Talk:Mermaids (charity)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Mermaids UK Logo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Using the term TERF in a neutral manner

This article applies TERF to two named individuals. The cited reference is a news site with a position at one end of the spectrum of views on the general subject matter of this article and on the term 'TERF'. For many people, being described as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist is derogatory. If this article is to apply this label to 2 named people, it needs to do so in as neutral a way as possible. I think this should include some sort of balancing view as to whether TERF is fair in this circumstance. At present we just have one source with a particularly polarised view of the subject. The best option so far is to include the views of one of the named individuals on usage of the term. It is not ideal, but without some balancing input, it seems that usage of a derogatory term by a partisan site should not be included in the article. To do otherwise rather implies that Wikipedia agrees with that usage.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No. Graham Linehan is a prominent anti-trans activist and Julie Bindel is the most prominent TERF in existence. Search hits for Rebecca Reilly-Cooper only turned up few editorials written by herself and this PinkNews article, which is unfortunate. The original source only had one line regarding celebrations of the grant suspension, I'd avoid name-dropping Bindel and Cooper as grossly WP:UNDUE. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I think we have some agreement in that the article has dug itself into a bit of a hole by naming 2 people who supported Linehan. I am still hesitant about a structure that uses the term TERF based on a single partisan source. Do you have any thoughts on that point? Does not the account stand by itself without the use of a term that evokes strong feelings but is not universally understood.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The article doesn't use the term TERF; it mentions it. See use-mention distinction. ... who PinkNews described as trans-exclusionary radical feminists is clearly attributed and to a reliable source. In comparison, the blog you added is simply not a reliable source. It's a violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:DUEWEIGHT to "include some sort of balancing". We say what reliable sources say. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 08:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure that an argument based on use-mention distinction is particularly helpful to an ordinary reader of Wikipedia. If the word is there, the reader will take away the point "Wikipedia said.....". Having thought this through, I do not see that the article is better for labelling anyone "TERF", certainly based on a highly partisan source. The reader should be able to make their own judgements based on the facts given and does not need to be fed a term that many feel is derogatory, and which certainly has variable definitions, depending on who uses it. The solution is surely to not use "TERF" at all.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The distinction is incredibly important. If someone reads Immigration policy of Donald Trump and leaves saying "Wikipedia said that Mexican immigrants are rapists" then that's their own fault for failing to distinguish between use and mention in the passage: During his announcement speech he stated in part, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. [...] They're rapists." Similarly, if someone leaves this article saying "Wikipedia called Bindel a TERF" then they're simply not reading what's actually written. It says who PinkNews described as trans-exclusionary radical feminists and this is (a) indisputably true and (b) significant commentary by a reliable source. Partisan does not mean unreliable, just that it shouldn't be the only source used, and indeed it isn't used again in the rest of the article. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 15:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Some answers to the User:Bilorv
(i) use-mention distinction - you will no doubt have read some of the criticism of Wikipedia for having language of too high a reading level. I do not think this encyclopedia should rely on the finer points of English language to convey the information that it contains.
(ii) I still struggle to see how labelling anyone with "TERF" makes this a better article. Surely the actions of people and organisations are described and the reader can make up their own mind what categories people fall into.
(iii) I think that your position that the description of these two women is "indisputably true" suggests that you are pushing your own point of view, rather than relying on reliable sources. The term "TERF" has variable definitions, so that is the first reason to wonder if Wikipedia should confidently be applying it to anyone - even in a quotation.
(iv) Is Pink News a reliable source? I have just re-read WP:RS. I can see that Pink News could be a reliable source if it were balanced by other sources covering the same subject from a different viewpoint. That does not see to be the case here (on the precise subject of stating that someone is a TERF). If no other source addresses, from a different viewpoint, whether this label is appropriate, the word should not be in the article. Also, the derogatory application of "TERF" to a living person tests the way that Wikipedia handles such matters - while the advice is directed toward Biographies of Living Persons, I think we should take some guidance in this instance. You can see from the blog that was briefly in the footnote of this article, that the term is strongly resisted by the person involved.
(v) Finally, I fail to see why clogging up the article with buzzwords and the language of activists does anything to inform the reader.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

