminist separatism, History of feminism, History of lesbianism, History of lesbianism in the United States, Lesbian feminism, Political lesbianism, or Radical lesbianism. Until lesbian erasure has its own article (along the lines of Bisexual erasure or Queer erasure, perhaps) or a dedicated section in an appropriate article, this redirect is better than nothing. Mathglot (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that it should get its own article. I also wonder whether there should be a Debates in the LGBTQ+ community to summarize the various debates and disagreements, such as those around erasure and marriage equality. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm hoping it will get its own article. As to your "Debates" suggestion, that would likely be a very long article with a very acrimonious Talk page, of which the size and fury of the talk page history at Feminist views on transgender topics would barely hold a candle. If you neverthless are not afraid to wage the Battle of the Seven Kingdoms, go for it! Mathglot (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure it's a can of worms that I want to open, but I'll add it to my drafts list. StudiesWorld (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Queer erasure article should be expanded first. And per what I stated at Talk:Queer erasure, any expansion should be without WP:Synthesis. If the lesbian material starts to take up most of the Queer erasure article, it can be split off into its own article. One might also consider including lesbian erasure material in the Lesbophobia article, just like bisexual erasure material is included in the Biphobia article. As for not wanting to open a can of worms, a Lesbian erasure article will be doing that anyway per the "feminist views on transgender topics" aspect. And I do mean the topic of trans women. I don't think we need a "Debates in the LGBT community" article when issues/debates within the LGBT community are covered within their respective articles, such as Biphobia, Homophobia and Transphobia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Since this article was created by StudiesWorld, I tweaked it here and here. Yes, the lead should summarize the article, but the primary focus of the lead and overall article should not be on transgender women. Keep WP:Recentism in mind. Furthermore, with as small as this article currently is, the single lead sentence that it currently has can be considered adequate for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment: there's probably some info to be found on the topic of 'early' gay rights organizations under-focusing (or worse) on lesbians. One would have to see if any scholars have discussed it in terms of this phrase, of course, to avoid snyth an' all that. -sche (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

-sche, For this, I think that The Disappearing L might help, but I haven't yet gotten a chance to read it and I'm not sure when, if ever, I will. StudiesWorld (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I read it a year ago. You can see some of its content on Google Books. Also see this 2016 "Dyke Culture and the Disappearing L" Slate source by the same author. It's an adaptation of the book. And, yes, she does address trans women in the book, which you can see in the link I provided. I wasn't surprised by anything in the book. For example, tensions between lesbian women and bisexual or trans women (including those who additionally identify or only identify as queer). Many lesbians don't or won't date/have sex with bisexual women; there are a variety of reasons for this. And a recent study investigated most cisgender people declining to date/have with sex trans people, with trans women getting most of the "not interested" responses. Here on this talk page, I linked to them.us since they go over the research for laypeople. With regard to lesbians, the tensions go beyond dating. The erasure aspect obviously concerns different things, and it's not a minority of lesbians who feel this way. So the article needs work in this regard. But the article should take care not to heavily rely on material from that author or any other author. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I have added Lesbian erasure to the "See also" sections of all the articles listed by Mathglot above. It would be preferable to integrate each into the prose of the articles, but lacking time and sources for that, I have at least made the article visible to the casual reader. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding refs

Re 17:45, 20 June 2019 edit summary "...add refs from the former GTLO article (which was subsequently preserved on  talk)": you can also find refs/sources in the defunct GTLO article original 5/19 version and the 5/21 version (before it was "edited" down to five sentences). Pyxis Solitary yak 08:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Disappearance of bars

The sentence Several feminist lesbian activists have lamented the rapidly increasing disappearance of many physical spaces, such as lesbian bars, women's bookstores, and music festivals that were alternative lesbian spaces in which the lesbian subculture thrived. does not currently do a good job of connecting itself to the topic of erasure, as mere disappearance of a bar, e.g. because lesbians stop going to it, is not erasure. The placement of the sentence in the "[erasure] in the LGBT community" section implies that the bars etc have been erased by(?) the LGBT community, but the sentence does not currently substantiate that. For comparison, the preceding section at least tries to make an argument that the collapse of certain sites was due to "erasure" of them by advertisers. Do we have RS with which to expand this sentence enough to connect it to the topic of erasure, for example by saying something like The disappearance of these spaces has been attributed by [person] to pressure from [advertisers switching to 'gay' events, or heterosexuals filling the spaces with voles, or whatever cause is being suggested].[superscript numbers]? If not, the sentence seems better suited to an article like History of lesbianism... -sche (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Weight

I agree with Gwenhope that there are some WP:NPOV problems here. My impression is that the section on trans women, in particular, gives WP:UNDUE weight to gender crits, and doesn't reflect the overall weight of the sources. (Relatedly, it's worth noting that this article was linked on the transphobic subreddit r/GenderCritical a little while back.) WanderingWanda (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This article was linked to on Reddit? And? Others have noted that people there have linked to the atrocious Feminist views on transgender topics and TERF articles as well.

I see no supposed undue weight "to gender crits" with regard to the section in question. Gwenhope was alerted to this article in a derogatory fashion that shows severe misunderstanding. What we are not going to do is pretend that WP:Reliable sources do not cover the very real tension between cisgender lesbians and transgender women, including some trans women (for example, Rachel McKinnon) suggesting that cisgender lesbians are transphobic if they do not find transgender women sexually attractive/do not want to date or have sex with transgender women. You know, the suggestion that they have a "genital preference" or that "genital preferences are transphobic." As Aircorn and I made clear at Talk:Transphobia last year, this is not fake news. And your "weight of the sources" search link doesn't support "undue weight" on this specific topic. You and I have "discussed" similarly with regard to cisgender gay men and transgender men. As discussed there (and like I mentioned above), it is the case that the vast majority of cisgender people (lesbians included) have declined dating transgender people (especially transgender women). The study I pointed to above has somewhat attributed this to discrimination/transphobia, but some sources disagree because of what the biology of sexual orientation entails (being sexually attracted to sex characteristics/secondary sex characteristics and not a gender identity, which is not a visible entity). What we are not going to do is act as though arguments from transgender authors are more valid than arguments from concerned cisgender lesbians (whether presented by those cisgender lesbians or men or trans women who disagree with the "you should be sexually attracted to me or you are bigoted" line of thinking). This goes beyond radical feminism. The section in question has one paragraph dedicated to one viewpoint, with criticism mixed in. The second paragraph addresses the very real matter of some transgender women calling cisgender women transphobic for not recognizing them as potential sexual partners and that enough trans women object to this shaming of sexuality. It also includes a Claire Heuchan statement. The third paragraph notes that some LGBT activists do not agree with the term lesbian erasure being used in regard to trans women and includes a quote from Carrie Lyell challenging the argument that trans women are pressuring lesbians to accept them as sexual partners. It's all WP:Due. And I see no need for the content to be significantly expanded. This does not need to become another Feminist views on transgender topics or TERF article, and should not. I will also note that cisgender lesbians speaking on being shamed for their sexuality is not the same thing as being pressured to have sex, although the topics are intertwined. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

And? Others have noted that people there have linked to the atrocious Feminist views on transgender topics and TERF articles as well.

Just making people aware of canvassing. Incidentally, your view that those two articles are "atrocious" seems to be shared by many on that subreddit.

