Talk:Meghan Murphy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Choise of wording in last sentence

The last sentence of the article goes; On several occasions since August 2018, Murphy has been suspended from Twitter and asked to delete certain tweets about transgender issues that violated it's hateful conduct policy.[38].

I have re-read the line a few times to be sure that I did not misinterpret it, as I reacted on the by me bolded word "hateful" describing Twitter's conduct policy, wherefore I wonder if it is the wording of Meghan or the wording of the writer of the article? If by Meghan, it should be within quotation or explained that it is her description of the policy. If however it is the choise of the creator of the article, then I believe it falls under weasel wording which would then make the word "hateful" inappropriate, as it goes against the neutral tone that should be kept in articles free from personal bias of the writer.

Sincerely - Okama-San (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, it's actually not Meghan or the person who edited it in, it's the wording twitters rules use to describe the specific section of the rules that she broke.ShimonChai (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that just yesterday after having gotten to bed, ugh. >.< I wish I could erase the post as it is a bit embarrassing in retrospect now, but, that's life. :P

Sincerely - Okama-San (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Tagging of first sentence

There's some pretty ugly tagging in the first sentence currently, due to an edit I made. I apologize for the cosmetics of it, but hopefully it won't last long, and the fact that it looks so gross will motivate its rapid repair. The problem was, that you had three references at the end of what is supposed to be the definition, and single most important sentence in the article, and none of the references support the statement made; they are all trivial mentions of Murphy, in articles about something else. I tagged them all {{failed verification}} for the lack of support, and {{better source}} for the need to have something more than just a tangential, trivial mention of Murphy. That makes for a horrible-looking first sentence, I'll admit. If someone wants to come along and just remove all three references, and all six tags completely, and replace it with one {{citation needed}}, I won't object. But those references really should not be there. Mathglot (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

First, I agree that none of them properly cite the first sentence due to the contents of the citations not being in the citation given. To fall inline with citations given:

"Meghan Emily Murphy is a Canadian writer, and founder of Feminist Current, a feminist blog and podcast" (Note, this is just based on those citations given, not citations throughout the entire article.) Though, I disagree on the trivial part, The Globe and Mail as far as I know is reliable, and so is The New York Times, furthermore I couldn't find any ruling on "trivial" mentions disqualifying a citation from being used in either the better source template, nor in WP:NOTRS. ShimonChai (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi ShimonChai, and thanks for your comments. G&M and NYT are both highly reliable sources, and AJ too, there is no question about that, but that's not the issue here. There's a statement about trivial mention somehwere; I'll try and find it. But basically, these all contain quotations by Murphy about some extraneous topic, and are not about her in any meaningful way, other than to identify who she is.

• I.e., in the G&M article about sexism in the workplace, several experts are queried, and each of the three have a one-sentence reply to the question, which is quoted, and they are each identified by name, position, and publication. They are quoting her own words, so it's WP:PRIMARY, and it's not clear whether they asked the respondents for their title, or simply looked it up on the web, in which case they are quoting a self-published source. This identification is barely more than some commenters provide in the Letters column at G&M (e.g., "Hilary Pearson", here). I'm not saying this absolutely cannot be used if there is nothing better, but it's a trivial mention of her position (the article is about something else) which description most likely comes from asking her, or looking at the blog.
• The NYT article is about Hugh Hefner, and contains one sentence, again by Megan Murphy, not written by others about her.
• The third reference is an interview with a Bangladeshi microfinance banker and Nobel prize winner, opining about responsibility for violence in Burma. This article has nothing to do with feminist politics. After the end of the interview with Yunus, there is a follow-up section with a teaser for the publication's weekly "Arena" column, and includes one sentence of quoting Murphy's opinion on the subject of this other column; again, this is a statement by her, not about her. She is identified, as any opinion source would be.

If these three articles, none of which are about Murphy in any substantial way beyond a trivial identification are the very best that can be done to verify the first sentence of the article, then it would be reasonable for someone to question whether Murphy is even notable enough to have an article. However, I don't believe there is a question about notability. That being the case, surely stronger references than these must exist. A truly secondary source, might be a G&M or NYT article about "opinion-shapers in radical feminism", where people (not employed or connected with Feminist Current) talk about Murphy perhaps comparing her to other writers, perhaps going into some analysis or evaluation of this generation of feminist opinion makers, or just anything, more than simply identifying her by name and position. That would be a substantive, independent, secondary source, which these three, imho, do not seem to be. I will try to find the "trivial mention" statement if I can, but even if I can't, surely we can do better than this. These sources are very weak on a number of accounts. (I'm still not bothered if someone just deletes all of them, and am tempted to do so myself, but would be better if someone else did.) Mathglot (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

So, it turns out "trivial mention" is connected with Notability, not referencing. It is found in the first sentence in the section on significant coverage. There is also the essay, WP:Trivial mentions. So my objection to those references would have to be cast in some other way, than citing "trivial mention". I still think they're weak, but I'll have to find the right policy for it. Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

No volunteers so far, so went ahead and removed the references, and tagged the first sentence as {{cn}}. Mathglot (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

First sentence description TERF vs radical feminist

An IP editor adjusted the first sentence of the article to read "Meghan Emily Murphy is a Canadian writer, journalist, and founder of Feminist Current, a trans-exclusionary radical feminist blog and podcast." The term TERF was just a piped link to the general page for "radical feminism" (as the article had previously linked). While it seems to me that the subject of this article is perhaps best known for her opposition to transgender rights, this edit seemed like an NPOV issue to me, since TERF is not a label of self-identification, but one applied by others who disagree with them. To be clear, I think given the prominence of this part of her politics, some mention of her stance would make sense in the introduction, but this exact wording did not seem the way to go about this, and particularly not via a piped link. Any thoughts on this? --Sauzer (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Those who accuse Murphy of being a "TERF" and persist on inserting the offensive term into the article are activist editors. However, her history regarding transgender issues is that she is not against trans people, she's against trans ideology and transgender rights legislation. It's a fine line, but an important distinction. As a WP:BLP, every statement about her must be supported by reliable sources. And yes, injecting "TERF" or "trans-exclusionary" into the biography is a violation of WP:NPOV. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary describes themselves as a TERF on their user page. They should be forbidden from editing this page due to their non-neutral, hateful perspective.

The article has two components: how Meghan Murphy is a radical feminist and how she excludes trans people. It is inaccurate _not_ to refer to her as a TERF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.232.202.112 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the IP comments, it's hard to imagine a blog writer that is more typically an active TERF promoting transphobic rhetoric. The arguments that you can never use the term "TERF" to describe anyone, has limits and arguing that Megham Murphy is not a TERF or blatantly transphobic is beyond logic and published fact.