To (iii), my intent was to say that it's indisputably true that PinkNews described the people as such. Surely you don't disagree that PinkNews used the term "TERF". That was the only point I was making. For (i), use-mention distinction is not a "finer point of the English language", but a difference in semantic meaning. If someone doesn't understand the difference between "X is Y" and "W said that X is Y" then that's not a problem with our phrasing but with their comprehension. As for (iv), yes, it is reliable. What source from a "different viewpoint" exactly do you propose we add? Blogs are not reliable sources. And for (ii) and (v), one clause does not "clog up the article" and the whole point of Wikipedia is to present the views and statements of reliable sources. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 22:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Just to be clear: My judgement that the name-dropping is undue is not an disrecommendation of the usage of TERF. From my observation, most reliable sources, from reporters to academic authors, either support its usage or uses TERF directly to describe anti-trans feminists and activists. It is not a pejorative or contentious label per se, but rather an accurate description, per the RS available on the topic. The only opposition are editorials and blog posts from these anti-trans campaigners themselves, which obviously aren't reliable sources on gender and sexuality. Bilorv is right in that attempting to "balance" the label by attaching a blog piece is textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. Heck, I can say "white nationalist" is a slur too, and I can make a blog on that in a minute. The attribution to PinkNews is rather awkward aren't necessary, reads like false balance as well. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

There are three points from the two posts above that I would like to challenge.
First, is PinkNews a reliable source? Bilorv asserts that it is. I must reiterate that it can only be an RS if there is a balancing position, because it is a source that presents views only at one end of the spectrum of opinion on the subject. There are other opinions that can readily be found in mainstream newspapers - though I respectfully suggest that these might not fit with those held by others posting on this subject.
Probably just an academic point, since a blog is no longer a ref in the article, but a blog can be an RS if it is acting as a primary source to show the views of the writer of a blog. You will find this discussed under guidance for biographies of living persons.
I challenge the accuracy of User:Tsumikiria's statement that TERF is not pejorative or contentious. It is quite easy to discover that it is not a label that anyone applies to themselves. It is easy to find it being applied to others in a hateful (or worse) manner - though I do not suggest that this is occurring in the article. This must introduce into the minds of an editor the risks inherent in using the term. How does one adopt a WP:NPV if it is used without any full balancing text, including the viewpoints of those to whom this label is applied? My suggested solution to the problem is to simply not use the word "TERF" in the article, and let the narrative of events speak for itself. The alternative is to put in a reference that may be resisted by the others posting here, because they are written (in mainstream newspapers) by people who have had "TERF" applied to them. I wish I could find a way of spelling that out without sounding threatening (something which I would wish to avoid), but the article either has references to people expressing views that oppose those of some trans activists, or it avoids labelling someone as "TERF", even as reporting a view expressed by a source.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, here's my take: You are right that the article shouldn't say "TERFs" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" in Wikipedia's voice. Take a look at WP:WIKIVOICE. Tsumikiria's statement that "TERF" is not a pejorative or contentious is incorrect. His statement that "the only opposition are editorials and blog posts from these anti-trans campaigners themselves, which obviously aren't reliable sources on gender and sexuality" is also incorrect. For starters, The Economist and Daily Nous are reliable sources and they say that there are problems with using the term "TERF." Bilorv is right that "who PinkNews described as trans-exclusionary radical feminists" isn't in Wikipedia's voice. Take a look at WP:INTEXT. So the issue becomes whether it should be included. You can take that to the neutral noticeboard. If there is an additional push to use "TERFs" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" in Wikipedia's voice, I suggest you take that to the BLP noticeboard. I'm a sporadic editor, but I've observed these noticeboards a lot. You will get more attention from editors there than at the slow-moving neutral noticeboard. There is no way that editors at the BLP noticeboard would agree to use the contested terms to describe people by name in Wikipedia's voice, especially when those people object to the term. We don't even call people "racist" in Wikipedia's voice. We attribute that description. It's not a WP:FALSEBALANCE violation in any way. It's also disingenuous to say that opinion pieces from trans activists are more reliable than opinion pieces from the opposing side. It's not like there are reliable sources saying that if a person opposes the "TERF" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" terminology, it's fringe. An opinion piece may call "TERFs" a fringe group, but no reliable sources say that it's fringe to be opposed to being called a TERF or trans-exclusionary radical feminist. No reliable sources say that the terms are mainstream and are without controversy. Well, hmm, New Statesman calls it "a mainstream slur." Halo Jerk1 (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I also don't expect "transphobic" in Wikipedia's voice to last long at the TERF article. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the most relevant policy here is WP:RACIST: Value-laden labels [...] are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. I think TERF is absolutely a contentious label - ThoughtIdRetired's gives a pithy reasoning: it is not a label that anyone applies to themselves. It is easy to find it being applied to others in a hateful (or worse) manner. We already have the in-text attribution part checked off, so that just leaves the question of whether the label is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject[s]", which hasn't yet been addressed in this discussion. A quick google search is not promising in this regard.

