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)

Seeing as an arrest has been made, it would appear that this is not a hoax, and it is possible to comment on that in the relevant section without making a determination on the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the mean time, leaving this information out leaves the previous hoax assertion dangling. GenericUsername2702 (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@GenericUsername2702: The allegation of hoax section was deliberately worded in the way it was and is that it is usable either way. Leaving the information is important. After all, part of the history of this event, is that initially, various sources were exploring the potential of a hoax. For this reason, this reliably-sourced information will not be removed. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not suggest removal, I am suggesting addendum. GenericUsername2702 (talk) 08:24, 9 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)

Objectively speaking, they're male, regardless of self identity. It is clarified that the individual may identify as a trans woman so there is no confusion caused by using a more efficient sentence structure GenericUsername2702 (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

GenericUsername2702 that might be your opinion but the RS report things differently, and we have to go by what is cited, not by what we want to write to suit our own worldviews. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 16:27, 12 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)

@Boodlesthecat: A Zionist is someone who supports the establishment of a Jewish state; an "antisemitic Israel-hater" would likely be an Anti-zionist. ––FormalDude talk 22:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: yes of course, and, eg, Iranian government propagandists often attack anyone who criticizes them as "Zionists", even if their critics are right wing antisemites. See, terms being used without regard for their actual meaning. Like TERF being used to attack people who don't even know what radical feminists means half the time. Get it? Boodlesthecat (talk)

 Administrator note: I'm not going to wade in here too much, lest I become involved and unable to apply discretionary sanctions (for which you are now all aware). Racists tend to find being called racist quite derogatory, as do trans-exclusionary radical feminists. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 22:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@TNT:, that's a blatant false equivalency which equates, on some moral scale you are employing, some women who wish to have spaces, eg, changing rooms, where they don't have to be confronted by penises, with racists. This is more illustrative of your own dogma here, which is far from universally accepted,, which makes me question your appropriateness of your being an admin for this page. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) @Boodlesthecat: I obviously disagree which dogma are you trying to accuse me of, and is my supposed dogma any more or less valid than yours? For what its worth, I've heard this one ("some women who wish to have spaces, eg, changing rooms, where they don't have to be confronted by penises") before. You are clearly not attempting to challenge the use of TERF on any basis other than your own point of view. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 23:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

By equating the term "TERFs" with being called a racist, and expressing below your point of view that the word TERF is definitely okay despite the fact that there is no consensus in academic discourse if it is a slur, you are expressing a point of view on what to do with the article and clearly are already WP:INVOLVED. Such statements should not have "administrator's note" appended to them as though they carry special authority. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What sentence are you objecting to? The video had increasingly circulated online on right-wing and far-right sites, as well as trans-excluding feminist (TERF) spaces. ? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: As the editor who can claim most of the authorship for this page, I want to deliberately say that even since creating this article, this quandary has been on my mind. While some of our RS have used either "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" or "TERF" in the text thereof, I specifically chose to specifically write it as trans-excluding feminist (TERF) spaces. However what would be more constructive is, instead of acting in a very pugnacious manner, such as I regrettably see from Boodles, it would be better for those who disagree with the current wording to propose alternate wording. However, in an expression of good faith, I wish to do that labor for all those who wish it changed:

1. trans-excluding feminists (a.k.a. gender-critical or TERFs) this option allows us to be more verbose in body, to let readers know, who perhaps are reading material like this for the first time, the terminology refers to the same ideological grouping
2. The claim attracted significant attention from trans-excluding feminists (a.k.a. gender-critical feminists or TERFs) online this option allows us to be more verbose in lead and then use the preferred terminology of trans-excluding feminists elsewhere in body