By the way, Pyxis Solitary, there is no such thing as "trans ideology". If you continue to spout unsourced damaging nonsense that so blatantly attacks all trans people this way, you should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia in line with the Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions applying to gender related topics that you were alerted to in May this year. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Jiminy Cricket, what a mess all of this is.[1][2][3][4]. No wonder my sister dropped out of the drama. Jiminy Cricket, what a peculiar IP this is.[5]. I hope my sister has a CU run on it. Pyxis Solitary hasn't called herself a TERF. She says, "I am a Lesbian. I'm not Gay. I'm not Bisexual. I'm not Pansexual. I'm not Transgender. I'm not Transexual. I'm not Non-binary. I'm not Bigender. I'm not Skoliosexual. I am a homosexual female and the only thing fluid about me is blood, sweat, tears, and piss." Ah, but I mustn't forget. Some of y'all call any lesbian a TERF. I guess Pyxis Solitary isn't permitted to call herself a homosexual female and say she's not into trans women.

You figure you're gonna be able to get Pyxis Solitary blocked or topic banned for objecting to the WP:LABEL of "TERF" being used to describe BLP subjects who object to the term, and for using the description "trans ideology" on the talk page? Uhhh, okay. Someone better look to penalize BBC News and The Times for using the terminology too.[6][7]. Ah, but I mustn't forget. Our Wikipedia articles say that the evil TERF people are apparently very powerful in the UK. There also exists all those articles criticizing Jessica Yaniv and how Yaniv is questionably extending what trans rights entail, but that ain't nothing, I guess. Editors can't even achieve a consensus to categorize people as "climate change deniers" (a widely used term for a certain sector) because of "pejorative" arguments. Ah, but if there were a similar debate there on "TERF," most of the people there would support categorizing people as TERFs. Good luck with that.

You'll be lookin' to get Aeusoes1, EllsworthSK, Crossroads1, and Rhinocera blocked or topic banned for having different view points too, huh? Good luck with that.

There's somethin' else I think I wanted to say. Yessss, that's right. To save Fæ the trouble of snooping into my account, my sister is Flyer22 Reborn. Threaten me if ya like. Throw the DS on my talk page. Leave my sister out of it. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I never referred to the "tears and piss" quote when I said that Pyxis Solitary self-identified as a TERF. You chose to defend that quote because _you yourself_ thought it was TERFy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.232.202.112 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Excellent spin logic there, anon. Explain why you said she identified as a TERF then, if it wasn't for the reason I highlighted higher up and on my talk page?[8] If I didn't know of how particular folks use the term, I wouldn't be someone to think of "non-trans lesbian" (or "non-trans lesbian who ain't into trans women") and "TERF" as the same darn thing. Just because I know why you said she identifies as a TERF doesn't mean I agree with ya. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"Some of y'all call any lesbian a TERF", no, the only person publishing homophobic comments here is you. This puts you in conflict with the Arbcom discretionary sanctions, because you are (apparently) either trolling or making jokes at the expense of the LGBT+ community. Your behaviour here is offensive and disruptive and may cause distress to other editors, including those you are claiming to "defend" but are in practice canvassing to stir up dramah. I suggest you desist, preferably by taking this page off your watchlist. Thanks!

For anyone confused about the sources linked in the above comment, the BBC has never stated that a trans ideology exists, the link given discusses some offensive anti-trans slurs from "Fair Play for Women", an extremist anti-trans lobbyist group that has a long history of misgendering and attacking trans women on Twitter and attempting to remove any trans rights or equality legislation. Similarly the Times link is not a piece of Times journalism but an anti-trans lobbyist letter, with all recognisable names being those that are known to publish and support extreme anti-trans rhetoric. These are not sources that illuminate a Wikipedia article, apart from demonstrating TERF extremist views. --Fæ (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Man, now you want to claim that pinging people is canvassing after you voted against that viewpoint, and following your viewpoints about Twitter and all that jazz? You claim I'm publishing homophobic comments. So the anon who is spitting homophobic garbage about how Pyxis Solitary is a TERF for saying "I am a Lesbian. I'm not Gay. I'm not Bisexual. I'm not Pansexual. I'm not Transgender. I'm not Transexual. I'm not Non-binary. I'm not Bigender. I'm not Skoliosexual. I am a homosexual female and the only thing fluid about me is blood, sweat, tears, and piss." isn't? The anon read between the lines to see that Pyxis Solitary is a non-trans lesbian woman who isn't into trans women, and the anon called her a TERF for it. You agreeing with the anon wanting Pyxis Solitary "forbidden from editing this page" because of their exclusive sexual attraction to non-trans women or even for saying "trans ideology" is despicable. It's also homophobic as fuck. The IP is spitting the same garbage (excuse me, utter shit) seen on Tumblr and other corners of the web where a lesbian can't even say she's a lesbian and is only sexually attracted to non-trans women without being called transphobic or a TERF for it. Do you think people should fake or try to unlearn their sexual attraction for the sake of inclusivity? Where are all the gay men being called TERFs for not being into trans men? Ah, but I mustn't forget. Trans men usually don't pull the "you're transphobic if you ain't into me" shit. Gay men, heterosexual men and heterosexual women aren't usually called "TERFs." The "TERF" crap is mainly aimed at lesbians. Coincidence? You put the forth the argument that my "behaviour here is offensive and disruptive and may cause distress to other editors." Look in the mirror! That's how some of the editors you keep disparaging feel. You've disparaged at the "TERF" page.[9] You've disparaged at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.[10]. You've disparaged at the "Feminist views on transgender topics" page.[11] Your topic ban should be reinstated.

Even trans folks use the terminology "trans ideology." They are using it right now to describe the disturbing behavior of Jessica Yaniv. Thank you, YouTube. Thank the heavens for the trans people calling Yaniv out. Yaniv is doing more damage to trans people than Meghan Murphy has ever done.

