Talk:Wi Spa controversy

Unsourced

It should be noted that this statement is unsourced and unsubstantiated: "On June 24, 2021, a cisgender woman claimed that..". We have no evidence at all to suggest this person's gender identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.10.166.120 (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, the sources cited show the woman claiming trans individuals don't exist. As such, she must be cisgender by definition. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 02:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It certainly would create quite a strange conundrum if someone denied their own existence (something very Adamsian about it ). We've definitely got RS for cisgender if it's in any dispute though (e.g. The Hill). —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Appreciated, 0xF8E8 ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

This response requires the woman to believe/subscribe to the theory that people have a gender identity that exists separately from sex in order to be "cis" or "trans" of it. GenericUsername2702 (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

This assumes the person making the complaint agrees that gender is separate from sex, or if it exists at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoKoCorvid (talk • contribs) 18:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Antifa

Pluma, wanting your feedback regarding the sourcing and wording changes. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Allegations of hoax section needs updating

See https://nypost.com/2021/09/02/charges-filed-against-sex-offender-in-wi-spa-casecharges-filed-against-sex-offender-in-notorious-wi-spa-incident, which states that a <trans woman>* has been charged with indecent exposure regarding this incident. So it wasn't a hoax after all. 213.205.242.252 (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The New York Post is considered a generally unreliable source for factual reporting. See WP:NYPOST. DanCherek (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed they are a low-quality source. However, I will note in the interest of fairness that the LA Times article specifically references the NY Post interview of the alleged individual. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

* Original terminology is considered insulting and degrading by trans individuals, and has been redacted under WP:RPA. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The LA Times has covered this news story now. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-09-02/indecent-exposure-charges-filed-trans-woman-spa "Indecent exposure charges filed against trans woman over L.A. spa incident" — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoKoCorvid (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Article says that the LAPD are going to make a statement soon. I am waiting to hear said statement for official information before including this information, so we don't run into a WP:BLPCRIME issue. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This article conflates gender critical feminists with the far right

The article is worded such that a reader unfamiliar with gender critical feminism may unduly associate it with the far right. When actually, most GC feminists, particularly radical feminists, view such issues from a left-wing perspective.

I would suggest the article be reworded to not create this impression, and also to reflect the fact that GC feminists generally consider the problem of males in women's spaces in terms of safeguarding and women's rights, whereas the far right do not.

213.205.242.15 (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This comparison and relation is what the reliable sources say. After all, we here on-wiki do our best to only summarize the cited works and not list our own anecdotes. If people in the trans-exclusive/GC camp wish to not be compared, I can only suggest they adjust their behavior in such that they don't show up side-by-side in reliable sources. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 16:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia supposed to express a NPOV, rather than echoing the editorial biases of its sources? Suggesting that GC feminists "adjust their behaviour" in some undefined way, as a prequisite to Wikipedia articles such as this giving them a fair representation, seems unreasonable to me. 213.205.242.15 (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a debate. NPOV is very important. However, rest assured, as the primary writer of this article (at current time) I've spent a lot of time to try to keep things neutral. Neutrality means we present facts as facts reported in the reliable sources. We also balance whether or not certain sourced facts/statements are WP:DUE or not. However, I cannot in good faith alter what is factually reported anymore than it already has been (to turn into wiki-voice). Doing so would promote a WP:FALSEBALANCE. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 16:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not a NPOV to conflate gender critical feminism with the far right, they come from completely different ideological standpoints. I know it's a common smear tactic to make it sound like they are one and the same, as we see in much of the reporting on this incident, but I thought Wikipedia would be above such things. Anyway, it seems unlikely you will change your mind on this, so I will leave this discussion now, with disappointment. 213.205.242.15 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I am always open to more input and opinions from other editors. However I'm curious how you view NPOV. From my understanding of it, it is that we as editors act as neutral arbiters (as best we can) to include reliable sources, weigh conflicting viewpoints, and try to not act as agents of our own biases. The lead section is summary of the body section, which is why it is summarized in the way it is currently. What way would you rewrite it, if you did? ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 17:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

IP, if you want actionable change, I suggest you write what sentences you have a problem with alongside the changes that should be applied to them, as well as other reliable sources that should be introduced. Right now, your complaint appears to be towards how WP:RS have been reporting the events, which, as Gwennie explained, we can't do much about. Isabelle ^🔔 17:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Also wanted to say, this article isn't the place for a lengthy discourse trying to explain niche issues about certain perspectives, such as, for example, between what is and is not feminism (as the political alignment of trans-exclusive/GC folks are debated). We already have Feminist views on transgender topics for that, with other nuances about the common acronym being had at TERF. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 16:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Characterization

The following is portrayal of how our RS cited aligns the right-wing and trans-exclusive feminists in various ways. Feel free to add excerpts from potential sources for the article to compare or contrast. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 20:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC) ​​​​​