Please let me know if there are more options you are wishing to explore for wording! ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I support either of Gwennie-nyan's proposals. My only question is: why are we omitting "radical"? We are linking to TERF which says trans-exclusionary radical feminist. ––FormalDude talk 00:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I put in alternate wording, removing "TERF" with the clear explanation, including in the talk page, that many consider it derogatory, and the Wiki entry itself admits that it's contested. My was reverted. Not sure why editors insist on using a loaded, and to many, a derogatory term, (not to mention it being a term which is mindlessly tossed around with seemingly no understanding what the 4 words mean) other than to push a particular dogmatic POV. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Boodlesthecat: The only "dogmatic POV" I see being pushed at the moment is yours - do you consider yourself a trans-exclusionary radical feminist per chance, or is that a slur? ~TNT (she/they • talk) 00:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I don't. Do you consider me one? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, so you're just trying to make a point? Please arrive at it for all our sakes a TERF is a TERF the same way a SPADE is a SPADE, the only difference being a spade still has some relevance in the 21st century ~TNT (she/they • talk) 00:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What part of "we shouldn't use a term many consider to be derogatory" (which I think some thers here agree with) isn't clear? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Boodlesthecat: Do you object to the term TERF in general or just its usage here? As I've said in the edit summary, TERF is used by the reliable sources to define the kind of group that was helping spread the alleged hoax. TERF, or "trans-exclusionary radical feminist", has negative connotations, yes, but so do many other terms we use in articles, such as alt-right, neo-nazi and so on. If TERF was not sourced, then yes it should've been removed, but it's cited by at least three different sources. Personally, I support keeping the text as is, with the possibility of removing the acronym but retaining "trans-exclusionary radical feminist", anything else would be whitewashing the article. Isabelle ^🔔 01:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Isabelle I object to it being used to describe groups or people in an encyclopedia article, since many consider it a slur when being used as a descriptor. And these are hardly completely reliable sources, since they actually were key in perpetrating the apparently false narrative that the claims of the women at Wi Spa were a hoax (which they will never admit to). I don't think you will ever see the NYT or WaPo use "TERF" as a description of a group or individual, do you? And, whether you agree with them or not, comparing women (often lesbian women) who advocate for spaces without penises with noxious murderous fascists is both defamatory and silly. I see this article as also subtly trying to discredit the women who made the complaints and subtly perpetrate the hoax angle, by using the TERF slur, by making a point that the main complainant was "Christian" (wink wink, we know how hateful they can be!), pointing out that they are "cis" (to subtly set up an opposition to transwomen). That's my concern. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:28, September 7, 2021 (UTC)

@Boodlesthecat: From my understanding, it's mostly TERFs who consider the word to be a slur, which would make it a fringe point of view. The used sources equate "gender critical" to "trans-exclusionary radical feminists", and the latter, and especially the acronym, is the most common descriptor for this subgroup, so it would be a disservice to our readers to change it. I don't see why it matters that some of these feminists are not heterossexual, or what words the NYT or WaPo would use. Your other points appear to be casting aspersions on the major contributors of the article. Try to assume good faith. Also, I will repeat myself and tell you to go to WP:RSN if you believe the current sources should not be used in this article. Isabelle ^🔔 04:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

So it's OK to use a slur directed at a group of people who find it offensive, because it's mainly the people it's directed at who find it offensive. By your logic, we would never have gotten the n word proscribed, not to mention "tranny" and countless other offensive terms. Your logic is scary. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Even though I am a white person, I still find the n-word grossly offensive. Even though I am a cisgender person, I still find the word "tranny" grossly offensive. I think most non-black and non-trans people would still find these slurs deeply offensive, because they are slurs.

However, the majority of people who are not TERFs generally do not find the term "TERF" to be offensive. That is because it is not a slur. If it were a slur, we'd all be agreeing with you. I'll bring up the previous point that's been made that the majority of people who are not racists generally do not find "racist" to be an offensive term. So clearly a group of people being offended is not the only qualifier for something to be offensive (other people have to be offended too). ––FormalDude talk 08:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude You're being a bit ahistorical. There was a time, I remember well, being elderly, when countless racist, sexist, homophobic slurs were not considered offensive except largely by those the slurs were directed at. So your argument doesn't seem terribly sound. And while there no doubt there are haters in the so-called "TERF" camp, to hurl this purported slur at, eg, an apolitical biological woman who simply has an abhorrence to be naked and vulnerable in the presence of penises in spaces which she expects not to be seems simply like bullying.Boodlesthecat ^Meow? — Preceding undated comment added 09:33, September 8, 2021