In any case, you've repeated the extreme position that trans women "erase" cis women multiple times [1] [2], so it's not surprising that you can't see the article's current problems. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Given that you have done this multiple times now, and I know you are baiting me, I thought on how I should reply. Ultimately, I decided to state the following: Here you go again with the same "Flyer is against transgender people" nonsense. This is despite your failed witch-hunt at ANI and the vast majority of editors agreeing with me and others to reject the type of activism you've sought to have Wikipedia engage in. Considering how many times you've implied that I'm transphobic (for reporting on matters that obviously exist, as covered by reliable sources), and your antics today regarding a very problematic editor (as if an editor being transgender should protect them from being topic-banned and remaining topic-banned), I think it's time I take you to WP:ANI. Imply that I'm transphobic one more time, and you will be taken there. It's certainly the case that enough admins are aware of your behavior toward me. And with antics like this, you only have yourself to blame. They see what you are doing. They know why you popped up here a day after I made edits to this article. They know your game. Once again, you have sought interaction with me, when I avoid you as much as possible. I wouldn't dare think to alter your posts, for example, but you dare time and time again to alter my posts. And do spare me your "I'm not afraid of you" usual talk, as if this has been about that.

Nowhere have I stated that trans women erase cisgender women. That you have taken my very valid points about using the language you want to use for our medical, anatomy, and sexual articles and have translated it into that is just you seeing what you want to see, as usual, and turning this into a black and white matter when it is more nuanced than that, which is why my arguments on the language you want to use have mainly concerned non-binary people (such as yourself). Typically, trans women are not against a vagina being called a female sex organ. Typically, trans women are not against gendered language. You know, since the vast majority of trans women are binary. You very well know that there is disagreement within the transgender community over these issues, with some in the transgender community referring to others as truscum for disagreement on what transgender means and whether or not gender dysphoria is needed to be transgender. A lot of transgender women, and not just conservative transgender women, disagree with your viewpoints and argue that gender-neutral language can erase or make them feel displaced, awkward, or give them gender dysphoria. When one of my brothers (yes the one you are familiar with) brought the ContraPoints controversy regarding non-binary people to my attention, I knew what to think because I've seen it for years. It was interesting to see just how many trans women agreed with her, and how many non-binary people attacked her. And the attacking didn't stop there, considering that she was attacked for later including trans man Buck Angel in one of her videos. I've told you before that not all trans people think alike, and that my circle includes transgender people of different views (including those who think like you). I get along with all of them, or else they wouldn't be within my circle. You stated before that you know that not all transgender people think alike. But time and time again, you frame things as black and white or as though matters that cisgender and transgender people disagree on aren't also matters of disagreement within the transgender community.

You chastise me not only for following Wikipedia's rules (which the Wikipedia community has backed me on when it comes to transgender topics and various other topics I edit at), but also for listening to both sides, or rather all sides, with regard to transgender views. If I at all listen to the "gender critical" side, I'm supposedly transphobic. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm just not. And I'm not going to keep defending myself to you. The only reason I do so is so that these talk pages don't let your claims go unchallenged. I'm not interested in your views about what is an "extreme position." I am interested in following Wikipedia's rules with WP:Due weight. I asked "And?" with regard to this article being linked to on Reddit because Reddit should have no bearing on what we do at this article except for WP:Semi-protection when needed. You keep pointing out what is going on with Reddit at these transgender articles, but I've seen no canvassing at this article due to Reddit. This article doesn't yet get much traction. I called the Feminist views on transgender topics and TERF articles atrocious because they are. And my statement on that is no different than others on those talk pages who have called the articles bad articles or similar. It is not as though one has to feel that those articles are decent or good articles in order to not be transphobic. I am done discussing something like this with you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Wanda. This article has extremely loaded language and sources which promote fringe views. Whether it's Terry MacDonald's quote which directly implies that trans women are misogynistic men, bigots, and rapey, or the Auckland pride quote which doesn't quote the source banner but states it as fact that lesbians are being targeted for hormone therapy, which is part of an anti-trans conspiracy theory commonly-associated with the terf/gender-critical community. People promoting these views (like those posted above) basically act like cis lesbian sources are the gold standard for truth. By validating their conspiracy theories, this type of editing directly creates WP:FALSEBALANCE. Trans people often point out the transphobia of other groups because they assume false things about trans people. Some trans people have the same type of sex characteristics found in cis people, some even never developed the characteristics we associate with the other binary sex. The narrative is that because a trans person utilized hormones and/or surgery to get them means that they're fake characteristics. It's a classic issue with trans dating and sexuality? To use trans women for an example… Don't want to date a person with a penis? Fine, many trans women have vaginas. Don't want to date someone with a deep voice? Fine, many trans women have higher, feminine voices. Don't want to date someone with <characteristic>? Fine, but there are trans people without <characteristic> and many of the young-transitioning trans folks that often never had <characteristic>. The false narrative stereotypes trans people. Trans people see people trying to invalidate and negatively-associate their identities (trans lesbians, for example) as discrimination. Similar to what Flyer22 said, trans folks feel that cisgender lesbians are not just shaming them but invalidating and excluding trans folks using their sexuality as a weapon. This article has serious anti-trans issues since its creation. Literally the first content was focused against "male domination" and the second edit to this article talked about how trans existence was invalidating and erased lesbians and the whole concept of this originated from the terf/gender-critical community. It's rather clear, considering how the largest section in this whole article is about trans. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 01:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. I think This NBC News source is a good guide. It covers all sides neutrally: it doesn't avoid covering the views of the small minority of cis lesbians who are trans-exclusionary, but it doesn't disproportionately amplify their voices, either. It keeps things in proportion, as we should. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Gwenhope, "extremely loaded language and sources which promote fringe views"? So reliable sources, which include non-conservative and conservative sources, and non-transgender people and transgender people, reporting on the the very real rift between lesbian women and trans women and the debate over whether or not wanting to date a transgender person or whether or not genital preferences are transphobic, are fringe? According to whom? This aforementioned study addresses the topic. These debates are real and they should be reported on. They are currently reported on with appropriate weight in this article -- three decent-sized paragraphs. To stay focused, I'm not going to extensively get into the other stuff you've brought up. Also, I very much doubt that StudiesWorld created this article as an attack on trans women. Above, StudiesWorld was clear about what they were going for. And I warned the editor about where the article would go. This version before I made edits so that the very small article at the time didn't unduly focus on trans women in the lead was simply due to StudiesWorld obviously having come across a lot of recent transgender material with regard to the term lesbian erasure. When so much of the recent media is using the term with regard to transgender women, it's no surprise that "the largest section in this whole article is about trans [women]." StudiesWorld's version noted the term in relation to trans women and that "Due to this usage, many LGBTQ activists have opposed the term as anti-transgender." That the LGBT community is male-dominated is the view of many lesbians, and is mainly not about views on trans women.

I will state that when it comes to your "Fine" list, it should also be fine for a cisgender person to not want to date/have sex with a transgender person. That is what people are arguing. No one should feel obligated to date/have sex with any type of person. Human sexuality is complex. People find different aspects sexually attractive. That obviously includes genitals as well. And the vagina and a trans woman's neovagina are different. People can't control who they are sexually attracted to or what features (and on whom) they are sexually attracted to. People can't force themselves to be sexually attracted to certain people. Whether or not one thinks that the attraction is biological and/or socialized, it's their attraction. As you surely know, some men are specifically sexually attracted to transgender women, and they are shamed for it, including by transgender women who feel that they are being fetishized. But these men can't control the fact that they are specifically sexually attracted to transgender women, which research (such as this 2016 "The Role of the Illusion in the Construction of Erotic Desire: Narratives from Heterosexual Men Who Have Occasional Sex with Transgender Women" source, from Culture, Health & Sexuality) acknowledges is somewhat due to specific features that distinguish transgender women from cisgender women (except for transgender women who pass and have gotten bottom surgery). It is what it is.