But taking a step back, I think Tsumikiria has the right idea that the whole mention of Bindel and Reilly-Cooper is WP:UNDUE. It doesn't seem like their commentary was widely covered. Is it really worth mentioning in the context of summarizing the funding affair (and, overall, in the context of summarizing the charity)? Colin M (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes if we don't want to obstruct the identities of the charity's critics. First I added that TERFs criticized the charity (including Linehan); this was reverted as "POV". Then I added that TERFs opposed the charity's grant (not including Linehan with them). Then an editor put inline attribution and named individual alleged TERFs, fine, but now you are suggesting that no perspective should be given at all. wumbolo ^^^ 07:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm just arguing for perspective that gives WP:DUE weight in accordance with the news coverage. The PinkNews article that's cited is titled "Robert Webb criticised for attacking trans kids charity Mermaids". The article is focused on Webb, and only mentions Julie Bindel and Rebecca Reilly-Cooper once (plus two quotes that include Bindel's twitter handle). So why are we mentioning Bindel and Reilly-Cooper but not Robert Webb? Here's another article on the controversy around Webb's statements - it doesn't mention Bindel or Reilly-Cooper at all. Reviewing some of the other news coverage of the funding fracas, Graham Linehan is the most frequently mentioned critic. I also see multiple articles with significant coverage of Webb's criticism, and multiple mentions of a critical editorial in the Times by Janice Turner. So it would seem very strange to me to single out two people who seem to have received only passing mentions in regard to the controversy, over others who were covered much more.

I'd suggest cutting the stuff about Bindel and Reilly-Cooper, and optionally replacing it with information about the criticism from Webb and/or Turner. I don't think calling them TERFs is going to fly (because I think it will be hard to show that the term is "widely used by reliable sources to describe [them]"), but why not quote from their commentary and let their words speak for themselves? Webb even described himself as "gender-critical" in one of his tweets. And, well, I'll let you see what article that redirects to... Colin M (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Well Janice Turner is definitely controversial. That redirect is insane though, makes me want to be a TERF. wumbolo ^^^ 21:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out that Janice Turner is a columnist, feature writer and interviewer with The Times, and has been for the past 16 years or so. She has also won various journalism awards. Whilst the Times does not get the universal support of its readers for the views of some of its writers, Turner appears to be well received by the readership of this major, mainstream paper. "Controversial" seems to be a questionable bit of pigeon-holing. Something to keep in mind when trying to keep a NPOV for this article.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

See also reliable sources [1] [2]. wumbolo ^^^ 10:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I note User:Wumbolo's suggested sources, but would pose the (rhetorical) question: "if you stopped people in the street and gave them the name of each of these sources and asked them which they recognised as a source of news and opinions, which would be most commonly identified?" I suggest that the Times would win by a large margin - even if it were not the preferred news source of most of those stopped.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

From the Times [3], It is hurtful to suggest, however, as Janice did, that transsexual women in jail are “foxes in a hen house”. wumbolo ^^^ 13:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It is, of course, entirely professional of the Times to give voice to an opposing view. (That is in the same area as what we are trying to achieve with this article.) What is of note is that Turner gets a regular paycheck from the Times, and journalism awards - the contributor you cite is just that: a one-off contributor.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Founding date

The article currently states that Mermaids was founded in 1995 by a group of parents of gender nonconforming children. This is only supported by Mermaids website ([4]). Apparently, that is not supported by any third party source. The domain mermaids.co.uk was registered on 26 April 2004 and the organization registered as a charity in the UK on 20 February 2015 ([5]). The registry date is verifiable, but the claim of 1995 as a founding date might be not. --MarioGom (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed our article didn't give a source, but one can be quickly found by search: the BBC says Mermaids UK was formed in 1995. In fact we cite it in the article already, so I've given an inline citation, but I'm not sure we need third party sources for simple facts when there is no clear reason why the organisation would misrepresent them. — Bilorv (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Very biased and unreliable journalist from The Times