While people of color and non-cisgender folks don't choose to be who they are, TERFs do, which is the main difference between these groups. But I'm done discussing this with you, as your refusal to spell out one word, while doing so for the other shows you are the kind of person who won't budge on this issue. Isabelle ^🔔 12:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Isabelle Really? A lesbian who finds the presence of a penis in what had been a space where penises were not allowed disturbing, if not traumatic "chooses" to be bothered? And as such, should be labeled with a slur by those who object to her feelings? Hmmm. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? — Preceding undated comment added 09:19, September 8, 2021

• I like Gwennie-nyan's proposals with the a.k.a.'s. In answer to FormalDude's "why are we omitting "radical"?" - that would basically just be spelling out TERF in the article text, which is taking a very particular POV which - aside from being bad in itself - can affect reception by readers, and also is saying that these specifically are radical feminists. TERF is clear that not everyone called that is a radical feminist. Let's just go with her proposal(s) because the a.k.a. is a good way of describing 'here's what people call this group'. And I'm seeing way too much commentary on editors rather than edits above, as well as some forum-like WP:SOAPBOXing. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  We are literally spelling out "TERF" in the article text already with Gwennie-nyan's proposals that both include the word "TERF" in parenthesis as a.k.a.'s. If we include the acronym, I don't see why we should not also include what it stands for in its entirety. I personally agree they're not all radical feminists, but that is what part of the acronym stands for.

  I won't press it any further though because I don't really care one way or the other. ––FormalDude talk 07:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for staying on topic and evaluating what I proposed. I do agree we're having some serious WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUM issues. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 10:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan That's seriously and transparently disingenous on your part. A number of editors have expressed concern that TERF is a slur and should be avoided, and you and those who support the use of a purported slur characterize them as "soapboxing" simply because...they don't agree with you, the creator of this entry. Seems like it's more like we have some serious WP:OWN issues here. Boodlesthecat — Preceding undated comment added 09:49, September 8, 2021

Seems like you have some serious WP:DROPTHESTICK issues. TERF is not a slur. ––FormalDude talk 04:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "TERF" is often used as a slur - the feminist online space Ovarit has many, many examples documented here by its users: https://ovarit.com/o/TerfIsASlur. Personally I would advocate the use of "gender critical" instead, not only because it's not a slur, but also it covers feminist women who aren't strictly radical feminists, as well as their ideological allies (e.g. gay men who are concerned about their homosexuality being redefined as same-gender attracted, rather than same-sex). Hope this helps. LayersOfEggs (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, we're not using Ovarit for a couple reasons:

1. the site is specifically noted by RS as having spread the topic of this page
2. Ovarit was literally created after r/GenderCritical was banned from Reddit because of the behavior of its members
3. Like Reddit, Ovarit is mostly an aggregation of self-published sources at best
4. we have actual academic and more professional discourse about the discussion of the term as a possible slur on the TERF page

So yeah, we're not going to be using it. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 10:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan--LayersOfEggs said nothing about using Overit as a source, LayersOfEggs was simply citing how they--as the targets of the use of "TERF" as a description in this article--consider it to be a slur. So no need for the straw man conclusion that "we're" WP:OWN? not going to use it. What would it even be a source for? This article isn't about whether or not "TERF" is a slur, that's a subject on the talk page, and LayersOfEggs simply cited it as a source for how some on Ovarit apparently do consider it a slur. As for the supposed RS's, it's pretty obvious that a number of the so-called RS's used in this article played a key role in spinning the apparent hoax that this was all a hoax. Sadly, the noxious NY POST seems to come away with more credibility as a factual source than some of these so-called RS's. Boodlesthecat — Preceding undated comment added 10:15, September 8, 2021

Lead now incorrectly blames feminists and right wingers/fascists, rather than just right wingers/fascists for anti-trans protests