WanderingWanda, this source has been suggested for the Feminist views on transgender topics and TERF articles. But I don't see that it has much relevance for this one, considering that tensions between cisgender lesbians and transgender women is not just a radical feminist thing. It's not "a small minority of cisgender lesbians" who report being shamed for their sexuality by trans women and/or non-binary people, and no reliable source states so either. Focusing on radical feminists who exclude trans women from women's space is not the same thing as focusing on cisgender lesbians who do not want to date/have sex with transgender women. Also, framing such lesbians as trans-exclusionary because they do not want to date/have sex with transgender women is part of the problem, as reported on by sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is the "In relation to transgender women" section in full. I've colored it so that sentences that focus on anti-trans/"gender critical feminist"/conservative/whatever positions are in red, and sentences that don't are in green.

The term lesbian erasure has been used by some trans exclusionary radical feminists, such as members of the United Kingdom organization Get the L Out. The group, which proposes the creation of an autonomous lesbian community, argues that lesbians are "constantly vilified and excluded from the GBT community for stating their exclusive sexual preference", that the expansion of transgender rights erases lesbians, that transgender activism encourages lesbians to transition to straight men, and that the GBT community is becoming increasingly anti-lesbian and misogynistic. The group staged its first protest at the 2018 London Pride Parade and was condemned as transphobic or "anti-trans" by the organizers of Pride in London. PinkNews and The Guardian denounced the protesters. Sarah Ditum of the New Statesman quoted the protesters and their material, "The group...carried banners proclaiming 'lesbian not queer', 'lesbian [equals] female homosexual' and 'transactivism erases lesbians'."

Terry MacDonald of the New Statesman stated, "In some circles it is considered transphobic [...] for lesbian women to refuse to recognise [trans women] as potential sexual partners (a resistance sometimes referred to as 'the cotton ceiling', a phrase which smacks of misogyny and male entitlement). It isn't just radical feminists who find this problematic: some trans women do too. Is that really just irrational bigotry?" Feminist theorist Claire Heuchan said, "even acknowledging lesbian visibility is described as 'dogwhistle transphobia'. Something within the LGBT community has gone seriously wrong when being for lesbians is interpreted as being against people identifying as transgender...lesbophobia isn't coming from social conservatism as it has in the past, but within the LGBT+ community."

Some LGBT activists have opposed the term lesbian erasure as being anti-transgender. In a 2018 open letter opposing the term, twelve editors and publishers of eight lesbian publications stated, "We do not think supporting trans women erases our lesbian identities." Carrie Lyell, editor of DIVA magazine and creator of the letter, stated that "while there's no denying women are marginalised within the LGBT+ movement, this having anything to do with trans people, or trans issues, is news to me." She referred to the argument that trans women are pressuring lesbians to "accept them as sexual partners" as "scaremongering".

One side of this scale is heavier than the other. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that, especially given how that first paragraph is framed. That first paragraph comes across as plain condemnation of those trans exclusionary radical feminists, including members of "Get the L Out." Reporting on what they stated is there for context. After that, in a different paragraph, there are two comments speaking on how a number of cisgender lesbians feel, with one comment noting that there are obviously trans women who agree that not wanting to date/have sex with them doesn't mean that the person is a bigot. After that, we have a paragraph noting that twelve editors and publishers of eight lesbian publications stated, "We do not think supporting trans women erases our lesbian identities." And then we have the Carrie Lyell quote addressing the erasure topic, including lesbians feeling pressured to accept trans women as sexual partners. WP:Weight is not about making sure that the paragraphs are exactly the same size. The second paragraph consists of two comments from two different authors. The third paragraph consists of a unified statement and then a statement from one author. I don't see that the third paragraph needs a third comment, especially if it's redundant. But if editors agree on adding another "not erasure" comment there as a compromise, I could be okay with that. But I think that will lead to editors wanting to add another sentence to the second paragraph, or one to the third paragraph to counter the third statement there. I know from the Feminist views on transgender topics and TERF articles and the debates on the associated opinion pieces that this tit for tat approach won't work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

This article's weight looks fine to me. The issue here seems to be the same one that has cropped up at other articles. Some editors seem to feel that the activist stance is already the consensus of sources, and therefore try to minimize or exclude any sources or content outside of that, having already ahead of time concluded that they were unreliable. I will yet again point to what WP:BIASED (part of WP:RS) says: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Sources aligned with activism are not the only reliable sources. And especially on this topic - it's one that sources of a variety of viewpoints have discussed. Due weight seems to be followed already. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"Incidentally, your view that those two articles are "atrocious" seems to be shared by many on that subreddit." * Implying that editor Flyer22 Reborn is actively involved in a Reddit discussion because her comments may be similar to some comments that appear in it is a roundabout way of saying that Flyer22 is bringing off-wiki activity to Wikipedia articles.
"Just making people aware of canvassing." This worn accusation that those involved in editing a particular article, or being involved in a discussion about it, do not have a mind of their own is an attempt to silence those who don't march to the drumbeats of the canvassing-obsessed editors.
The last person who should be pointing fingers about what happens off-wiki is someone who is involved in Wikipedia-related off-wiki activity. Keeping an eye on what transpires in a Reddit forum, and pointing out what occurs in it, is bringing off-wiki activity to Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 04:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I struggle to see how this is anything but a pointy edit. The expert needed tag makes no real sense and the more citations needed tag is misused as everything is cited. Despite the tag bombing in the lead it appears the only concern is the weight of one section. I don't follow the colour coding reasoning of the paragraph above, many of the higlighted wording is neutral descriptions of what happened and it clearly presents groups condemning the proitest. Also a link to google news doesn't really help determine weight, but even so reading the headings it suggests a clear divide between the L and the T exists. AIRcorn (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on the edits, but the "divide between the L and the T" does not seem to be supported by other than POV sources. To be clear, I am not saying that there is no divide, but that whether there is a divide or not between those broad groups is part of the dispute. E.g., in the jurisdiction where I live (Ontario, Canada) we have a city counselor who has transitioned from identifying primarily as cisfem lesbian to identifying primarily as nonbinary queer during their elected service, without any particular controversy or conflict in the queer community (whether from L or T perspectives). The main spokespeople against TERF perspectives in this jurisdiction are cisfem feminists, including lesbian, queer and straight ones. And in the US, we have sources sayihg that trans women harassing lesbians about their dating choices is a significant social issue, and ones saying it isn't. So a summary that would read "T and L are in confluct and here are their perspectives" seems to me to reify something that is actually debated within L organizations - Dyke marches, for example, take very different positions on trans-inclusion and -exclusion that cannot af all be reduced to "conflict between T and L". And so it goes... Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Within any group there is going to be political elements battling against each other. The more diverse that group the more potential for conflict. Since we are bringing up geography, where I am from had some recent controversy when the Auckland Pride parade banned police from wearing uniforms.[3] It doesn't necessarily relate to the L and Ts, but does highlight increased tensions within the community. I was only recently pinged to this article so haven't really followed the history here. But if we have an article on lesbian erasure with a section on the LGBT community it makes sense to highlight the conflict, even if it is only small part of the overall picture. AIRcorn (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, there is a conflict and it is DUE to talk about it, but characterizing it as "L vs. T" is already to take the POV of one faction within one of the groups involved. That was my (perhaps belaboured) point. Newimpartial (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you stating "there is a conflict and it is DUE to talk about it," but I disagree with your comment that "the 'divide between the L and the T' does not seem to be supported by other than POV sources." WP:BIASEDSOURCES aside, how is the Slate source I've pointed to times before a POV source? There are also academic sources that speak on this matter, just like there are academic sources that speak on the divide between lesbians and bisexual women. I'd rather stick to academic sources, which surely comes as no surprise to various editors, but the discussion of "Is it transphobic to not want to date/have sex with a transgender person?", as also analyzed in this aforementioned study, is a very new discussion and is mainly a social media discussion at this point in time, with different parts of the media covering it here and there. I'm not sure what you mean by "is already to take the POV of one faction within one of the groups involved." What other aspects do you think are missing? We should also keep in mind our regional experiences, and it seems that you are (as indicated by your previous post). For example, while I'm American, you're Canadian. That stated, some aspects that we address on Wikipedia are more so covered by American sources or British sources, and so on. And we can't artificially balance material because whatever topic or aspect isn't covered enough or at all in some other region. This is why Template:Globalize states, "This tag should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist (e.g., that people in China have a different view about an idea or situation than people in Germany or South Africa)." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, let's talk about the Slate source. While its lede refers to "destructive rifts continuing to grow. One of the widest of these rifts exists between the L’s and T’s", its body is actually much more careful. The authors refer to "one group of radical lesbian feminists" that are referred to by some as TERFS and who at times "actively harass, mock, and out trans women". It is this small group of TERFs who place "strain on relations between trans women and cisgender lesbians" - cis lesbians as such are not a party in this conflict; a small minority within them is. They also discuss butches: "There are some butches who consider themselves trans and/or nonbinary in identity and others who embrace their identity as female, rejecting the idea that identity must align with presentation." I.e., butch identities cut across the L and the T, and there is no sense from the article that conflict concerning butches pits "L vs. T" in any obvious way. Likewise, the discussion of "trans women who attempt to pressure lesbians to date them by insisting that it would be transphobic to do otherwise" is framed as something that is practiced and/or perceived differently within cis lesbian and trans communities rather than between one category and the other. So in spite of its lede, the source does not really support an L vs. T interpretation without reproducing a good deal of nuance.