Even though The Times is a reliable source, Andrew Gilligan, one of its journalists, seems to be very biased, and what is most worrisome, inaccurate and misleading when reporting on transgender issues. This has been noted by The Independent Press Standards Organisation (Here and Here); and on multiple public retractions issued by The Times regarding Gilligan's deceiving articles.(Here and Here) for example. Daveout (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Two of these links are about the same error. Corrections are common in journalism, these corrections are quite minor, and so your description is way overblown. I see no reason to exclude the source; if there were a problem with it, it would have been corrected like these were. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: What about this report by GIDS\Tavistock showing that 25-38% of the children there had, in 2015, suicidal thoughts. This is a very different number than what is stated in the article ("less than 1%"). This source (bbc, 2017) brings another figure: "Research indicates that 84% have had suicidal thoughts, 40% may even have attempted suicide". You better have more than a single source to corroborate that serious claim, otherwise it fails WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV and will be replaced by, far more numerous, consistent and reliable, academic data. Daveout (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Regrettably, given The Times' poor-quality reporting on this subject, I believe we would need a secondary source linking that specific report to the Mermaids incident in question for us to mention it here. We should not say that either figure is correct, only giving the provenance of who gave each figure, unless we have better sourcing than the article currently includes. Though it's a claim about transgender health, since it's about one specific clinic, I'm in two minds over whether WP:MEDRS/WP:FRINGE applies here; if it does then we need to make sure we are not misrepresenting scientific consensus. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 12:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Wading through the edit history I worked out that the content being disputed is this (a version of the wording which did a poor job of explaining the putative relevance of the content to this article!) / this (wording which also had issues)—yeah? But I'm not seeing evidence that it is due weight (or even particularly relevant to this article). So I think it's fine that it's currently not in the article. -sche (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Reporting allegations as facts

I am very concerned by the material introduced in this change. The whole change seems far from neutral. It lacks any edit summary explaining its intention. The biggest problem is with the "Charity ‘advised mum to force her son, 7, to live as a girl’" part. While this does summarise some of claims reported in the reference material, it does so in a completely one-sided way. It fails to include that Mermaids explicitly disputes the claims being made. The Metro source includes a statement by Mermaids in full which is not something that a news source would normally publish under a news story if it was not either required to or was doing so as part of an agreement to avoid further action. It's not quite the same as a formal retraction but it seems pretty close. The statement denies the main substance of the claim and it is pretty scathing in its tone. If we are to cover this matter I think we have to cover this as a disputed claim not as a known fact that we can be confident actually occurred as reported in those lurid headlines. (That is unless there is further coverage which makes the actual situation more clear.) Should we be looking to patch this content up or should we just revert it completely and then consider whether it can, or even should, be replaced with more neutral coverage of these claims? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Nothing sourced to Metro (RSP entry) is even remotely acceptable. Nor can we start doing anything that has the possibility of misgendering low-profile BLPs, be they children or not. If this is deemed worth mentioning then we can't call the child a boy or a girl in our voice, only say who asserts the child is what gender with attribution. — Bilorv (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging DaveDaRave19 as the writer. I support inclusion with the caveats noted above and with necessary tweaks. The Times was also used as a source and is top quality per WP:RSP. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I oppose the inclusion. If it’s not reported by any minimally reliable source then it is simply not noteworthy. The Times is “generally reliable”, not “reliable each and every time”. Given Gilligan’s history of bad reporting (discussed in the topic above), common sense tells us that in this particular case we should be cautious. - Daveout(talk) 03:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

That seems to be special pleading. "Generally reliable" is as high as WP:RSP gets, because no source is perfect. It's far more than "minimally reliable". If a top source covers it, that means it's covered by RS and WP:NPOV thus requires inclusion. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Helen Joyce comments about Mermaids' teaching methods

My edit including the following text has just been reverted by User:Tvcameraop with comment "This is not notable".

Helen Joyce reports that in 2019 Mermaids taught children using a "gender spectrum" and to understand that people may be at a different end of the spectrum than their sex assigned at birth; she summarizes: "In other words, what makes children girls or boys is where they fall on a scale from Barbie to G.I. Joe. It is extraordinary that, nowadays, this counts as progressive."

My text is a neutral summary of a verifiable secondary source. The summary reports a view on Mermaids methods from a reputable journalist in a published book. Hence, inclusion satisfies the core content policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. I don't understand the reasoning to exclude the edit. Please explain! Thanks.