Wanting our BLPs to follow policy ain't looking to stir up dramah. Playing the victim, a known trait of yours (and mentioned by Sitush before), is. Your scare tactics and attempts at intimidation won't work on me. You went to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment to further your bullying cause. I went to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists to put a stop to the insanity. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Could we at least try to resist the slide into one-on-one namecalling and insults, which is fully contrary to CIVIL and is particularly inappropriate in a discretionary sanctions area? Halo Jerk1, WP's treatment of ideological labels does not run parallel to the treatment of sexualities and religious identities, and for you to pretend that it does or should is just unhelpful. Also, whatever your feelings are about the Jessica Yaniv case (and why you have such intense feelings about it, given your own professed identities and pronouns, I have no idea), it seems pretty clear to me that your gratuitous characterization of her behaviour as "disturbing" is signalling a BIAS that really ought to disqualify you from editing this page per BLPCOI. Also, pretending that the TERF wars are putting "lesbians" against "trans activists" shows zero recognition of the complexity of the actual queer politics of the situation, which is much more complex and nuances (e.g., most queer women in Canada aren't on the side you're calling "lesbian"), as our WP articles must also try to be. Newimpartial (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Cursing is not necessarily uncivil. I can cut back on the cursing. However, it's peculiar that you talk about me being uncivil, given the many, many times Fæ has been uncivil. You never call out Fæ's incivility. It's always someone else doing the calling out. I don't understand what you mean when you say "WP's treatment of ideological labels does not run parallel to the treatment of sexualities and religious identities, and for you to pretend that it does or should is just unhelpful." WP:LABEL is WP:LABEL. WP:YESPOV is WP:YESPOV. As for Jessica Yaniv, she is all in the news. Please don't characterize my concerns to be about Jessica Yaniv. However, Yaniv is a part of this case. The Wikipedia page not mentioning her name doesn't make that any less so. I don't understand what you think my own "professed identities and pronouns" has to do with anything. All you know is that I am male. I know you aren't saying that a man, non-trans or trans, can't comment on this topic. If you are, tough. There are trans people who seriously doubt that Yaniv is actually trans. Also, Yaniv's behavior is disturbing. You calling that description "gratuitous" is ridiculous. You know what behavior I'm talkin' about, and I ain't gonna elaborate so that you can cry "BLP violation." As for "pretending that the TERF wars are putting 'lesbians' against 'trans activists"? You like to ignore reliable sources, I know that. I've seen you. The reliable sources commenting on it can't all be characterized as "TERF sources" unless you are using "TERF" as a synonym for "lesbian." I agree that the topic "is much more complex" with "nuances." It's also concerns a rift between lesbians and trans women. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I am familiar enough with the BC hair removal case, and it does not at all fit the characterization you have offered of "TERF""Trans" vs. "lesbian". Also, I am not saying that men are in no position to comment, but the degree of passion you are bringing to this discussion reminds me of non-feminist "gender critical" ideology more than it does anything else, and that perspective has not proved helpful in other discussions of trans-related articles that I've seen. As far as LABEL is concerned, it has a specific carve-out for labels that are consistently used by RS, and please take a look at BLP - our actual policy in this area which distinguishes between religious and sexuality labels (with a high standard of verification) and other cases, including political and ideological labels. Newimpartial (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be reading a page in a parallel universe where I said that the Yaniv case is about "TERF" vs. "lesbian." Are there reliable sources that criticize Yaniv having had the ability to shut down Murphy? Yep. Are there reliable sources that criticize trans women shutting down the voice of lesbians? Yep. However, those are all TERF sources to you, even when they are just lesbians talking about their right to speak on their sexuality (including not being sexually attracted to trans women). Any opposition to your viewpoints reminds you of non-feminist "gender critical" ideology more than it does anything else. I've noticed that. You are wrong about WP:LABEL. And don't forget about WP:YESPOV. The only passion I have in this dispute is to see the misuse of guidelines and policies, with opinions pieces, and the bullying, end. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Halo Jerk1, you accuse me of reading parallel universe discussions about "TERF" versus "Lesbian" and then in the same paragraph you say "those are all TERF sources to you, even when they are just lesbians ..." I undoubtedly phrased myself in a confusing way (since corrected) but that is exactly what I was talking about. Take away the gaslighting from your last comments, and here are my points responding to what is left:

• I haven't dismissed any sources as "TERF sources" or any writers as "TERFS", at any time.
• I haven't said or implied that everyone I disagree with carries a non-feminist gender critical ideology; above, I was explaining why identities like feminist, male and for that matter cis seem relevant to me in this discussion.
• I am saying that "Trans" vs. "Lesbian" is a false dichotomy (e.g. most Canadian organizations for lesbians are trans-inclusionary).
• I am also saying that "TERF" and "Lesbian" are non-synonymous terms; most Lesbians aren't TERFs and many TERFs aren't lesbians.
• LABEL requires that controversial terms be consistently used and that RS be available to show their use; I am not convinced that TERF is controversial in that sense, but I also made sure I had the RS citations in hand before restoring the term.

Please refrain from the mind reading / gaslighting and the ASPERSIONS, and don't equate criticism of the BC hair removal complaintant with "trans women shutting down lesbians" discourse, and this night go somewhat better for all participants. Newimpartial (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The way you edit trans or trans-related articles and argue on these talk pages speak louder than any truthful admission on your part. So does your twisting of words, since I didn't "equate criticism of the BC hair removal complaintant with 'trans women shutting down lesbians' discourse." It's good that you mentioned Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, mind reading, and gaslighting. Your and Fæ's aspersions, mind reading, and gaslighting are boring and need to stop. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You said, and I quote "Are there reliable sources that criticize Yaniv having had the ability to shut down Murphy? Yep. Are there reliable sources that criticize trans women shutting down the voice of lesbians? Yep." I see that as "equating" the two things, and that's what I called it. If you meant something else, then please explain, but I wasn't twisting your words. I haven't done any mind reading or gaslighting, as you repeatedly did above when you repeatedly attributed to me opinions I don't hold and described me as making arguments I have never made. I would appreciate your not doing that, per CIVIL (which is actually a policy). Also, please don't lump me in with Fae; so far I have managed not to mix you in with any other editor. Newimpartial (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What you see is often through a distorted lens. For example, "'Trans' vs. 'Lesbian' is a false dichotomy (e.g. most Canadian organizations for lesbians are trans-inclusionary)."? No, it ain't. Do you think people can't Google? The rift is real, and many reliable sources talk about it. It also depends on what you mean by "trans-inclusionary," because if you mean that most lesbians are open to dating trans women, the little data on that does not support that statement. I know you like to use Canada to represent the world, but stop it. You've repeatedly engaged in mind reading and gaslighting. I'm not going to quote the instances. I know you like to debate, and debate, and debate, debate, and debate, and debate. You live for this. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

By "trans-inclusionary" in the context of feminism I mean "inclusive of Trans women in women-designated spaces", which I take to be the conventional definition. In Canada this is the stance of most lgbt2sq organizations and also happens to be the state of the law as well. Neither these organizations nor the law take a position about who individual lesbians should date (and neither do I), and neither should you or any man IMO.

And by the way, I do not live for debate: I live for drugs. Newimpartial (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It didn't seem like you were talking about "in the context of feminism" with that previous "trans' vs. 'lesbian' is a false dichotomy (e.g. most Canadian organizations for lesbians are trans-inclusionary)" bit. And I don't wanna hear about "in Canada."