As far as the trans attraction study is concerned, yes, this is an important finding, but it doesn't really bring much of anything to bear to "L vs. T" except for the result - if I'm interpreting correctly - that Lesbian-identified people are more likely to be "willing to consider" trans men than trans women as dating partners, which is still telling us something we knew all along. It does not present "lesbians" or "trans women" (or for that matter, trans men) as unitary categories, and it certainly has nothing to say about either lesbian erasure or about allegations of transphobia.

I added the Carrie Lyell cite to the section because I felt that an important perspective - that of cisfem queer women and lesbians who do not attribute lesbian erasure to trans folks - was underrepresented in the article. It seems to me that the article currently does not do as good a job as sources might support of situating the question, whether trans inclusion contributes to lesbian erasure, within lesbian organizations by looking at sources for Dyke March organizers etc. And the really key (and sometimes intense) debates about butch identities in relation to T and L are currently not covered at all. While my city counsellor may have negotiated that issue at limited personal or political cost, this is a flashpoint that could also be used to illustrate conflicts among cisfem lesbians, and the sources on this are not any weaker than ones already in use in this section. Newimpartial (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The Slate source states that radical feminists contribute to the strain on relations between cisgender lesbians and trans women, but acknowledges that the strain exists regardless, stating things like, "While trans lesbians seeking romantic connections in the lesbian community are often frustrated by the knee-jerk resistance many cis lesbians have to dating trans women, hearing that one's individual reluctance to date someone may be based in transphobia can feel unfair and accusatory." And lesbians do hear that from trans women, as a number of reliable sources state and discuss. When Terry MacDonald of the New Statesman relays that "In some circles it is considered transphobic [...] for lesbian women to refuse to recognise [trans women] as potential sexual partners" and "It isn't just radical feminists who find this problematic: some trans women do too.", that isn't something that MacDonald is pulling out of thin air. MacDonald isn't perpetuating falsehoods on that matter. It's something that is easily seen on social media, and it's not just trolls or even mostly trolls stating this. Like I noted above, Rachel McKinnon also holds the "you are transphobic if you do not want to date/have sex with transgender women" (or rather "you are transphobic if you are not sexually attracted to/don't want to have sex with transgender women") viewpoint, except she takes it a step further because besides stating that "'Genital preferences' are transphobic.", she also states, "I actually think any sexual orientation other than pan is immoral because sexual genital preferences immoral." And she's been criticized by people, including other trans women, for these viewpoints. That's certainly her Twitter page, considering that it's been cited as hers in reliable sources. And the sources in the "Further reading" section that report on this viewpoint that some trans women have aren't perpetuating falsehoods.

I do not understand your comment about butches, since butches are a part of the butch and femme lesbian culture. While gay men and people who identify as queer or non-binary may also identify as butch or femme, the terms are still mainly grounded in lesbian culture. And the Slate source is very obviously focused on cisgender lesbians and trans women. Its "Can Cis Lesbians and Trans Women Learn to Get Along?" title accurately reflects its content. I'm not seeing how you are viewing this as something beyond "L vs. T", but a number of the sources are focused on that or partially focused on it. That they may also speak of queer-identified women doesn't change this fact, just like speaking of queer-identified women doesn't change the fact that there is a divide between lesbians and bisexual women. Either way, your comment doesn't show that "the L and the T' does not seem to be supported by other than POV sources." One would have to describe what non-POV sources are on this topic. Some would consider the Slate source POV because it underplays the "you're transphobic if you are not sexually attracted to me/won't have sex with me" aspect and mostly brushes it off. It's also from 2015. Tensions have increased since then.

As for the study, I pointed to it because it very much does address the "Is it transphobic to not want to date/have sex with a transgender person?" topic. I'm not sure that you read the source. Yes, The Spectator is a conservative source, but it does review the study's material, noting that author Karen Blair concluded that "exclusion was likely the result of factors ranging from explicit transprejudice, such as viewing trans persons as unfit, mentally ill, or subhuman, to a lack of understanding or knowledge about what it means to be a transgender man or woman." And where does transprejudice redirect to? The Transphobia article. All these alternative terms for transphobia (or closely related terms, if one wants to call them that) are still grouped under "transphobia." And the definition of Transphobia in the lead of our Wikipedia article is broad. And the study is clear that "The results are discussed within the context of the implications for trans persons seeking romantic relationships and the pervasiveness of cisgenderism and transmisogyny." Where does cisgenderism redirect to? The Transphobia article. And how does Wikipedia define transmisogyny? As "the intersection of transphobia and misogyny." I obviously wasn't suggesting that the study is specifically about tensions between cisgender lesbians and trans women or that the source be used in this article. Last year, I also mentioned that The Spectator published an article by a transgender author stating, "As a transsexual woman, I am sick and tired of seeing people being subject to character assassination because apparently they're transphobic. In many cases, these people are either absolutely not transphobic, or accusing them of transphobia is a stretch (or somewhere in between). [...] The good news is that you're not transphobic if you're not attracted to trans people. I'm sorry trans ladies and gentlemen, but scoring a date is not an entitlement, let alone a human right. You are not entitled to a kiss, let alone a date. It's almost as if this issue is the trans version of forcing businesses to bake gay wedding cakes. Expecting someone to serve you commercially is not far off from cisphobically expecting someone to serve you sexually (cisphobia is the fear or hatred of non-transgender people)."