AndyGordon (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally I think the inclusion of this is not particularly notable for a number of reasons. First, the quote does not add anything other than Joyce's interpretation and her personal opinion. Second, I feel that since we do not have any other sources which discuss how Mermaids helps children the inclusion of this is not notable. In addition, I do not currently have access to the book so I am unaware where Joyce is getting this information from and if it your summary is a neutral one - I also do not know if Joyce is a reputable journalist as you claim. And completely aside from notability discussions, this article should use British English (I have added an EngvarB tag now to reinforce that) so it should be "summarises" if you do re-add it! Thanks. Tvcameraop (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

If it is felt that additional reliable sources about Mermaids helping children are absent, then they can be added, but that is not an argument for exclusion of other material. Helen Joyce has served as a journalist and editor for many years for The Economist, a highly regarded outlet. Part of her career was as a correspondent on the topic of education, which her comments above are about. It is a journalist's job to investigate and report on matters, even (in fact, especially) if those so investigated and their supporters don't like it. I see no NPOV reason for exclusion. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Tvcameraop is right. Neither Helen Joyce nor her book are notable. She also isn't any sort of specialist in education, or child development, or gender; she's a mathematician. - Daveout(talk) 06:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the all the discussion. As those more experienced than me may know better, WP:Notability "is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article" and so is not directly relevant to whether to include text within an article. The relevant principle for content within an article is WP:Noteworthy.

On the content itself, I have looked into it and there are plenty of primary sources on this matter and several secondary sources in newspapers, including one in defence of Mermaids so I intend to rewrite.

Thanks for your help. AndyGordon (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand why you feel you have to include the lengthy quotations in support of the content, but it's too much for a variety of reasons, including readability of the reference section (and edit window) and copyright concerns. I suggest that you remove the quotations, or if you can pick just two or three sentences that completely support the material a source verifies then cut it to that. For music files, for instance, we never include more than 10% of a given work. On any other article I would remove the parameters myself but people get quite trigger happy on the revert button here. — Bilorv (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the quote is small enough. What I don't get, though, is why her political opinions deserve to be mentioned here. I tried to look for secondary sources and all I found were some book reviews. There's simply no evidence that Helen is a relevant or credible voice in this matter. - Daveout(talk) 23:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

She is a mainstream and well respected journalist, and her work meets the definition for WP:RS. There is no room for special pleading, suddenly moving the goalposts for content to needing a secondary source for her when she is already a secondary source for their training. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The Spectator quote is passable but the rest are not. — Bilorv (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for the feedback. I checked the WP:NPS policy about quotations; not very specific although it seems ok to quote "short sections from copyrighted primary sources, if relevant to explaining the topic of an article". I'm going to go through each of the quotes and see if I can trim them down. I am also going to add a little more detail to the first sentence of my summary of Helen Joyce's remarks, because there is a bit of a leap between the two sentences.

Again, thanks for all the help; as ever I learn from interactions with other editors! AndyGordon (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

What makes Helen Joyce's opinions WP:DUE? She is not an expert in the any related field. Not only that, I see a reliable source and GLAAD discussing her very public bigotry towards trans people. Just because someone is an idealogue, it does not make them an expert or their opinions due. In this case her views also likely fall under WP:FRINGE. Rab V (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Also will note the entire paragraph only has one secondary source, the spectator article, and that isn't a reliable source per WP:RSP. Removing it would leave the whole discussion around this incident solely based on opinion pieces. Opinion pieces only have limited use as RS, only reliable for stating that author's opinion. This leads me to believe this whole paragraph isn't due and we are not able to discuss it with any impartiality in the article since we don't have impartial and reliable sources. Rab V (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