Unlike some, I defend people's right to date who they want to date. If a person is shamed or called transphobic for not wanting to date a trans person, as some are (a fact that even some trans people talk about), I'm going to stand up for that person's right to say no or "I'm not sexually attracted to trans people." The rights of people should concern everyone. Since some trans women are sexually attracted to men, and some trans folks are in my life, that's another reason it concerns me. I'm not disqualified on speaking on these issues or supporting a woman's right to date who she wants because I'm a man. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Fae, you may not know about it, or not acknowledge it, but lesbians being discriminated against and harassed by transgender activists, for their exclusively same-sex sexual orientation, is a very real phenomenon. AfterEllen has published about this. (And has predictably received a torrent of hatred for it.) I know several lesbian bloggers/activists/etc. from around the webosphere who report the same experience. See also the Lesbians at Ground Zero report from the Get The L Out project, or read the works of Sister Outrider for a black lesbian perspective on the phenomenon.

That being said, I wish we could all return to focusing on the content of the article. Wikipedia using the term "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" to describe anyone is unacceptable when the very nature of the term is subject to a large public debate, and no reliable sources can pin down exactly what it means without another, equally reliable source contradicting it.

Rhino (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Rhino, Fæ knows that, but Fæ likes to pretend that evil lesbians are pulling these experiences/disgusting accounts out of their asses. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The goal here (focus on content) is laudable, Rhino, but the both-sidesism you are promoting about these issues is troubling. There are not two equal sides about the term TERF or about Trans-exclusion, within feminism or queer politics. There is a trans-inclusive majority and there is a minority of feminists (often but not always lesbian feminists) that oppose trans-inclusion and ally with non-feminists (often cultural conservatives) to do so. This is the world the RS describe, and so - until that world itself chances, according to the sources - this is the world we are bound to depict in articles. FALSEBALANCE and IDONTHEARTHAT won't help us achieve this. Newimpartial (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be your opinion (and that of other editors here who promote transgender activism), but not reflected by reliable sources like you claim. Rhino (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

It is the conclusion one reaches from the sources cited in the article. As most of the sources you have cited offering "alternative perspectives" are written by the subject of this article, or don't bear on the subject at all, I think we need to let the sources speak rather than personal POV. Newimpartial (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

"most of the sources you have cited offering "alternative perspectives" are written by the subject of this article, or don't bear on the subject at all" -- That's wrong, please take another look. Many reliable sources explain how "TERF" is a very contentious term. Rhino (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you could link to one of the articles in question that is not written by this article's subject, that is not an op-ed, and that actually spells out reasoned grounds to interptet TERF as a slur (or even a "very contentious term", which they say about what supremacist also and yet we use the term in WP's voice when RS do so). Because I found zero of your "greatest hits" list that meets these criteria. Newimpartial (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I've re-categorized the links in my user page earlier today, so you might want to check it again now. The unpartisan news article on Inside Higher Ed mentions that "TERF" is contentious, the Morning Star piece shows that major voices on the British left agree, and various opinion pieces on highly RS pages like The Guardian and New Statesman provide the "reasoned grounds to interpret TERF as a slur" which you are looking for. None of them are written by Meghan Murphy or quote her. But I've already linked these to you before, haven't I? Rhino (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rhinocera: FYI, a reliable source where scholars describe "TERF" as "a slur and at best derogatory" and object to its use: "Derogatory Language in Philosophy Journal Risks Increased Hostility and Diminished Discussion (guest post) (Update: Response from Editors)". Justin Weinberg (August 27, 2018), Daily Nous. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, added to my list. :-) Rhino (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary describes themselves as a TERF on their user page. They should be forbidden from editing this page due to their non-neutral, hateful perspective.
#1 WP:NPA:  "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans."  You can read the rest in the policy.
#2 This article is a WP:BLP:  "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement....The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism...does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times...contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion...Avoid repeating gossip...Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources...BLPs should simply document what [reliable] sources say."  You can read the rest in the policy.
You think I should be banned from editing this page because I oppose the injecting of "TERF" into the BLP without reliable sources that describe her as a "TERF"? Because I enforce WP:NPV:  "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Avoid stating facts as opinions. Prefer nonjudgmental language."?
You think I should be banned from editing this BLP because I identify as a Lesbian and homosexual female? Go ahead. File a complaint against me. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The consensus on Wikipedia is that "While these feminists perceive the term to be a slur, mainstream feminists, other academics, and trans people have rejected this view.". It's not derogatory, it's descriptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.232.202.112 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You stated above that "she's against trans ideology", do you withdraw your claim that trans women are part of a "trans ideology" or that a "trans ideology" exists?

Using Wikipedia to promulgate damaging false claims about trans women is a problem, because your words on this page are in conflict with Arbcom discretionary sanctions. Any search for sources shows that it is only anti-trans lobbyists that promote a myth of a "trans ideology", and Wikipedia is not an open forum where transphobic or homophobic lobbyists are free to spam hostile attacks. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

"By the way, Pyxis Solitary, there is no such thing as "trans ideology"." You have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. What I've found in: The American Spectator, The Times, New York Magazine, The Economist, The Herald, The Australian, Las Vegas Review-Journal, The Federalist, BBC News, Public Discourse, The Fifth Column, Spiked, First Things, The College Fix, The Bridgehead, Redline, Anglican Mainstream, Medium, Counter-Currents Publishing, Disclose.tv, Julie Bindel, etc. etc. etc., say otherwise.
You want to bring up alerts? How about this one: "Canvassing insinuation: Re your comments in Articles for deletion/Get the L Out and Reliable sources/Noticeboard#UncommonGroundMedia. This is a formal request that you cease insinuating that I have engaged in canvassing: 1 and 2...."
You pushed the envelope once. Stop trying to intimidate me or bully me here or anywhere. Gaming with threats of Arbcom will backfire. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No, you are not collecting random sources for an article called Trans ideology, you are personally stating that trans women are part of a trans ideology. This is a misuse of Wikipedia, it is an attack against the LGBT+ community to use Wikipedia in this way. You are in contravention of the Arbcom discretionary sanctions. As for your list of editorials by famously anti-trans lobbyists like Julie Bindel, that is evidence of anti-trans lobbyists attacking the very existence of trans women, not evidence that the trans community has a mysterious secret agenda and they are working to corrupt society, or abuse children, or rape lesbians, all types of fake news that you apparently want to see accepted on Wikipedia. Give over, this is hostile transphobic crap, and you should not publishing it as "fact" here.