I attempted to correct that with a good faith edit as follows: Her video of her claim attracted significant attention from right-wing media and activists, leading to violent protests and counter-protests on July 3 and 17, 2021. The claim also sparked extended discussions on some trans-excluding feminist (a.k.a. gender-critical feminist or so-called "TERF") websites. This edit follows the sources sited, eg, the Guardian article: The Wi Spa video from June went viral on rightwing forums, far-right sites and Fox News and led to two major anti-trans protests outside the spa, during which far-right demonstrators fought with trans-rights protesters in the street. No mention of feminists/"TERFs" etc. Yet the Wiki article now makes it sound like feminists and Neo-fascists kicked off the violence.

Once again, a good faith, well sourced edit I've made has been reverted, this time by Gwennie-nyan. Again, not only have good faith, sourced attempts to achieve balance in a rather sloppy article been systematically rebuffed, Gwennie-nyan has gone so far as to open an arbitration case against me for this apparent crime. (I'm tickled that Gwennie-nyan cites as evidence my past crimes 13(!) years ago, when I got in Wikitrouble for battling against a cabal of antisemitic editors who, across Wikipedia, were editing articles with lovely spins such as Jews were responsible for the genocides in Eastern Europe committed against them because of bad behavior by these bad Jews). I see the cabal system is still at work on Wikipedia over a dozen years later. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Boodlesthecat ^Meow?

Gwennie-nyan, just so we're clear, do the sources specifically say that 'GC/TERF' discussion online also played a role in causing the protests? If not, then we should probably split that apart and move it down a sentence. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding online spread and protests

• LABLADE article "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." and "Shortly thereafter, flyers for a protest on July 3rd began circulating in religious right, far right, and TERF social media circles, and were shared by [original filming woman] on the 29th and users on Spinster. They discussed defending the alt-right troll website, Kiwifarms, which is known for targeting transgender women."
• The Guardian
  • "The video was also shared by feminists who advocate against trans-inclusive policies – sometimes referred to as gender critical feminists, or trans-exclusionary radical feminists (Terfs). Moro documented a flurry of posts on Ovarit (a site for users banned from Reddit due to transphobia) and Mumsnet (a platform for UK mothers, which has attracted anti-trans feminists)."
  • Mentions a notable "gender-critical" website owner and her friend showed up and were confronted by activists
  • Article summarizes in virality and protests as "Wi Spa represented a nightmare scenario of what can happen when far-right groups, rightwing conspiracy theorists and gender-critical feminists are all aligned against trans rights"
• On The Media
  • Lois Beckett (author of Guardian articles) said of the false allegations "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. In the United Kingdom, Mumsnet, which is a parenting website which has become a gathering place for anti-trans feminists, posted a lot about this Wi Spa incident,"
  • Julia Serano, noted trans author, is summarized as "Serano describes how the groups sharing the video and showing up at the protests reveal the ways that the backlash to transgender acceptance has cut across ideologies, forging alliances between religious and social conservatives, QAnon followers, gender-critical feminists, anti-trans queers groups, and Proud Boys."

Here's what I got so far, may update later with further review of sources.​ ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 10:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

As currently worded (and which I am hesitant to touch because good-faith editing has led to -- note the appropriate use of "leading to" here -- a gratuitous call for me to be sanctioned), the current wording in the lead pushes the false and probably false narrative that certain feminists in cahoots with fascist types set off the violent protests at Wi Spa. And even more defamatory, the wording places the feminists first (while continuing to offensively characterize them as "TERFs," despite Wikipedia itself saying the term clearly has derogatory connotations and despite multiple complaints on this page) and the fascist-types second, portraying them as the leading motivator of the demonstrations and the violence. There is zero documented evidence that "TERFs" played any significant role in organizing any of the demonstrations or causing any of the violence (that's whaat "which led to" means--words are important). Anonymous posters sharing content on websites (and keep in mind, the only content there was on the incident came pretty exclusively from right wing sites) shows nothing more than these fringe feminist websites shared information central to their raison d'être.