As other editors have said above, her opinions do not seem DUE here; she does not seem to be an expert in a relevant area, contrary to a claim above, it is not apparent that her work would "meet the definition of RS" for what is is being used for, and I see almost no coverage of her opinions on Mermaids (I see...Twitter, a book review, and Quilette, none of which are reliable sources). If we were to give her opinions an amount of space in this article proportional to the weight they are given in reliable sources, that would be zero space, AFAICT. -sche (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I have used an article from The Telegraph (green at WP:RSP) to fill out the paragraph instead; however, a mainstream journalist's reporting can be DUE and is a secondary source in and of itself. (Using a primary source would be citing Mermaids' training materials directly.) Asking for a secondary source for a secondary source is special pleading, and I explained above just how mainstream and with-relevant-journalistic-experience Joyce is. Your "reliable source", the Daily Dot, is only listed at WP:RSP as reliable for internet culture, and this is way beyond mere internet culture. It has a clear ax to grind, and there is no reason to think their framing is unbiased and not cherry picked or out of context. It is in the activistic vein of a very particular point of view regarding trans issues, one not endorsed by many trans people and some of whose loudest proponents are cisgender. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The daily dot source is explicitly about Joyce's internet activity and it is a RS for internet culture. Either way we aren't using it in the article, just to show Joyce is notably unreliable on trans issues. As far as I see Joyce's book is not peer reviewed and written by a non-expert with a bigoted ax to grind. Rab V (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Helen Joyce isn't notable, or that wouldn't still be a redlink. Is Helen Joyce a WP:RS? Our guideline says Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. - much the same as gender, really. She is "reliable" for mathematics, and probably for economics and education. She has written a book on trans issues and gender identity, which I've not read. From what I've read about it, it appears to be from the written from a "gender critical" standpoint. If it's researched, more than just personal opinion, it may well qualify her as a reliable source on trans issues - even if most certainly not a neutral one. That leaves the issue of WP:DUE. Is it due to include the fact that Joyce is, apparently, incredulous that a charity for gender non-conforming children teaches that gender is a spectrum? I would think no, absolutely not. It's a bit WP:SKYISBLUE, frankly. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bastun, I don't understand your point about WP:SKYISBLUE. That page seems to be about putting in over many citations. My perspective is that there have been few reliable sources on gender critical feminism until fairly recently, and their views are under-represented in Wikipedia or in the media generally, rather than being obvious to all. AndyGordon (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Someone told me that this book can be downloaded for free via the Library Genesis project (here). I don't know if that's true or not, but if someone is willing to check that, the Tor Browser should be used. (since this may not be 100% legal in some countries). - Daveout(talk) 04:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for the discussion.

I am proposing to reinstate the quote from Joyce as part of our summary of what the secondary sources say about Mermaids' use of the gender spectrum.

The two main arguments against inclusion are as follows (apologies if I am omitting any).

(1) she isn't WP:RS because she is not regarded as authoritative in relation to trans-related issues

(2) it wouldn't be WP:DUE to include the quote of her summary of the situation

Here is some context on the book "Trans" and on Helen Joyce:

• "Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality" is a 320 page book published by Oneworld Publications that has received very positive reviews in the Times, the Telegraph, the Guardian, the Evening Standard, New Statesman, and the Scotsman. The review in the Telegraph is by Kathleen Stock OBE, Professor of Philosophy, author of Material Girls, and herself recognised as an authority on the subject: Stock describes the book as a "superlative critical analysis of trans activism by journalist Helen Joyce" and also writes "As befits her background as a writer and editor for The Economist, Joyce shows an impressive capacity to handle complex statistics, legal statutes, and other bits of evidence without losing clarity or narrative drive." To summarise, Trans is a significant work, and is the primary subject of multiple independent reviews, hence satisfying point (3) of WP:JOURNALIST. (I am not primarily concerned to create a page for Joyce, but I'd welcome your opinions.)
• The creator Helen Joyce is an established journalist, employed by the Economist since 2005, and has reported on trans-related issues at least since 2018 when she edited this collection in the Economist.

Re (1), the source is WS:RP because it is published material by an author who is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject (see WP:SOURCEDEF) - as demonstrated by the context above, including the reviews that you can view on the web even if you do not have a copy of the book. Helen Joyce does take the gender critical side in this debate, versus the ideology of gender identity. Still, that does not affect her being a reliable source: WP:BIASED says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, 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."

Re (2), to achieve WP:DUE, we need to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" regarding Mermaids' gender spectrum. There are very few reliable sources on Mermaids' gender spectrum, and we would be including material from each of them, including the defence of Mermaids from Attitude magazine. So it seems to me that including the quote from Joyce is giving it due weight. AndyGordon (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't think Joyce is regarded as authoritative in relation to either trans issues or Mermaids. For one thing, she regards "trans ideology" as a real thing (for which she holds Jewish billionaires responsible); the highest-quality sources on this topic do not do so. Second, her journalistic writing on this topic did not reflect professional journalism within her areas of expertise; rather, it amounted to extended promotion of her editorial opinion on the topic using a platform available to her.