As for canvassing, duh, the evidence is right above in the paragraph written by Halo Jerk, by pinging their chosen list of editors that they think might support their lobbying views. It's the very definition of canvassing and dramah-mongering. --Fæ (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No. I am contradicting your "there is no such thing as "trans ideology"." As I said, you have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Furthermore, WP:BIASED: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective....Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Pyxis Solitary yak 11:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I am uninterested in encouraging your deliberate tangents. Focus on the question: Do you withdraw your claim that trans women are part of a trans ideology? --Fæ (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No editor owes you an answer to a personal question. Including me. Wikipedia is not your private battleground. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

So that's a no then. You are stating that you will continue to misuse Wikipedia to deliberately spread the fake news meme that trans women are guilty of having a "trans ideology". --Fæ (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said, you have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

So that's still a no then. You are stating that you will continue to misuse Wikipedia to deliberately spread the fake news meme that trans women are guilty of having a "trans ideology". Thanks for the clarification, it's always useful to have a black and white record of Wikipedia misuse and in this case deliberate and flagrant contravention of Arbcom discretionary sanctions. --Fæ (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said, you have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Pyxis Solitary yak 12:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

In regards to canvasing, WP:CANVAS doesn't seem to explicitly say pinging editors constitutes canvasing, but it probably should. It does strike me, as Fæ indicates, as attempting to draw in people who might take one particular side. While I disagree with Fæ's uncivil threats (toothless as they may be) against Pyxis Solitary, I do agree with Fæ that calling Murphy a TERF in the lede seems appropriate, given the sources and given that TERF itself is a neutral term. Since I was brought here by a canvassing attempt (in spirit, if not in fact), this will be my only post here in defense of myself or my views. I've got a talk page if people have further comments towards me. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, going by reliable sources, neither is "TERF" is a neutral term (see my user page), nor is there a single nonpartisan RS factually calling Meghan Murphy such. See section below where Fae failed to produce any RS for this claim. The article is in a completely terrible state right now, and that despite being a WP:BLP article. Thank you Fae and Newimpartial. Rhino (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

What I spy with my eyes is Fæ having a different opinion on what constitutes canvassing. Not once, but twice. Here and here. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sauzer: Putting aside the lobbying and canvassing of this thread by the usual suspects for a moment, a simple search for news articles about "Meghan Murphy" shows overwhelmingly only returns about her ban for hate speech on Twitter, the associated legal case and associated rejections by various notable institutions as a public speaker on feminism, because of her becoming famous for her hate speech on Twitter. Even this basic test of what Murphy is now most notable for, shows that her internet footprint and public interest coverage is all based on her hateful published views about trans women. This makes her the very definition of what it is to be known for TERF views, and so including a statement about her as a "trans exclusionary" or "anti-trans" notable person is entirely appropriate and extremely easy to reliably source with many, many reliable sources in the body of the article. If anything her campaigning against trans rights needs expansion.

I recommend that those tempted to edit-war over the inclusion of "trans", focus on sources first, as they make the emphasis needed in the lede very obvious. --Fæ (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

"This makes her the very definition of what it is to be known for TERF views...." WP:UNDUE conclusions are definitely not acceptable in BLPs. Even if she is known for having opinions against transgender activism and transgender rights legislation, she is also known for having other views that have nothing to do with transgender. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, no she is not really known to most people for anything other than her Twitter ban for hate speech, deliberately and repeatedly misgendering trans women. That's what she does, and that's what this article needs to make clear in order to ensure a fair representation of the reliable source evidence. She's not just a TERF, the legal case makes her a poster girl example of being a TERF. --Fæ (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope. The Twitter lawsuit does not define the BLP. Her public statements about the sex industry preceded the Twitter case, as well as her opinions about male feminists, the sex industry, etc. You may want to pigeonhole Murphy, but that's not going to fly in the BLP. Do you need an Admin to explain the difference between POV and WP:PROPORTION. Pyxis Solitary yak 12:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Duh, "weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" was literally my point, try reading it rather than just slagging me off and attacking my intelligence or experience. The vast majority of most widely read news articles of public interest are about Murphy's Twitter case and her subsequent rejection by multiple respected institutions for her hate speech. Her ranty blog and weird anti-trans rubbish that bills itself as somehow about women's rights, is all secondary chaff compared to that TERF footprint. Ranty pro-TERF editorials by famously anti-trans lobbyists and pundits are not "reliable, published material", it's just more social media click bait and lobbyist PR. --Fæ (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment before restoring the TERF attribute in the lede, I checked the available sourcing and found that multiple RS (including mainstream ones) use that term in relation to the article's subject. I would not have restored the term if I had not found such attributions; I have also found no RS that argue that the subject does not represent a TERF perspective, only the subject arguing that the term itself constitutes hate speech. This is strictly parallel to other political labels that are consistently applied to subjects of BLPs that are not accepted by the article subjects themselves, and I am following the same principle here as policy dictates and as I do elsewhere: follow the RS, don't give undue WEIGHT to the subject's own political labels but note the subject's reservations where properly sourced. It seems clear that this particular subject is notable mostly for her TERF activism (and previously for her anti-SW activism) and so we should be clear about this in the lede. Newimpartial (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and Pyxis Solitary - it wasn't a topic for this page, really, but you can't make the argument that "transgender ideology" exists just because people object to it on OpEd pages, and especially not on the basis of "facts" unless you actually have some. That is literally the "Cultural Marxism" argumentation all over again, and it simply isn't valid under any circumstances. Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

In my 06:53, 25 July 2019 comment I said "she's against trans ideology and transgender rights legislation." The term "trans ideology" and "gender ideology" are used interchangeably in various publications and talks, by Murphy and other journalists, authors, and speakers. The section on Bill C-16 states "which encoded gender identity". On 09:31, 12 July 2019 gender ideology was added to lead and deleted on 12 July 2019, re-added and re-deleted. On 10:37, 24 July 2019 I added "She is critical of gender identity ideology" to the Views section and provided sources that state "gender ideology". The terminology was removed on 25 July 2019. I restored it with additional sources. It was removed again on 21:53, 25 July 2019. Which led to a personal attack by IP 104.232.202.112. The same 104.232.202.112 that called me a "TERF" in her/his 15:06, 1 August 2019 comment above. The term "Trans ideology" exists and its existence is verified by numerous sources. Editors don't get to pick and choose what sources are or are not convenient for supporting or disputing information. WP:OSTRICH: "We do not make our own judgments about the importance of a topic, we use reliable sources instead" is also relevant in regards to the nitpicking of subjects in an article. But above all, this is a BLP, where WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NOR are absolute policies. Pyxis Solitary yak 03:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Terms such as "trans ideology", "gender ideology" and for that matter "gender critical" are used by a minority within Queer communities and queer scholarship that are hostile to the inclusion of Trans people and/or who equate the recognition of gender identity with some kind of oppression based on gendered essences (if I understand the argument correctly). As such, these terms are located within a fringe discourse (much the same way as "Cultural Marxism" is used within another fringe discourse). The fact that these terms undeniably are used does not imply that the phenomena that they refer to exist, or that the terms give a valid label and interpretation to the phenomena. In this article we could certainly explain the terms the subject uses and preFers (and indeed we already do this to some extent), but what we cannot do is use FRINGE terms as though they describe consensus reality. Newimpartial (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm somewhat agnostic on the question of whether or not the exact phrase "trans-exclusionary" must appear in the lead, but she's widely known for claiming that transgender women are men, opposing self ID laws, and arguing that gender identity is an ideology that harms women's rights, and for those reasons, critics have argued that she is anti-trans, described her as TERF, and have questioned her commitment to feminism. She disputes these characterizations, and describes herself as a radical feminist. To the extent she gets covered at all in the mainstream press, it is overwhelmingly for her very public advocacy against legislation that is intended to protection trans people. I don't think we can necessarily say that she is either a radical feminist or a trans-exclusionary radical feminist as a matter of fact, but we do need to mention the controversy in the lead. Nblund ^talk 16:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I have been so bold and refined the lead section to be neutral, while the discussion here seems to be going off on tangents and turning into an ideological battleground. Wikipedia seems to have a great many rules, so let's all adhere to them. As per WP:BLPCOI: "editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." If anyone here has a habit of calling people "TERF," they might want to be extra careful in their edits to stick to neutrality. :-) Rhino (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The term TERF has been discussed extensively on WP, and it has been generally agreed that the term has a fairly neutral connotation; it is also a term of self-identification for some (though not all) of those espousing TERF perspectives and attitudes. On the other hand, since most of the editors participating on the various talk pages you've edited since joining Wikipedia do not find your perspective to be neutral or grounded in sources, maybe you are not the best judge of what is neutral? You appear to the the one with a strongly biased view regarding this article's subject, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources contradict your claim that the term "TERF" has a neutral connotation. See my user page. And I've never heard of someone calling herself "TERF" except in jest; citations welcome. Rhino (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary did so very recently, though in an unfortunate way. Also, the main writer making the "slur" argument in the sources you cite on your user page is the subject of this article. Newimpartial (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, really? Show me where I called myself a "TERF"? Pyxis Solitary yak 03:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