If anything, missing from the lead is the fact that a major online source for postings and actual calls for militant action in the streets that clearly "led to" the violent protests was the Antifa camp. Why isn't that there? Proper writing and editing skills require close reading and weighings of sources and information, and putting one's own bias and agendas aside, otherwise you come up with seriously unbalanced, sloppy articles like this one. A simple smell test would lead an objective investigator to conclude that overwhelmingly, the cause of the violence and the anti-trans actions was opportunistic fascist types of the sort who stormed the Capitol taking advantage of the incident, and secondarily, antifascist associated people and trans activists who righteously responded, and perhaps, tertiarily, some fringe fundamentalist Christians. It's quite clear that the fringe feminists websites (some of whom, imo, seem to harbor the occasional Trumpy right wing type, who may in fact be ringers), many of whom are in far away in the UK/Europe), did not play a role that warrant them being portrayed as the leading instigator of the protest. That's simply false, and no reliable proof is given. In the list above, Gwennie-nyan uncritically gives equal weight to all words written on the subject, and draws questionable conclusions as a result. An encyclopedia should do better. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

July 3

"The Intercept claimed that the stabbings were initially believed to be committed by leftist protesters, but video evidence proves they were committed by right-wing protesters."

Citation 19 for reference.

Which video proves it? Could there be a direct citation to the tweet? Given that LAPD are investigating these crimes, is it a good idea to say "proves"? WP:BLPCRIME GenericUsername2702 (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The Intercept article does cite a lot of tweets. However I have reworded proves to indicates because it is more wiki-voice and in-line with NPOV. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 10:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Poor definitional clarity; errors of conflation

From the lede: "trans-excluding feminists (a.k.a. gender-critical feminists or TERFs)"

'trans-excluding feminists' is not a term anyone involved in feminist activism would use to describe themselves, it is only used by other activists who disapprove of their views, meaning it is not NPOV and is contested language (identity).

gender critical feminists is an appropriate term used by some involved parties to self identify, but it is an error to conflate it with 'trans excluding feminists' and with the term TERF. The bulk of gender critical feminists would not consider themselves to be either radical politically or radical feminists, nor would they agree that they fit the new, broad categorization of TERF; again, this is not how most feminist activists would refer to themselves.

It is also beyond the pale to assume, intimate or imply that the women who reported the incident would describe themselves as, or participate in any qualifying activities that placed them in either defined category. We simply don't know if they know about gender critical theory or radical feminism, nobody's asked them, and their reactions and subsequent actions are outside the context of activism.

the overall impression is decidedly against NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boodlesthecat (talk • contribs) 00:21, September 9, 2021 (UTC) previous unsigned notice was incorrect, should be: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:8201:b000:adce:395a:f792:d39 (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The unsigned above comment was not added by me Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 13:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Now corrected. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's my bad. Thanks for fixing it Firefangledfeathers. Got confused between diffs. Especially with all the sig issues we've had with recent sections. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 14:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

NY Post as originating source for information on Wi Spa case

Earlier, I had added to the article this info about the suspect charged for indecent exposure at Wi Spa: The suspect, who police in 2018 described as someone who police in 2018 described as someone who “claims to be female in order to gain access to women’s locker rooms and showers,”. This is sourced in the LA Blade, among other places. This edit was then reverted by Firefangledfeathers with the explanation source says "The Post quotes an internal L.A. police document saying Merager pretends to be trans in order to gain access to women’s spaces." Without independent review, we are essentially relying on the NY Post for a statement of contentious fact, for which it is unreliable.
However, twice in the article we say that Merager "has denied guilt, claiming harassment over being trans." This statement is also one that originated with the NY Post, in an interview with Merager conducted by Andy Ngo, a right wing operative with pretty much zero credibility as a journalist and who is hardly reliable as a source.
So it would make sense to either include both the reported LAPD background information that shows police officials claiming prior similar charges and criminal behavior and the NY Post-reported claims of harassment by Merager (which have been repeated by a number of sources relying on the Post interview) or, simply delete both the police info on Merager and Merager's claims from the Post interview, based on Firefangledfeathers's rationale that info originating with the NY Post is unreliable. It makes no sense to arbitrarily include one and not the other. I lean strongly to keeping both, as they are quite salient bits of info to this story. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? — Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 9 September 2021‎