Your addition of the Carrie Lyell quote is Lyell's opinion. And since some cisgender lesbians and queer-identified women agree with her, I understand why you added it. But I don't see a need for an extensive emphasis on Dyke March organizers or to focus on butch lesbians. We have articles for those aspects specifically. This article is about lesbian erasure. I mean, unless sources are specifically speaking of butch lesbians with regard to trans women and lesbian erasure, I don't see why we should get into specific talk of butch lesbians in the section in question. I'm not seeing sources saying that butch lesbians contribute to lesbian erasure. The Dyke March aspect has been discussed with regard to lesbian erasure (including trans women attending). This Flare source, without speaking on trans women, states, "Seeing thousands of women who love women in the same space at the same time, as I did at that Dyke March, was particularly meaningful for me. The label of lesbianism is falling out of style in favour of other, less binary identities; a lot of women who love women are identifying as the more inclusive term 'queer' as a way to signify gender or sexual fluidity. There's nothing wrong with that, at all—the Dyke March is open to women of all orientations who love women—but for me, being surrounded by lesbians who were out and loud about their identity was very powerful. [...] But there was also another reason that I was so thrilled to see a space specifically for lesbians: because these days, that's very rare. Queer spaces both inside and outside of Pride are dominated by gay men and physical spaces for lesbians and sapphics are almost gone." But most of what I've seen on Dyke Marches with regard to lesbian erasure is about "TERF [this or that]" and that fits much better in the Feminist views on transgender topics article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

To respond to your paragraphs in turn, Flyer22 Reborn, in the first paragraph the Terry MacDonald quote you cite, "It isn't just radical feminists who find this problematic: some trans women do too", very neatly encapsulates my core point: neither Lesbians nor Trans women hold a unitary group perspective on issues of trans inclusion or lesbian erasure. Posing the issue as "L. vs. T." tends to obscure this fundamental insight. I am not saying that you obscure it in this way; I was responding in the first instance to Aircorn's characterization above.

As far as your paragraph about butches, I'm sure I am just as awareness of the term's origin as are you. But are you equally aware of non-binary butch identities? See for example this general definition of butch or this more specific one. I am not proposing these as sources for the article, just pointing out that this distinction has become increasingly salient, particularly among those butch lesbians who identify strongly as cis and who fear the possibility that their form of gender expression could acquire "legacy" status (Slate). Some of the critique of the emergence of nb and trans identities definitely concerns the future of butchness while participating in the lesbian erasure debate (particularly butch those for whom butch expression is nearly synonymous with lesbian visibility).

As far as your next paragraph is concerned, I am not sure how it addresses anything that I said. It seems unnecessary to me to use attraction data to support the proposition that cis women who are uninterested in trans women as partners do so for reasons other than transphobia, since that is blatantly obvious, and most lgtbq people of all letters understand this. If some cisfem lesbians feel "erased" because they have to state the obvious, then I suppose that is relevant to the article, but they will always have the support of all mainstream lgbtq - including trans folks - in their dating choices, including choices not to date trans women. If they decide to take trans-exclusionary organizational positions as a result of their feelings, of course, that is less likely to meet with agreement across the rainbow.

So I think I have explained above what I meant about the butch debates in relation to lesbian erasure - basically, if someone's idea of lesbian visibility is butch gender expression, but butch lesbian identities are increasingly being displaced by nb butch identities (as in the case of my local politician) or even transmasculine identities, then some see this as a form of lesbian erasure. And yes, with respect to the Dyke marches, I was expressing somewhat the same interest as the Flare piece you cite, particularly since different marches have taken very different stances with respect to the inclusion of nb and trans folks, and have invoked "erasure" arguments when doing so. Newimpartial (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

That some trans women also object to the notion that not being sexually attracted to/wanting to have sex with trans women is transphobic doesn't make the matter any less of an "L vs. T" issue. It's some trans people (including some trans men, though to a lesser degree than trans women) who began the argument that not being sexually attracted to/not wanting to date/not wanting to have sex with a trans person equates to transphobia. We know that some trans women (and a lot of other trans people) disagree with this argument, but it's still an "L vs. T" issue. It's still cisgender lesbians feeling under attack by some trans women. So we are going to have to agree to disagree on "obscur[ing a] fundamental insight," especially considering that MacDonald notes that "it isn't just radical feminists who find this problematic: some trans women do too." It is not as though the section is stating that all trans women think this way. And I would have no issue with including commentary specifically from a transgender woman who objects to the viewpoint that "not sexually attracted to trans women" or that "genital preferences" is the same thing as transphobia. We both know how Miranda Yardley, a transsexual woman, feels on this topic. But given how divisive her AfterEllen article on it is (and that it contributed to a lot of the backlash against AfterEllen and twelve editors and publishers of eight lesbian publications stating, "We do not think supporting trans women erases our lesbian identities."), it might be best to quote a different transgender woman. And I know how many trans people feel about Blaire White; so quoting her in this article might also not be best (especially if the material is only cited to her YouTube channel rather than a reliable media source reporting on her views). Either way, except for talking about the broader topic of finding trans people sexually attractive (meaning beyond trans women), or speaking of radical feminists (which extends to women in general), the sources are not framing this as anything other than a debate between cisgender lesbians and trans women. I mean, specifically on the topic of lesbian erasure.

As for butches, I am very much aware of lesbian culture and all that it entails. Similar goes for gay male culture. I still stand by my point that unless sources are specifically speaking of butch lesbians with regard to trans women and lesbian erasure, I don't see why we should get into specific talk of butch lesbians in the section in question. I'm not seeing sources saying that butch lesbians contribute to lesbian erasure. What I do see when it comes to butches and lesbian erasure (other than talk of trans women identifying as butches being a form of lesbian erasure) is sources like this 2019 "Lesbians face a fight for their very existence" The Times source (which is in the "Further reading" section of the article). To this point, it states, "The first brick at the Stonewall riots, which began the US gay rights movement, was thrown by Stormé DeLarverie, a butch lesbian who, for her masculine dress, is now claimed as a trans man. As are other historic lesbians who cross-dressed either through taste or to access male careers and female lovers. A recent blue plaque for the early 19th-century lesbian Anne Lister, ITV’s Gentleman Jack, described her only as 'gender non-conforming'. Even Radclyffe Hall, who wrote the lesbian classic The Well of Loneliness, is often retrospectively called 'he'." As long as the butch material is about lesbian erasure, I am fine with including a bit on it.

Regarding "As far as your next paragraph is concerned, I am not sure how it addresses anything that I said." comment, you stated, "and it certainly has nothing to say about either lesbian erasure or about allegations of transphobia." My paragraph concerns the fact that the study very much does address the "Is it transphobic to not want to date/have sex with a transgender person?" topic. I never stated that the study is about allegations of transphobia. I'd rather not go over how the study concerns transphobia again. We know Karen Blair is speaking of explicit transprejudice (a term which really is not distinguished from transphobia, as is also evident by how we define transphobia in the lead of our Transphobia article) and that this concerns transphobia. Her views on the matter, also expressed on this blog, are clear. That she's not stating "every one of them is transphobic" doesn't change the fact that she is touching on transphobia. And I was also clear that "I obviously wasn't suggesting that the study is specifically about tensions between cisgender lesbians and trans women or that the source be used in this article." Pointing to that source was never about "us[ing] attraction data to support the proposition that cis women who are uninterested in trans women as partners do so for reasons other than transphobia." As seen above, I pointed it to you when stating, "the discussion of 'Is it transphobic to not want to date/have sex with a transgender person?', as also analyzed in this aforementioned study, is a very new discussion and is mainly a social media discussion at this point in time, with different parts of the media covering it here and there."