My mistake - I really thought you had. Comment struck. Newimpartial (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yup. The same  IP 104.232.202.112  editor posted a bogus comment attributed to me with a fake signature. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Take another look at my user page please, Newimpartial:

"For some, using the word “TERF” means calling out transphobia where they see it. For others, the word is a slur that has no place in academic discourse." -- First sentence of a neutral news article from Inside Higher Ed. Unrelated to Meghan Murphy.

"Serwotka also pointed to online use of the acronym “Terf,” which stands for “trans exclusionary radical feminist.” “This word is always used alongside misogynistic language,” she said, “Terf means a woman not worthy of respect.” -- Opinion of A Woman's Place UK spokeswoman Ruth Serwotka published in Morning Star (British newspaper). Unrelated to Meghan Murphy.

“Terf is now being used in a kind of discourse which has clear similarities with hate-speech directed at other groups (it makes threats of violence, it includes other slur-terms, it uses metaphors of pollution)…” -- Feminist linguist Deborah Cameron quoted by Sarah Ditum in an opinion piece for New Statesman. Unrelated to Meghan Murphy.

"Where the advance of terf, as a bullying tool, has already succeeded in repressing speech – and maybe even research – “transphobe”, while being less snarl-friendly, has the advantage of implying that any child-related caution – about, say, lack of research on the longer term outcomes of early transition – could never be reasoned, only pathological." -- Opinion piece by Catherine Bennett published by The Guardian. Unrelated to Meghan Murphy.

"More recently, at the Anarchist Book Fair, Helen Steel was surrounded, she writes, by “around 30 trans activists who shouted misogynistic abuse in my face and at others, and who would not leave me alone. This included: ugly terf, fucking terf scum, bitch, fascist and more.”" -- Helen Steel being quoted in the same opinion piece.

And that's not even all. Was I able to convince you? :-)

Reliable sources clearly indicate that "TERF" is a questionable label. Wikipedia musn't use it to describe people.

Rhino (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be recycling a list of mostly anti-trans writers and their views without providing any links. Not useful in this context, unlikely to convince anyone that these are illuminating sources. The IHE article (link) actually concludes with a quote "Please stop your harassment of Dr. Rachel McKinnon,” reads one of many similar emails received by this reporter after requesting comment from McKinnon. “‘TERF’ is not a slur. [McKinnon] needs your support, not your contributing to further hate and violence threats from TERFs.

A deeper dive into the views being quoted:

• Deborah Cameron, one of 130 signatures on the list opposing the ban against notorious anti-trans writer Julie Bindel.
• Ruth Serwotka not only speaks for an anti-trans lobbyist group, but also signed that letter supporting Julie Bindel.
• Helen Steel, repeatedly promotes the existence of a "trans ideology" in the press and campaigns against trans women equality.

--Fæ (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Rhino, you have by your own account given a list of op-ed pieces which, per policy, are almost never to be considered RS for factual or descriptive statements. Thee only exception is the Inside Higher Ed piece, which could be used to support the claim that opinions differ about the term TERF but which by no means offers a RS confirmation of its status as a slur, as you appear to believe. Newimpartial (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Fae, Newimpartial, when you cherry-pick news articles and op-eds that support your point of view, and ignore or misrepresent news articles and op-eds that oppose your point of view because you dislike their authors, of course it will look like reliable sources agree with you. News articles and op-eds from the reliable sources in my user page show that "TERF" as a term is the subject of acute public debate, and as such cannot be used by Wikipedia in an objective way to describe someone. The sources I provided are not any less reliable than the ones currently provided in the article. I would like to point once more at WP:BLPCOI, since I believe your strong personal views on the matter are clouding your judgment. Rhino (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Rhino, by your own account you are citing IHE and two op-eds. Sure, The Guardian and The New Stateman are RS, but per NEWSORG, opinion pieces are not to be generally used for descriptive statements, and you are giving us opinions only. It is also worth noting again that this is a BLP of a Canadian subject, so the way terms are framed in specifically UK sources (where trans-exclusionary sentiment among feminists is stronger, according to our TERF article) does not necessarily apply to the subject if this article. We have many citations in this article from reliable (including mainstream) news organizations; let's try not to water it down. Newimpartial (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You are ignoring my central point. The IHE news piece and many RS opinion pieces prove that "TERF" as a term is contentious and matter of acute public debate. As such, Wikipedia cannot use it to describe someone. Meanwhile, could you please directly link me to all RS that you have which factually describe Meghan Murphy as a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" instead merely talking about some people labeling as such? Thanks. Rhino (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You are confusing "proof" with op-eds that on investigation are quoting some of the most extreme anti-trans TERF writers on the planet. It would be great if you would consider dropping this stick, everyone else has much bigger sticks, and yours has turned out to be a soft curly-whirly, you just keep refusing to actually look at it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Fae, you are displaying extreme bias again and again. Please tone down the hostility and take a better look. The IHE news piece is not opinion. The other pieces, which are opinion, stand in contrast to the opinion pieces which you and other editors have used to make statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Rhino (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we could start with Media Matters, which refers to Feminist Current as a "pro-TERF blog" in its remarkably in-depth analysis. Newimpartial (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a prime example of an opinion piece. There's enough of those on my user page showcasing the opposing point of view. :-) Rhino (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