The New York Post is a deprecated source, see Wikipedia:NYPOST. These sources have community consensus of frequent issues that the community at-large has decided are significant to the point that the source is considered generally unreliable. The only reason the Post is mentioned here at all is because its coverage is itself noted by third-party reliable sources. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 02:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This LA Blade story from last week attests to the police view separately of any NY Post attribution, so it's at least verified. Is it due? I don't have an opinion yet. On the denial, I share Boodlesthecat's assessment of the facts: the NY Post so far has an exclusive on comments from the accused, meaning all the coverage I can find of the denial and the complaints against transphobia are citing the Post. There's some nuance here: the Blade and Advocate both frame the interview and the denial as things that definitely happened. I am unsure how to proceed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

More RS is always better. I would suggest we find some way to neutrally word this and do some workshopping of how. We need to be very careful about this for a couple reasons. First, it's insinuating behavior, a motive or method. Second, it's from 2018 and our sources say the 2018 charge the individual has is still pending, so this is related to that. Third, the notion that sexual predators will pretend transness to access spaces is a popular canard used to push bathroom bills and there's virtually no real examples of it to RS. If this is true, this could be the only real example. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 11:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The wording in the Blade article is neutral: In poster distributed in December of 2018 by the LA County Sheriff’s Department, Merager is described as “claims to be female in order to gain access to women’s locker rooms and showers.”. Wording can be adapted from that. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I see I confused you. Neutral refers to way we write something on the wiki, not the source's writing. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 21:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

No, Gwennie-nyan, I'm not confused. If you read my short comment, which may have confused you, I said A) the wording in the Blade article (the source's writing) is neutral, and, B) we can adapt wording from that, meaning we can write it in Wiki in a similarly neutral manner. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see. Well we would really need to invent our own language for the inclusion because close paraphrasing is also considered plagiarism. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

No, Gwennie-nyan, we don't have to "invent our own language." We simply have to write it neutrally based on the source. It's quite simple. Like thousands of people have done with zillions of Wiki articles for years. By your logic, you can never write a single article. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding how to word anything which we decide is due to include but for which the only source is the NY Post interview, one obvious thing to do would be to attribute it inline to the Post, which we could do even without citing the Post (without putting the Post as a <ref>), just citing the other papers which themselves attribute it to the Post (which are thus theoretically reliable sources for the statement "According to the NY Post, [...]"); we already attribute a lot of statements in this article to various papers. However, if as OP suggests the source is not merely a deprecated publication but a non-credible activist interviewer, that gives serious cause for concern about whether the information, even when other sources report that the NY Post reported it, is actually true without independent verification of the information itself (and not just of the fact that "The NY Post reported that [...]"). (And there's always a risk, if we're tentatively keeping unreliable information in the article, that it leads a sloppy journalist somewhere to citogenesis.) -sche (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

NY Post as original source for information on Wi Spa case -- needs a decision

The question of whether we can use information which originated with the NY Post and has been subsequently cited by reliable sources needs to be decided, since we currently;y have such information in the article, (eg, statements from the Posts interview with Merager, the suspect arrested in the case, but in other instances information also orginally deriving from the Post and cited to other sources had been reverted. So either all such bits of info should be allowed, or all such information should be removed. So, the options are:

• Remove all content in the article that originates with the NY Post, even if sourced elsewhere; or
• Allow content in the article that originates with the NY Post if sourced to a reliable source, since there is salient information on this story that originated with the Post; or
• Allow the use of the NY Post as a source for this article since they have some exclusive information.