Regarding what the Flare piece discusses, I'm fine with adding material on things it states, as long we don't go overboard. And to repeat, I'm fine with adding butch lesbian material if it directly relates to lesbian erasure and is reliably sourced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, for economy, I am only going to respond to the point made in your first paragraph, which I regard as the essential one. "Either way, except for talking about the broader topic of finding trans people sexually attractive (meaning beyond trans women), or speaking of radical feminists (which extends to women in general), the sources are not framing this as anything other than a debate between cisgender lesbians and trans women. I mean, specifically on the topic of lesbian erasure." This just isn't so: when our sources note that some (a minority of) trans women make the argument that non-attraction to them is transphobic, and other trans women (a majority) argue that it isn't necessarily, then this is not a "T. vs. L." issue. It's actually an issue of whether the T. vs. L. framing is valid or not. And in the other hand, when our courses note that some (a minority of) cisfem lesbians argue that including queer trans women in lesbian organizations is a form of erasure, and other cis lesbians (a majority) argue that isn't, once again we are not seeing a "T. vs. L." issue, but rather an issue whether or not the T. vs. L. framing is valid. You can ignore or flip my majority and minority assertions (though they are based on careful analysis) and that doesn't change the essential situation, which is not "a debate between cisgender lesbians and trans women", but a debate among cisgender lesbians and among trans women about issues connecting the two groups within the LGBTQ umbrella. Newimpartial (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

When a source is titled "Can Cis Lesbians and Trans Women Learn to Get Along?" and is very much focused on that, we cannot extrapolate it to be just as much about "femme lesbians vs. butch lesbians" as well, or "lesbians vs. trans women vs. butch lesbians" and frame it in such a way. I have looked at various sources on lesbian erasure, and when it comes to trans women, it is framed as "L vs. T." The sources are solely, primarily, or partly about that. There is no "butch lesbians and lesbian erasure" (except for what I mentioned). So unless you have sources specifically about butch lesbians and lesbian erasure or "this other part of the LGBT community and lesbian erasure" (like the article discusses when it comes to gay men), I don't see what is left for us to discuss on this specific matter. We also have no reliable sources stating that "a minority of trans women make the argument that non-attraction to them is transphobic, and that a majority of trans women argue that it isn't necessarily [or isn't]." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Per policy, we are not supposed to cite headlines against the content of news stories, nor are we to overemphasize the abstract/lede of a source against the evidence it provides. I have already sifted through that L. vs. T Slate piece above. And there certainly are RS that point out that only a minority of trans women argue that non-attraction to them is transphobic, but that isn't really the point. The point is that it is a debate among trans women, just as blaming trans folks for lesbian erasure is a debate among cisfem lesbians.

And per erasure, I don't know how many times I can mention nb butches and you come back with "butch lesbians" without you recognising that either some nonbinary folks are lesbian or some queer butches are not lesbian (or both) and without seeing that, either way, you are engaged in a bit of erasure of your own. If you haven't seen the argument that (butch) lesbian cisfems are being erased by nb butch and transmasculine identities, then perhaps start with the Slate piece I already cited and go from there. Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not going by headlines. Otherwise, I would not have stated "and is very much focused on that." Nor have I overemphasized the abstract/lede of a source against the evidence it provides. Medical articles are one of the areas that I edit, and I follow WP:NOABSTRACT, which is why I questioned if you read the attraction study I mentioned. An editor can interpret things any way the editor wants to, but we go by what the sources state and with WP:Due weight. The Slate source I cited, for example, is focused on a rift between lesbians and trans women, and it's focused on that beyond its title. It has no misleading title. Since it's not about lesbian erasure anyway (although it touches on the "you're transphobic if not attracted to me" aspect that is an aspect of the lesbian erasure topic), we should stop debating it. You have gone on and on about butches (non-binary or otherwise) without offering up any sources that are about butches with regard to lesbian erasure. I've engaged in no "erasure of [my] own." And at this point, I don't see much left to state to you on this matter that wouldn't be repeating myself. You stated that "there certainly are RS that point out that only a minority of trans women argue that non-attraction to them is transphobic." I've seen no reliable sources that state any such thing, and I'm sure you cannot provide them. You have a tendency to make such statements about what sources state or what the literature states without the literature actually supporting your commentary. Or if the literature does, it is specifically about what is happening in Canada. This Slate source you cited does not speak of lesbian erasure. The source is relevant for the Butch and femme article. I will not continue this particular discussion unless sources about butches and lesbian erasure are presented. And as for "some nonbinary folks are lesbian," I edit the Ruby Rose article; so, yeah, definitely aware of people identifying both within the non-binary spectrum and as lesbian, and the controversy regarding it. Not that I wouldn't be without knowing who Rose is or editing that article. I already noted, "I am very much aware of lesbian culture and all that it entails. Similar goes for gay male culture." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22, I discussed the Slate article you originally cited in this comment; I have no intention of repeating what I said there, except to note that neither trans nor cisfem lesbians communities are treated as unitary subjects in it (or in any other reliable source that I've seen). As far as butches and lesbian erasure: ffs, have you not read this AfterEllen piece and the responses to it, e.g. here and here? What do you think this debate is about, exactly, if not "butches and lesbian erasure"? It's not as though I am in the habit of imagining controversies where none exist. And while there aren't a lot of sources specifying whether the majority of trans women perceives non-attraction as transphobic, there are many, many RS that describe the wide variety of views expressed within this community, just as there are very different perspectives within cisfem lesbian communities about whether trans inclusion prompts "erasure" (or "eradication"). Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Just to address one aspect of your latest post since I don't see the need to address the rest: That AfterEllen piece is also about the transgender topic with regard to lesbian erasure. The author is focused on the viewpoint that cisgender butch lesbians are being pressured or are feeling pressured to transition into trans men/transmasculine people. I never stated that there is no debate regarding butches and lesbian erasure. I addressed the transgender topic with regard to cisgender butch lesbian erasure with my "12:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)" post. I stated that "I'm not seeing sources saying that butch lesbians contribute to lesbian erasure." I stated that "what I do see when it comes to butches and lesbian erasure (other than talk of trans women identifying as butches being a form of lesbian erasure) is sources like [The Times source referring to butch lesbians retroactively being referred to as trans men]." I should have also mentioned that I additionally see talk of cisgender butch lesbians being erased because they are being pressured or are feeling pressured to transition into trans men/transmasculine people. But my point was that I do not see talk of butches contributing to lesbian erasure outside of talk of transgender people. And before that, as noted in my "13:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)" post, my point was that "when it comes to trans women, it is framed as 'L vs. T.'" But I see no need for us to keep debating that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The section in question does very briefly touch on this the butch lesbian vs. trans man aspect by stating "that transgender activism encourages lesbians to transition to straight men." So, yes, this aspect isn't about trans women. I get that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

To interject a little with a different parallel to this point, the predominant mid and late 20th century term for a trans person was "transsexual". The community in the last few decades has moved along to "transgender" instead. Imagine some individuals still identifying with transsexual and saying that the community move to transgender is "Transsexual erasure". The movement to newer, more inclusive language and people identifying with that language doesn't "erase" those identifying with the previous term.