• LA Blade July 7th "The video quickly made the rounds in far right, and Trans-Exclusionary Feminist (TERF) sites. Anti-trans “feminist” websites like Mumsnet, Ovarit, and Spinster were sharing content by far right provocateurs known for disinformation, like Ian Miles Cheong, by June 27th."
• The Guardian July 28th "…clear evidence of the links between anti-trans and far-right movements, including QAnon conspiracy theorists…" Also, a paragraph discussing Fox News, following paragraph discussing trans-exclusive feminists.
  • Follow up story The Guardian Sept 2 doesn't even separate the two. It refers to "members of the far-right Proud Boys group marched alongside women who held “protect female spaces” signs" after saying the incident video "went viral on rightwing forums, far-right sites and Fox News". (Is this source deliberately including trans-exclusive feminists under the right-wing umbrella? Needs considered.)
• On The Media - Zadrosny/Beckett/Serano Aug 6th Lois Beckett (author of Guardian article) describing how Precious Child saw comments flood in about and to her after the false allegation "She said, first, she saw comments from sort of militia group types in the US, then from broader pro-Trump people in the US, then she said that like transphobic feminists in Germany and in Australia were weighing in."
• Media Matters July 12th Cites this excerpt from The Christian Post "The footage is a real-life example of the concerns women’s rights campaigners across the political spectrum and radical feminists have raised in recent years. They argue that it is impossible to simultaneously ensure legal protections on the basis of sex and gender identity."

Comments

Was pinged. Frankly, I am very much inclined to treat with less weight those outlets which have shown themselves to be less reliable on this matter by pushing a "right-wing hoax" narrative when the facts show that later, police did end up arresting someone in connection with this incident who had a record (keep in mind that in California, merely being a trans woman in the women's changing room is not illegal). Even so, the sources listed here do not justify conflating distinct ideological groups. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

You are free to start a new thread on WP:RSN. The sources don't say they are the same, only that they are connected, which seems fair. Isabelle ^🔔 20:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not a matter worth reconsidering The Guardian as a whole, so not worth RSN. All the time on Wikipedia, if a source is showing itself to be contextually unreliable in comparison to other sources, we take that into consideration. And the only one of the four above that links the two more than our current article is The Guardian. We are not going to cherry pick their view; it's WP:UNDUE. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: I don't think it's unreasonable for journalists, prior to the publication of charges, having suspicions of a possible hoax, especially when police aren't on board ("While LA police originally said that no crime had been reported at Wi Spa…" from follow-up Guardian article.) So when the police are reporting no crime and you have the contentious nature of the subject, it's likely to be journalistic to consider something unlikely until proven true. This whole situation changed since the LAPD reversed their position. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with Crossroads’ recent change. Are we discussing this because someone prefers the old language? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Current wording seems fine to me, too. Isabelle ^🔔 21:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Discussing because contentious and always good to actually look at what the sources say before we decide on wording as well. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggested edit

We should edit "unknown individual with a penis" to male suspect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.79.89 (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Not every person with a penis identifies as male, so it's better to leave as "unknown individual". Isabelle ^🔔 14:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Especially considering the reports the individual in question initially suggested trans possibility, it's best to just keep it as it is. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 19:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

TERF is considered by some to be derogatory

It doesn't matter if a source is using it; some whom the term is directed at consider it derogatory, nd we shouldn't be using it as a description. If a source says "a Karen" claimed that..." we wouldn't describe the person in question as a "Karen,"(just to give one example of a derogatory term, there are many others). Likewise for TERF--since it's a contested term, it should only reused in that context, not as an "objective" description. Boodlesthecat (talk)

I agree that we shouldn't use 'TERF', even in parentheses. We should also not use 'gender critical', a similarly contested term. The mostly stable version used 'trans-excluding feminist', which seems to be a neutral, accurate description if we drop the '(TERF)' Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm fine with dropping the term TERF if the wording remains the same, using "trans-excluding feminist", even though TERF is nothing more than its acronym, as detailed in its article (to which Trans-exclusionary feminism redirects to). Changing the wikilink to Feminist views on transgender topics, though, goes against MOS:EGG. Isabelle ^🔔 20:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No, TERF is not "nothing more than an acronym," it's (to repeat again) often consider a slur, and often appears online or is heard in the street in contexts such as "Death to TERFs." The Wiki entry says clearly that it's use as a slur is hotly debated, which means it's real. So why err on the side of using a term many consider a slur, other than to subtly push an agenda? I would appreciate if someone can make a sensible edit that removes the offensive "TERF" descriptor so I don't get into/be accused of being in an edit war. Not only is TERF used derogatorily, it tends to be used in a lazy snd Monty Pythonist silly manner to describe anyone considered transphobic, often hurled at people who could hardly be defined as "radical" and/or "feminist", often by people who barely have a clue what they are talking about and know nothing about feminist history. Not unlike anyone who criticizes Palestinians being called a "Zionist", even if that person is an antisemitic Israel hater. Boodlesthecat (talk)