I'm happy with the second or third option, and would be happy to make the edits. As it currently stands, we are allowing such information and not allowing it at the same time. So we should decide. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Option 2 seems reasonable to me. It's pretty normal to cite RS claims which are based on material that we otherwise would not cite directly - mostly primary sources. We trust that they have the expertise and fact-checking to evaluate these sources in a way that the average wiki editor would not be trusted to do. Though that's not necessarily a blanket carte blanche to include any content from the Post which has been repeated in RS - we still need to consider due weight and so on. Also, we should be careful about in-text attribution. If reliable source X says "According to the New York Post, the moon is made of blue cheese.", we should probably translate that into roughly the same attributed claim (and not "The moon is made of blue cheese", or "According to X, the moon is made of blue cheese"). Colin M (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Same here. Option 2. Source deprecation is not an infectious property extending to other actually reliable sources that talk about them. That we - a website that anyone can edit - are not allowed to use certain sources because they are too unreliable is irrelevant when it comes to RS that, by definition, have their own fact checking ability. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean Option 2 is already currently in-effect. However in all instances, it is better to utilize sources better than the NY Post due to deprecation of that source. Regardless the standard policies and guidelines will need to apply regardless of whatever we're citing and the way we present the information. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

No, Gwennie-nyan, Option 2 is not in effect, which if you read what I wrote is the whole point. Option 2 (allowing Post-derived content) and Option 1 (reverting content because it isPost-derived) are both in effect, which is obviously contradictory. So if we are in agreement that we allow NY Post-derived content cited to reliable sources, I will go ahead and make edits accordingly Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat I've already done so and implemented Post-related content as cited by The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, and LA Blade based on the current consensus on Option 2. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Identification

@Gwennie-nyan: The woman has not said she identifies that way. Saying something negative about trans people doesn't mean she identifies as cisgender, as you claim. This is your personal opinion, you are violating MOS:GENDERID and WP:VERIFY. MOS:GENDERID says to "reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources". Your claim that we have a reliable source is a misrepresentation as the source does not have her saying she is cisgender. Also, in that edit summary you didn't address that you also reverted this edit that refers to the accused as a trans woman. Your use of the same phrasing elsewhere in the article was previously amended in this edit by @Volteer1: who cited WP:VOICE. Gwennie-nyan, again you are violating MOS:GENDERID. You also removed an archive reference and disunited the article's date formats. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not a GENDERID issue. That the woman identifies as a woman is very clear from her own statements and reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the suspect individual, The NY Post interview only says they're legally female. The Guardian calls their gender unconfirmed. The Blade claims they're a trans woman. I'm not going to confirm them as X until I have a reliable source claiming X.

Regarding the video-taking woman, The Hill source specifically identifies them as cisgender woman. I'm not sure why this fact, uncontested by any RS, is an issue. She is a woman. She says trans folks don't exist. She is called cisgender by a RS. Seems reasonable to note in body. I agree with Colin M that it need not be in lead. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 17:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

For transparency, I only actually saw the line in The Guardian after I made that edit. I guess it's still probably fine for it to be worded the way I worded it (I can't find any other sources that don't just call them a trans woman), but it's not at all obvious or trivial that the way I worded it is better. Edit: eh, probably better how it was. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Merager is referred to as a transwoman based in Merager claiming to be such (although police have said Meraher pretends to be trans to get into women's spaces). Cubanaangel has only referred to herself as a woman, and should be referred to as such. To the extent that some sources (and not major media such as LAT, NYT, WAPO) use "cis", it's obviously a product of a particular ideological bent (and, without judgment, let's not pretend it isn't). So in the absence of a source quoting Cubanaangel saying something like "as a ciswoman, I...", or LAPD saying 5 ciswomen claimed such and such, we should just use "woman." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Merits of Spa Policy Inclusion

Colin M attempted to remove the section regarding the Spa's policies. I undid so we can discuss this. I feel they merit inclusion given the context of the situation, as the Spa is specifically reported to support access for non-cisgender or gender-variant individuals. I would like to her feedback, thoughts, etc. regarding the merits of inclusion, modification, or removal. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The best guide to inclusion is treatment in RS. Do secondary sources detail the spa’s policies? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel they merit inclusion given the context of the situation, as the Spa is specifically reported to support access for non-cisgender or gender-variant individuals. That's fair, but isn't this fact already conveyed in the § Spa response section? Colin M (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)