From Media Matters for America: "Media Matters for America was founded in May 2004 by David Brock, a former conservative journalist who became a progressive. Brock said that he founded the organization to combat the conservative journalism sector that he had once been a part of. He founded the group with help from the Center for American Progress. Initial donors included Leo Hindery, Susie Tompkins Buell, and James Hormel."
So ... an opinion piece (aka "analysis") in a "progressive" source get a thumbs-up, but anything from a conservative source does not. Double-standard much? Pyxis Solitary yak 01:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I took a good, solid look at RSN before recommending the source in question. WP has generally found Media Matters information reliable, depending on the specific instance. I find this instance quite clear; it isn't a matter of "progressive" or "conservative". Newimpartial (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It's still an "opinion". It is not a news story. No need to look further than the closing paragraph: "Right-wing media figures like Carlson ... are pushing a larger agenda that is anti-transgender ... But other media outlets and media consumers should be aware that nothing could be further from the truth; without transgender people leading the way, LGBTQ liberation cannot take place." This is a personal statement. And if a conservative opinion piece is not acceptable as RS -- neither is a liberal one. The door swings both ways. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Attempt at gaming WP:3RR reverted. At the WP:BLP noticeboard, editors ain't for that lack of attribution in a situation like this. They are for WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE, and two of those are policies. Editors saying their opinion pieces are better than the other side's opinion pieces is poppycock. I agree with Rhinocera. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

And see Masem's comment at the BLP noticeboard about the lead.[12]. Don't tell me really gonna have to do an RfC on this. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, if you can't tell the difference between well-informed and -researched analysis with a POV, and out-of-the-anal-orifice opinion - well, that's what the FALSEBALANCE policy is supposed to resolve.

And Halo Jerk1, the version you restored isn't attributed, it's WEASEL - you won't get any points for that. Also, none of the recent RfCs concerning anti-trans POV have turned out well for the goals of said anti-trans POV, but hey! Maybe you'll change the trend. And make no mistake: enshrining FALSEBALANCE by ignoring the actual balance of RS is objectively anti-trans even if not intended as such. I AGF in your motives, but the results of your proposals for encyclopedic tone would be as bad as the Sealion attacks of yore. Newimpartial (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

At the noticeboard, there are the explicit statements about the article, like these.[13][14]. And then there are the comments like this one.[15]. You don't understand WP:WEASEL. You don't understand WP:FALSEBALANCE. Masem's been editing longer than us and he's a better editor than us. He's right. Sealion attacks? Man. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Abracadabra: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed. " Media Matters for America is considered a "biased" source. So once again, what's good enough for liberal opinion sources is good enough for conservative opinion sources. Pyxis Solitary yak 07:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

That terse phrase doesn't really encapsulate the actual RSN discussions in question. Also, in spite of what others have characterized elsewhere, I have no problem with their disruption of Feminist Current being attributed; I was simply offering a reliable source. Finally, in a discussion concerning Feminism, I don't see why a FALSEBALANCE should be created between "liberal and conservative opinion sources" on issues like the status of "TERF". Newimpartial (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Why should that lead to a false balance? If Wikipedia's coverage of feminism was limited to what's said by liberal publications that adhere to a certain narrow definition of feminism, that would surely not be balanced at all. Should articles about creationism primarily use citations from a set of Christian conservative publications that all adhere to the same interpretation of Christianity? Rhino (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Put down the straw man, please. The preponderance of sources on gender identity - both academic sources and feminist organizations - regard the positions taken by the BLP subject and the organizations and supports to be FRINGE positions, and that is employing a broad tent vision of what counts as "feminist". This is simply the state of the existing sources (and reality), while the increasingly desperate attempts to present "but what about" sources, such as The Daily Nous or the Economist's Finance editor, as if they held expertise in this domain - show just the kind of FALSEBALANCE that would result from your interventions. Presenting trans-inclusion as somehow equivalent to creationism is the most offensive kind of gaslighting: mainstream scholarship shows that it is "gender critical" theory that is FRINGE, not feminist intersectionality and trans-inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Removed the most recent comment by User:Rhinocera, this was block evasion and sockpuppetry. --Fæ (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Moving "Opposition to Bill C-16" out of "Controversies"?

Meghan Murphy § Opposition to Bill C-16 is currently under the "Controversies" section. However, the current text does not describe any controversy, only her position about Bill C-16 and her appearance before Canadian Senate. I think it should be moved out of that section, maybe to "Views"? --MarioGom (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There are two issues here. First, her position on C-16 was indeed controversial; the vast majority of experts and civil society groups supported bill C-16, which was in fact passed into law. So if the current text does not communicate that her position was controversial, that is a failure of NPOV and ENC.

On the other hand, policy suggests that "Controversies" sections are better divided into smaller sections for specific issues, so I would support a breakup of the current section into its component parts. Newimpartial (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial: First, her position on C-16 was indeed controversial. The sources that are referenced don't seem to back that there was a particular controversy about Murphy's appearance. Indeed, opposition to the bill was a minority position, but describing Murphy's appearance before the Senate as a controversial episode itself would require reliable sources to back it up. Anyway, if I understand correctly, you are suggesting moving "Controversy" subsections into first level headers? Best, --MarioGom (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Since the position Murphy expressed on C-16 led directly to the ensuing large-scale protests in Vancouver and Toronto, I don't see how it could be considered "uncontroversial".

In terms of the structure of the article, perhaps the most policy-compliant course would be to separate the first part of the rabble.vs section (dealing with Murphy's opposition to objectification and sex work), and to group the rest under "Anti-trans activism" or similar, for which she is now best known. Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• In the sources, Murphy talks about "gender identity" and "gender expression". Her testimony before the Senate of Canada Standing Committee is:
  –  According to Justice Canada, “gender identity” is defined as “a person’s internal or individual experience of their gender.” But this definition misunderstands what gender is. Gender is not about internal or individual experiences — it is a social construction. It exists as a means to reinforce stereotypes and oppressive ideas about men and women. Gender does not mean male or female; it means masculine or feminine.
  –  No one is born with a gender. We are born male or female and gender is then imposed on us through socialization.
  –  Women and girls around the world are killed, prostituted, raped and abused every single day not because they wear dresses, have long hair or behave passively but because they are female.
  –  Women’s rights exist on this basis because we, as a society, understand that women are discriminated against and subjected to male violence regardless of their clothing, body language or behaviour, which is now apparently being defined as “gender expression.”
  –  The idea that women could simply express themselves or identify differently in order to escape oppression under patriarchy is insulting and provably untrue. Yet, this is what ideas like gender identity and gender expression communicate.
  –  Once we start writing into legislation things like gender identity and gender expression, it has the potential to trump women’s rights.
  –  Again, gender isn’t a real thing; this isn’t a quantifiable thing. There’s no way of determining whose gender identity is what because gender isn’t an identity. It’s not something inside. It’s just sexist ideas. That’s all that it is. It’s sexist stereotypes that are imposed on people.
  –  ...what we’re still talking about is sex-based protection, and what we should be defending is the right of people, regardless of whether they are born female or male, to be gender non-conforming, to not fit into the stereotypes I talked about earlier. As I have said, this language is a big problem because it treats gender as a personal choice. It treats gender as though it’s the clothes that I wear or makeup or behaviour or the way we sit, these things that are all enforced on us through socialization.