Finally, the topic of this article is not Mermaids' gender spectrum; the presentation of gender as a spectrum did not originate with Mermaids and is reflected in authoritative publications by demographers,[6][7] human rights educators, and authorities in health services. The reductio ad absurdum that Mermaids is advocating a scale from Barbie to G.I. Joe is manifestly idiotic ridiculous and UNDUE for inclusion here, though it might merit a shout-out if Gender spectrum is ever split off from Gender identity. Newimpartial (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

What Newimpartial said! Especially on the point about "Mermaids' gender spectrum"; it isn't "Mermaids' gender spectrum", it's just the gender spectrum. Above, you ask what I meant by WP:SKYISBLUE in this context. What I meant was surely it goes without saying that a charity for gender non-conforming children is going to talk about the gender spectrum. It's not notable. So why, then, would we include criticism of the charity, where that criticism apparently arises because they teach about the gender spectrum? Inclusion of the quote in this article isn't warranted. Inclusion in Helen Joyce might be warranted, if someone ever starts the article. And it might be warranted in gender identity. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Huh, what do you know. Six hours later, she has an article. Let me try this again! If tomorrow's winning lotto numbers were notable, they'd have an article! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bastun, Newimpartial,

I think the misunderstanding re gender spectrum is that you haven't seen the image that they were using.

Please see this article for a picture of Mermaids' gender spectrum, which clearly shows a scale from Barbie to G.I. Joe. Yes, the article as a whole is about the Mermaids charity, and this paragraph is about their use of this particular spectrum featuring the two toys (rather than about the generic concept of a gender spectrum), and the resulting criticism of the charity.

Best regards, Andy AndyGordon (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

PS It's not simply that they use a spectrum, but that "what makes children girls or boys is where they fall on a scale from Barbie to G.I. Joe." AndyGordon (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

This section is already overlong and hard to read so I'll keep this short and just say that I agree with the points made by Newimpartial and Bastun above. Actually, no. I will add one more thing. The use of the word "reports" in the proposed addition would not be appropriate even if the rest of the text was. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Do we have a link for Cultural illiteracy somewhere? The representations of toys aren't even defining elements of the image. Joyce's reading is daft, and the whole point of her intervention is to reduce the gender identity spectrum to an absurdity by pretending that it is asking children to what extent they identify with gendered toys. That isn't what anyone is actually doing; this is the typical caricature where something presented as an example is interpolated as though it were intended as a definition. Newimpartial (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't let this claim go unaddressed. At least some training materials do indeed equate one's gender with their agreement with regressive gender stereotypes. This (the prop pack), from the Proud Trust and meant for young children, and named by The Telegraph, states about those on "Planet Girl" for example that they "MUST like pink, MUST wear dresses, MUST be feminine". It then asks 'why can't we do what we want to do?' The only solution it gives is to cross over bridges between the gender planets, becoming transgender. This analysis blatantly tells young children that non-conformity to stereotypes makes you trans; it is literally impossible to be a girl who isn't stereotypically feminine. I would never want a daughter of mine to be told that she isn't a girl unless she obeys stereotypes. It's no wonder the UK's Department for Education stated that "materials which suggest that non-conformity to gender stereotypes should be seen as synonymous with having a different gender identity should not be used and you should not work with external agencies or organisations that produce such material." Why would they say that if it wasn't happening? It is in transgender people's own best interests as well to call out when regressive nonsense is done in their name, rather than circle the wagons and call any criticism a fringe perspective. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this article on The Proud Trust or Mermaids? Did I disembark at the wrong station? Newimpartial (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Your words: the whole point of her intervention is to reduce the gender identity spectrum to an absurdity by pretending that it is asking children to what extent they identify with gendered toys. That isn't what anyone is actually doing (emphasis added). Crossroads ^-talk- 02:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

And, risible as the caricatures employed by The Proud Trust might be, they aren't asking whether kids identify with Barbie or GI Joe (nor does the DoE imply that).

Hey, if The Proud Trust training represented the way the gender spectrum actually worked, I wouldn't exist, and neither would most queer people. But even that absurd instrument doesn't reduce it to a spectrum between toys. Newimpartial (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

For comparison, here is the text I had quoted in the citation to Joyce's book.

In 2019 a British teacher recorded a training session on gender by Mermaids, a British charity that campaigns for early paediatric transitioning. The group's favoured teaching aid is a 'gender spectrum' with Barbie at one end and G.I. Joe at the other, and 'jelly baby' outline figures in between, morphing from pig-tailed and curvy to stocky and broad-shouldered. The trainer claims that, in many non-Western cultures, it is understood that people may not be at the end of the gender spectrum associated with their sex assigned at birth. 'If they are growing up and if they recognise that some of their jelly babies are further down towards the female [end of the] spectrum,' she says, 'they may take on a female name and female clothing, live and work as a woman within the tribe, and vice versa to varying degrees.' In other words, what makes children girls or boys is where they fall on a scale from Barbie to G.I. Joe. It is extraordinary that, nowadays, this counts as progressive.