This article sorely, incorrectly focuses on the majority content regarding trans subjects, when it is much more clear how history and media sometimes preoccupy the view of the gay male aspect of the community. However, it is also important to understand why this may happen. Aside from political marches and protests, which are evident in the historical record, what type of behavior is different between the cis lesbian and cis gay male communities that engendered this difference in view? Cis lesbian 20th century culture often involved feminist bookstores, local support groups, and artistic/cultural festivals and gatherings. This is sorely different than the raucous, bar-based, free love, party boy culture we saw in the cis gay male community in the 20th century that continues to this day. A lot of the things the cis lesbian community did day-to-day didn't draw attention to themselves, unlike their counterpart. The places that we do have this cultural awareness are places they did that drew attention, most notably the butch dykes on bikes shorthand loved by the media and one of the most emblematic of that area of the community. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 19:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

We can only go by what WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. If WP:Reliable sources were reporting on "some individuals still identifying with transsexual and saying that the community move to transgender is 'Transsexual erasure'," we'd report on it if it was WP:Due. The aforementioned Buck Angel still identifies as transsexual, and he has a lot of views that many in the non-binary community (and some in the broader transgender community) disagree with, which really should be covered in his Wikipedia article. Indeed, some of what he has stated comes across as him arguing "transsexual erasure." He's very insistent that he is transsexual rather than transgender and that the needs of these two groups are different, depending on how transgender is defined (meaning if it's defined to include transgender people who don't undergo hormones or surgery, non-binary people, and cross-dressers). Since there are still people in the transgender community who identify as transsexual, we cover this in both the Transgender and Transsexual articles. And in terms of medical research or the causes of transsexuality, transsexual is still used to identify a specific subset of transgender people.

As for "This article sorely, incorrectly focuses on the majority content regarding trans subjects," I'm just going to state that I'm about following what reliable sources state and with due weight. And that other aspects of the article can obviously be expanded. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Enough with the trans this and trans that

Can we please keep this article and its editing focused on the title: Lesbian erasure. This is not an article about trans women/men. That the article includes mention of trans vs. lesbian development within the LGBT community section does not mean that the article needs a pound of trans content. The bisexual erasure article hasn't been shat on over mentions of trans whatevs. So for the sake of the article and what it's about ... l-e-s-b-i-a-n ... maybe everything associated with trans should be deleted. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 11:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Like I stated in the #Weight section above, with so much of the recent media using the term lesbian erasure with regard to transgender women, as is also clear by the "Further reading" section you added, this section and what it entails is no surprise. The material is WP:Due and covers the points without being excessive. I obviously do not see that more needs to be added to the section, at least not at this point in time. But there's no getting around the fact that the transgender topic is a part of the lesbian erasure topic and will continue to be debated at times here at this talk page. I was clear before the article was created that it would encompass discussion of transgender women. Sources are not focused on tension between cisgender bisexual women and transgender women, at least not the way they are focused on tension between cisgender lesbians and transgender women, and certainly not with regard to bisexual erasure. I am more than fine with editors looking to expand other aspects of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I always add Further reading sections so that readers can learn more about a subject, and if an editor thinks a reading item is helpful, it makes life easier than scouring the web for more sources. But the seemingly endless preoccupation with how anything having to do with trans is positioned in the article ... is insane. Every single article that involves lesbian or woman or female goes to hell in a handbasket the moment trans-whatever is included in it. If I were new to Wikipedia and interested in editing this article, I'd turn on my heels and head in a healthier direction. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 12:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I do want to let you know that your wording heavily implies that "l-e-s-b-i-a-n" only means cisgender lesbian and that trans folks aren't involved. This article isn't titled or lead with a proviso that it's only about cisgender lesbians. Erasure might apply to trans lesbians as well as trans men and certain identities of butches. As Flyer22 said above, the trans issue and this page topic have been intertwined since the beginning as well. While I heavily disagree with Flyer on most things, they do at least feel sourcing merits inclusion and discussion in the article. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 16:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

In relation to transgender men

Some of the sentences/incidents in the "In relation to transgender women" section deal with the idea that lesbians are erased by trans men transitioning. I am initially inclined to think it would therefore make sense to tweak the section title from "...transgender women" to "...transgender people". Agree/disagree? -sche (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Section is currently mostly about trans women. I don't think a tiny piece there about trans men means we should change the title. If the section is expanded to include more about trans men, with sources explicitly tying the matter to lesbian erasure, then I'll feel differently...depending on how much more is added. We might also want an "In relation to transgender men" subsection in addition to the "In relation to transgender women" subsection. But I don't support the section being unduly expanded, especially if it mainly becomes a section about feminist views on transgender topics, when we already have a Wikipedia article on that and a TERF article.

On a side note: I really think that the "In 2019, a group of women wearing T-shirts" paragraph should be removed. I only really recently noticed it due to it having been moved to the transgender women section and expanded. Including incident material like that is how articles like this can get out of hand. This 2019 incident doesn't seem to have gotten as much attention as "Get the L Out" and doesn't really add anything to the article. Yes, there's the legal action aspect, but we don't know how that will go. We can always re-add it if the legal action makes an impact. But I'll wait to see what Pyxis Solitary has to state on including that material since Pyxis Solitary added it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at this more closely, I notice that besides the incidents which were specifically about trans men, almost all of the section is about "trans people" generally, with only a tiny part of the section being about trans women: The first sentence is about "transgender issues" and a group not being inclusive of "trans people"; the second sentence is specifically about trans boys; and only the third sentence is about trans women. In the next paragraph, the first sentence refers only to "trans exclusionary" people, and the next sentence talks broadly about "transgender rights" and then specifically about trans men. The three sentences after that are about the group being condemned as generically "transphobic or 'anti-trans'", and about the group having materials saying "transactivism erases lesbians", which again fails to be specific to trans women. The National Bar paragraph speaks broadly of a "campaigning stance in the gender-identity dispute" and "transgender employees". The MacDonald paragraph includes one sentence which scopes itself through a parenthetical, editorial addition as being about trans women, while the rest speaks generically of "transphobia" and "people identifying as transgender". The final paragraph has one sentence about "the term lesbian erasure [...] being anti-transgender", one about "trans people, or trans issues", and only two about "trans women". -sche (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

We're looking at the section differently; I state this because regardless of what wording is being used to convey material in the section, the sources are mainly about trans women. The Scotsman source used for the Claire Heuchan quote, for example, states, "At its heart is the focus on trans rights by LGBT organisations, and resultant philosophical and biological questions around what defines a woman, and its impact on sexual orientation and therefore lesbianism. Is lesbianism a sexual attraction only to female bodies or is it attraction to feminine identity? Can it involve trans women who still have male bodies?" In the Wikipedia article, the text doesn't focus on trans women by name because the section is already titled "In relation to transgender women" and the "when being for lesbians is interpreted as being against people identifying as transgender" is a main argument with regard to lesbians and trans women instead of lesbians and trans men. Trans men aren't the focus in these debates nearly as much as trans women are and they are seen more so in a sympathetic light because of the argument that transgender activism makes butch lesbians feel that they should be men. The first source in the section states, "At the heart of the increasingly toxic debate is whether trans rights are compatible with those of other women, particularly in terms of access to single-sex spaces, such as rape crisis centers or women's refuges. On one side, trans campaigners say that transgender women are women and deserve equal access. On the other, some feminists and lesbians disagree, making the distinction between natal and trans women." The second source in that section states, "Organisations like RainbowYouth and InsideOut, as well as the Pride Parade, must stop endorsing medical experimentation, child abuse, sexist stereotyping, and the destruction of female-only and lesbian spaces." But the source also focuses on "the number of women and girls in Wellington being referred to endocrinologists for medical gender transition [having] increased twelvefold." So that is about trans men/transmasculine people. The "Get the L Out" material is focused on lesbians with regard to trans women. The Sarah Ditum New Statesman piece is also focused on that. And the text in the Wikipedia article on that is clear by "quoted the protesters and their material: 'The group...carried banners proclaiming 'lesbian not queer', 'lesbian = female homosexual' and 'transactivism erases lesbians'." Regarding the 2019 National Theatre bar in London text, I think it's safe to state that "T-shirts printed with a definition for lesbian ('lesbian | lezbiən | noun | a woman who loves other women')" is about trans women. The Terry MacDonald quote focuses on lesbians with regard to trans women. I've already addressed the Claire Heuchan quote that follows. And the last paragraph in the section is focused on lesbians with regard to trans women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I updated the text in the article with a better summary of the dispute, using the aforementioned The Scotsman commentary, before the text further delves into the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the TERFs are especially bigoted towards trans women, and less focused on trans men (which is not to say that the TERF movement doesn't also harm trans men). It's kind of a mirror image of how white American racists scaremonger about black men more than black women.