The CBC source states:
–  "This language is a big problem because it treats gender as a personal choice. It treats gender as though it's the clothes that I wear or my makeup or my behaviour or the way we sit," Meghan Murphy, a writer and the founder of the website Feminist Current, told senators.
–  Murphy, and some other feminists, have argued that gender is a social construct.
–  "Women are still an oppressed class of people in this country and in this world, and that's solely due to biology."

The Daily Xtra source states:
–  Her comments were echoed by Meghan Murphy, founder of the website Feminist Current, who said Bill C-16 would “reinforce stereotypes and oppressive ideas” by “treating gender as though it is either internal or a personal choice,” instead of a social construction.
Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That seems to show undue deference to the chosen terms of the article's subject, which would be a BLP and NPOV violation. I don't see anyone using the terms the editor introduced, in the sources cited, except for Murphy and other spokespeople of the same POV. Newimpartial (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't argue with what the RS say. Anything else is imposing POV. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The BBC leads with her "controversial views on transgender rights". I don't think we are going to get more neutral or more reliable than that. Newimpartial (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

First, the BBC source you linked is not used in the article. Second, this BBC source states: The library defended its decision to allow her talk on gender identity and "society, the law and women". Campaigners have called Ms Murphy anti-transgender, which she denies.
In other words, what her opponents have labeled her. Based on the BBC source, the article should state that she has been called "anti-transgender" by her opponents. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Per policy, the article should note both that she is "known for her controversial views on transgender rights" and that "she has been called anti-transgender by her opponents". The two statements are different, and both are reliably sourcedz accurate and reflect NPOV. Also, neither follows the pattern so typical in this article of deferring to the ideosyncratic terminology preferred by the article's subject, even outside of paraphrases of her views. Newimpartial (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Paraphrasing sources is what some editors have done, or tried to do, in this bio. Clarification of content is not achieved when personally preferred phrasing (i.e. POV) is injected into the text. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q.

Paraphrasing is good, but as you stated above, we don't argue with that the RS say, I have therefore adopted the key terms used by the sources actually used in the first paragraph of "Controversies". Newimpartial (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Nah. You edited with POV. The RS are specifically about the bill (aka legislation). None of them say Murphy is against "transgender rights". Murphy has not ever, anywhere, said or written that she is "against transgender rights". "Against transgender rights" is how those who disagree with her/are against her twist it. Her cause is all about gender legislation. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have edited the passage to correct the grammar, and without saying she is "against transgender rights" - many sources do in fact say this, including ones in the article, but I am fine leaving it attributed for now. And there is no such thing as "gender legislation" AFAIK. Newimpartial (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"And there is no such thing as "gender legislation"". That's how Murphy sees it. That's what she specifically testifies and speaks out about. You don't like it? Too bad, so sad. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source that talks about "gender legislation" in its own voice? If not, then it is not policy-compliant to use the term in a WP article without attribution. Newimpartial (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I will. Maybe I won't. It depends on how I feel. But in case the obvious isn't ... the phrase "transgender rights legislation" includes the word gender. It's not "trans people rights legislation", it's trans-g-e-n-d-e-r. We don't need a seagull to drop a clue. Canada's Bill C-16 is gender legislation. Oops. I feel a source coming on: "Bill C-16 aims to prevent violence and discrimination against individuals on the basis of their gender identity or their gender expression ... The amending legislation adds gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act." X. G-g-g-g-ender. Murphy's speech before the Scottish Parliament regarded the Gender Recognition Act. Oh, oh. Another source is rearing its head: "The question of gender identity has been in the news on this side of the Atlantic for months due to proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004." Y. The legislation is not called the "Transgender Recognition Act (TRA)" — it's g-g-g-.... Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

You can't just drop the noun from "gender identity" or "gender expression" - or the prefix from "transgender" - and assume the meaning to be unchanged. That is like dropping the nouns from "pound cake", "pound Sterling" or the prefix from "impound" and assuming that they have a meaning in common.

There isn't any source I've seen that refers to the Gender Recognition Act as "gender legeslation" - as far as I know, that's a neologism that you just now created. Newimpartial (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Quack, quack, quack ... duck:
– "Equalities Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said the government’s proposal to reform gender recognition legislation would only take place after another exercise seeking the views of the public."
– "...but we would suggest such language is misleading, given that proposals for reform of gender recognition legislation do not propose to change the meaning of the terms male or female."
– "I will also consider the relationship between gender recognition legislation and the Equality Act 2010."
And then there's Ireland's cha-cha-cha:
– "IT IS not possible to provide an estimated time frame for the introduction of gender recognition legislation..."
–  "A TOTAL OF 99 people had gender recognition certificates granted to them last year under the Gender recognition legislation."
– "The gender recognition bill was passed months after...Last November, the Scottish government launched its own plans to introduce more progressive gender recognition legislation to Holyrood." Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah; you can't drop "recognition" either. That would be like dropping "preparedness" from "emergency preparedness legislation". But I suspect that you know that. Newimpartial (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If a legislation/Bill/or Act is not titled "transgender legislation/Bill/Act" or "transgender rights legislation/Bill/Act" or "transgender recognition legislation/Bill/Act" ... you can't refer to it in those terms, either. The word that exists in common with all legislation/Bill/Act proposals and parliamentary statements and debates is "gender". Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Bollocks. Reliable sources describe C-16 for example as gender identity rights legislation, saying that it "enshrines the rights of transgender and gender-diverse Canadians". Reliable sources never refer to it simply as "gender legislation", so WP can't do so either. Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Double-check the links you add before publishing them. The correct url for the cbc.ca/cbcdocspov source is this, without the gobbledygook. In addition to the title of your source, the singular word "gender" appears 10 times in the text, while "transgender" appears 3 times. So ... g-e-n-d-e-r wins. "Gender identity legislation" is suitable terminology for what Murphy criticizes and is against. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

And "gender legislation" isn't. So we agree :p. Newimpartial (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Back to the topic

So I have done a BOLD edit to the structure of the article, touching the text as little as possible. The aim of this edit is to follow WP:BIO and WP:CRIT and to integrate chronological and thematic strands more effectively in the article, though of course more could be done. I welcome other editors to help with this; it reflects your original idea, MarioGom. Newimpartial (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial: Thank you. It looks goods. --MarioGom (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)