One detail that we should correct is that the recording was from 2018 not 2019. I checked with Joyce's agent who confirms the error which will be corrected; the recording was posted online in 2019 on SoundCloud, I believe, but was made in 2018. AndyGordon (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

We are about ten miles into this TL;DR thread and you mention in passing that you are in contact with Joyce's agent? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

We seem to be getting incredibly off-topic in this talk page - talk pages are for discussion of how to improve articles, not for discussing the subject of the article. Please can someone summarise the outstanding issues so we can work to fix them? Tvcameraop (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the proposal is dead in the water. The use of "reports" (rather than "claims"), "summarizes" (rather than "characterises", "opines", "responds" or whatever) and the scare quotes all make it unusable as written. It could be rewritten neutrally but the question of whether it is relevant and due coverage for this particular article remain. I'm inclined to say not on both counts. She is very far from being Mermaids most significant critic. It seems like Joyce is mainly attacking the concept of a gender spectrum in general and only incidentally taking a swipe at Mermaids in particular. Adding her here seems like shoehorning her in. Maybe her agent would approve but I don't think we should. I'm inclined to suggest we just roll this discussion up and go do something more productive instead. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The key issue remaining is how to give due weight WP:DUE to the different reliable sources on Mermaids' use of the gender spectrum.

At present we cite and summarise these four sources

• Kearns, Madeleine (6 October 2018). "Don't tell the parents". Spectator.
• Turner, Janice (22 December 2018). "Trans ideologists are spreading cod science". Times.
• "ACTIVISTS HIT BACK AT THE SUNDAY TIMES FOR TRANSPHOBIC FEAR-MONGERING". Attitude. 24 December 2018.
• Thomas, Kim (29 September 2020). "What are the new rules for teaching identity in schools?". The Telegraph.

Helen Joyce, author of the acclaimed 320 page book Trans, writes a detailed description of what was shown and said in the recorded training session. When writing "In other words, what makes children girls or boys is where they fall on a scale from Barbie to G.I. Joe" she is specifically describing what happened in the Mermaids recording, how they acted going about one of their core objectives as a charity.

So this quote is highly relevant, and a neutral summary of the reliable sources should include it.

In light of the discussion (thanks everyone!), to give due weight to Joyce's characterisation, I'd update my proposal to the following:

• To insert, just before "In September 2020", that:
  • Helen Joyce characterises what was said in a training session: "In other words, what makes children girls or boys is where they fall on a scale from Barbie to G.I. Joe. It is extraordinary that, nowadays, this counts as progressive." (with a reference to her book, to include the quote from one of my previous postings in this discussion)
• To move the sentence "Attitude quoted Kate Lister" to immediately after the sentence about Helen Joyce's book.

AndyGordon (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The "key issue remaining" seems to be that you don't appear to accept that there is a clear consensus against inclusion of this WP:UNDUE quote. With or without alterations following your chat with Joyce's agent. (See WP:NOR, and WP:COI may apply?) Those favouring inclusion: You. Crossroads. Those opposing inclusion (those pinged, please correct me if I've mischaracterised your contribution): @Tvcameraop:, @Daveout:, @Bilorv:, @Rab V:, @-sche:, @Newimpartial:, @DanielRigal:, and me. That's 8:2 against inclusion? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Bastun, I apologise to you and anyone here for creating the impression you've formed that I may have a COI with Joyce's agent. I have no relationship with Joyce's agent, and hence no COI. My only interactions with the agent are emails to her public email address about the date of the recording. As I've been saying throughout, I learn a lot from everyone's editorial expertise here: I thought it was harmless to check on a small detail, but I understand now that any contact like that may create the impression of COI, a serious matter, and in any case any info obtained is unusable as per WP:NOR. AndyGordon (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I favor inclusion at this point. Now that the reporting from the Telegraph has been added that contains the same essential point, namely that critics say it defines gender based on stereotypes, I don't see what adding Joyce's book actually adds. 'It's extraordinary that this counts as progressive' is rhetorical flourish but isn't actually a new point. At the risk of this being touted as "9:1 now" or something like that, I will say that AndyGordon was on the right track in first adding material about their trainings that journalistic coverage of the trainings and criticism thereof is DUE because sources do exist. It's been improved subsequently and now there's no need to argue over Joyce's book anymore because it's redundant, and now sourced as more broadly than just her views, whatever the objections to her book. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for all the discussion. I withdraw my proposal. In all seriousness, I have learnt enormously from everyone's input. Thank you. AndyGordon (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)