Still, since the passage does talk about trans men, even if it's not the primary focus, I agree with -sche: there's no reason not to change the subheading to "transgender people".WanderingWanda (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

As some sources make clear, this isn't just about "TERFs" vs. trans women (or trans men). Some sources (like one I cited above) state "feminists and lesbians." There are lesbian women who are not "TERFs" who also have issues with trans women identifying as lesbians and/or with people assigned female at birth identifying as boys or men. Lesbians especially have an issue with being deemed transphobic for not wanting to date/have sex with transgender women. But then again, as noted by this New Statesman source and this Daily Nous source, "TERF" may also be used to refer to lesbians who simply are not sexually attracted to trans women or in a broader context than that. I don't think it's a good idea to use "TERF" on article talk pages; this is because of how broadly the term is used, and, yes, because it is debated as a slur and can cause offense when it's best to try to keep controversial talk pages like this one calm.

But anyway, with this edit, I added an "In relation to butch lesbians and transgender men" section. Renaming the section "In relation to transgender women and men" and having the trans men content there would make the subsection overly long. So I gave it its own section. I was going to title it "In relation to transgender men", but as I added more material, and seeing that it also discusses lesbians who once identified as trans men, and a little bit of commentary from a butch lesbian, I decided on the latter title. Like I noted in my edit summary, I would have very much preferred to mostly expand this article with scholarly sources, but most of the material on this topic at this point in time is sourced to the media (as in it's mostly the media reporting on it). As mentioned in a previous discussion, it would also be good to expand other parts of the article. But most of the sources on this topic do concern rifts in the LGBT community. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

If America's "newspaper of record" the New York Times is comfortable letting one of their commentators use the word "TERF", I'm comfortable using it on article talk pages. (If anyone else disagrees with my stance on this, let's not clutter up an article talk page with a "TERF war". 😛 Instead, feel free to reach out on my talk page, which is open to anyone who approaches me in earnest, open, and cordial way.) WanderingWanda (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

"But I'll wait to see what Pyxis Solitary has to state on including that material since Pyxis Solitary added it." Actually, I did not (21 October). I may edit content and I may add sources, but that doesn't mean I am the editor that originally added the material. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 23:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

As for the incident at the National Theatre: it's an example of what the subject of the article is about. There's a lot of hearsay regarding what precisely happened; the women and NT management are at odds about the cause of the uproar, but the legal case will sort the 1-2-3 about it. In any event, the focus has been on the t-shirts imprinted with the definition for lesbian. I think the NT ruckus should remain. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 00:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I should have checked the edit history. You added the piece about the legal action, but obviously not the rest. As for the National Theatre bar incident, Crossroads removed the material, and I obviously agree with the removal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

What the hell?

This is not an article about transgender women or men. 1,572 words dedicated to "in relation to ...." 1 and 2? Really? The purpose of this article has been coopted. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, the second of those sections is exactly where the 21st century debate on lesbian erasure is actually at, so I would like to thank Flyer22 Reborn for that contribution. That is part of the purpose of the article; we are not limited to 20th-century issues, here, since "lesbian erasure" describes this newer issue as well. Newimpartial (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The sections are very quote heavy. Could they be summarised better? AIRcorn (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Like I stated in the section immediately above this one, "I would have very much preferred to mostly expand this article with scholarly sources, but most of the material on this topic at this point in time is sourced to the media (as in it's mostly the media reporting on it)." and "Most of the sources on this topic do concern rifts in the LGBT community." So what do we have at this point in time? Most of the material is covered by the media. And most of that material is about trans women and trans men, but especially trans women. I know Newimpartial's stated above that "the second of those sections is exactly where the 21st century debate on lesbian erasure is actually at", but the overwhelming majority of the material I came across concerns trans women (which is no surprise, given what I stated in the section immediately above this one and in the previous discussion about trans women and butches, and given what is in the "Further reading" section) and the overwhelmingly majority of that is from the 21st century. But I was got not going to keep piling on to the trans woman section. All we need for both sections are the key aspects. As for summarizing, I have no issue with that as long as things are summarized appropriately and what the authors are saying is not downplayed (for example, leaving out their main points or pieces one or others might find offensive), which is the risk with summarizing quotes on a controversial topic like this. Some material (like the "twelve editors and publishers of eight lesbian publications stated" piece) should be quoted because it's a widely reported statement or the quote conveys what the author is stating better than we can. Sometimes there are limited ways to state the same thing and close paraphrasing is permitted. I did summarize some material. As also mentioned before, it would be good to expand other parts of the article. And I did expand the content on material about language and lesbian spaces, after moving it under the "In the LGBT community" section, where it fits better. And I intend to incorporate some material from some of the few scholarly sources on this topic when I have the time to read all of them. I mentioned before that I'm familiar with the 2016 "The Disappearing L: Erasure of Lesbian Spaces and Culture" source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

While tweaking things with this edit, I summarized a bit more (the less controversial pieces in this case). I am likely to attempt summarizing more. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand. It is not an easy thing to do. AIRcorn (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Summarizing transgender-related discourse in the lead

Hiya Crossroads. Coverage of TERF/GC discourse makes up over half of this article, so I hope you'll agree that summarizing it in the lead is overdue. The respective sections begin as follows:

In relation to butch lesbians and transgender men: With regard to transgender men, some lesbians, radical feminists, authors, or commentators (both conservative and liberal) argue that transsexuality or transgender activism erases butch lesbians by making them feel that they should transition to men due to their gender nonconformity, or that older lesbians who figured out their identity would have felt that they should have been men growing up in today's culture. [citations]

In relation to transgender women: Discord between cisgender lesbians and transgender women concerns the topic of sexual orientation and those who do and do not believe that trans women can be lesbians without erasing what it means to be a lesbian.[citations]

My proposed text was an attempt at a distillation of the above. But I'm hardly an unbiased spectator in this debate, and I see my pointiness poking through a bit, so I'll take another stab at it:

The term is sometimes used by "gender critical" feminists, cisgender lesbians, and anti-trans advocates, who view transgender activism as erasing or eroding lesbian identity.

To clarify, anti-trans advocates is, more precisely, Get the L Out, who were described as such by The Guardian and the BBC—those bastions of nuanced and even-handed journalism on transgender issues (!). I think maybe two sentences of summary would be worthwhile. Perhaps one each, about the evil transman agenda corrupting pure butch lesbians, and the cabal of transwomen pressuring cislesbians into sex. I'm eager for your suggestions on how to make such a sentence more neutral or accurate. Regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 06:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm just about to log off and will think about this for a bit, but this is a significant improvement. I would like to see the MOS:SCAREQUOTES dropped. I think the term gender-critical is common enough nowadays in neutral sources and even in use by harsh critics just so everyone can understand who is being talked about. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Input appreciated. Have a good night. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 06:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

"Coverage of TERF/GC discourse makes up over half of this article" – I have an idea: cut down the transgender related overload. This article is titled "Lesbian erasure" — not "Transgender men, transgender women, and (oh, by the way) lesbian erasure". Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

But much of this material was added by a beloved, deceased editor. Should it not therefore be retained? Newimpartial (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-02

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mdesai6 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Germ.mee.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)