Talk:Graham Linehan

What in the name is "anti-trans activism"?

Persecuting minorities is not activism. The way he treated trans people, if he made such comments towards black people he'd be racist. If he made such comments towards Muslims he wouldn't be an "anti-Muslim activist". Making derogatory comments is not a contribution to a noble cause but very simply hate speech and should be labelled as such. It's transphobia and the relevant section should be renamed as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.38.31 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

What would be a most suitable way to describe him? Transphobe would possibly describe his attitudes but it feels incomplete and misses out his actions. Using phrases like transphobe activist may be a more complete description? John Cummings (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake, people. This is an encyclopedia. It's meant to be unbiased and scholarly. No, you cannot call him a transphobe because you personally disagree with his views regarding trans activism's effect on women's rights. The article is already badly slanted and biased, but there are limits that could put Wikipedia in danger of legal action if breached and that's one of them. The WP:BLP rules exist just for that reason. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

On this note, it's recently been edited to "anti-trans controversy." I reverted to anti-trans activism as there was consensus that this is the best wording for this section. It is descriptive, and also neutral. Yes, everyone can see that he is deeply transphobic, but this is still a value judgement, and the article should refrain from that no matter how obvious it may be.Wikiditm (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiditm:Can you link me to the page where consensus was reached on this? It seems heavily biased to call the category "anti-transgender" at all instead of something neutral like "transgender controversy", and I can't find the discussion on it. Thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiditm:It has now been over six weeks since I asked for a link to this "consensus" that you cited as justification to revert to biased language like "anti-transgender activism". It is not the first time I have asked to see it (although I asked someone else the last time and not you), but once again, I am met with silence when asked where it is. I cannot find it myself, so I will ask yet again: where and when was this consensus that you cite reached, and may I see a link to the page? Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I do not use wikipedia often so just saw all your replies here. I think it is obvious that the consensus is for the current wording. If you have a reason it should be changed, and build a consensus around that, then I'll be happy for it to be changed. With all due respect, I don't think this will happen - the current wording is fine.Wikiditm (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your civil reply, it is much appreciated. In order for there to be a consensus, there must have been a discussion where a consensus was reached. No one has been able to provide a link to that, but trying to get neutral wording into this article or any other about issues regarding trans activism and women's rights is slightly more difficult than nailing Jello to a tree and I give up. Thanks again for being polite and not dismissive. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiditm:You have long reverted all attempts to make the wording n this section neutral and insisted that the biased wording "Anti-Trans" was reached "by consensus". I have now requested several times that you provide a link to this consensus and waited months for your reply. You have refused to respond. Since I can find no evidence of this consensus and you can provide none, it seems clear that there was no such consensus reached at all. Your refusal to respond is WP:DISCUSSFAIL. I will therefore change the language to the more neutral "Transgender Controversy". Lilipo25 (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"Controversy" section headings are not favored by policy, particularly where there are no sources suggesting that the BLP subject is, in fact, participating in a "Transgender controversy". Reverted therefore per BRD. Newimpartial (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You have never edited this page before, but you're now just going to follow me around Wikipedia and harass me by immediately revert anything I do in minutes out of spite bc I disagreed with your bullying on another page? You actually put a watch on my edits just to do this? This is WP:HOUNDING and is expressly forbidden as harassment.

Wikipedia "discourages" entire sections devoted to criticism and controversies, but there's no way activists will allow that section to be cut down and integrated into the article as it should be. Since the section exists, Wikipedia allows the use of "Controversy" in the section heading. Re WP:CRIT:

"Controversy" section: For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources. Various positions, whether pro or contra, are given due weight as supported by the sources. The topic of the controversy is best named in the section title. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

There is not anything untoward in my adding yet another anti-trans activist BLP to my watchlist; this has nothing to do with your "bullying" accusation (which is unCIVIL, unsubstantiated, and a violation of WP:AGF), nor am I singling out any editor by doing so. I watch the pages of anti-Trans activists for POV and BLP issues, but this is one I had missed until recently.

Substantively, I don't see any evidence of a "controversy", what I see is what RS describe as "activism", so that is what the section should be called. We do not impose FALSEBALANCE by artificially creating "pro" and "contra" positions that do not reflect what RS say. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I resent your declaration that editing for more neutral language makes me an "anti-Trans activist". That is offensive and an insult, again. You are WP: HOUNDING. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding a page to my watchlist that is within my well-established areas of WP editing interest cannot misconstrued as HOUNDING. Please AGF, and provide some evidence (besides YOUDONTLIKEIT) that "controversy" - a heading that is unsourced and discouraged by policy - is somehow more neutral than "activism". Newimpartial (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The current wording and section heading ("Anti-Transgender activism") is the neutral and long-standing wording. Editors should be aware that further reverts will result in them being reported for 3RR violations. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I figured you'd be along to join in. I can't help but wonder why you didn't respond any time during the last 2 months when I asked repeatedly for the link to the "consensus" that keeps being claimed was reached on this term and no one would reply at all.

As usual, there's no way to fight trans activists who want this page to be as negative as possible. You now have someone new joining in to help keep it that way. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

If you can't tell the difference between sourced discussion per BALANCE and being "as negative as possible", then you should not be editing the subject in question IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

For example, this section was opened by an editor who believed the heading "Anti-trans activism" was too sympathetic to the subject, but for some reason you find it to be too "negative". Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I support "Anti-trans activism" or "Anti-transgender activism". I see "Anti-trans harassment", "Transphobic comments" etc. to be unjustified by the current sourcing, whilst anything with "trans(gender)" and not the "anti-" is potentially misleading to someone just skimming. "Controversy" is unjustified by the current sourcing for a couple of the paragraphs, which do not comment on alternate views to Linehan's. (I'm sure Linehan himself would much prefer "Anti-transgender activism" rather than "Transgender controversy" to be the title.) Can we please make sure that the "t" in "trans(gender)" is lowercase though? I've changed it to lowercase myself because I don't have reason to expect that anyone will find this typographical change controversial. — Bilorv (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing "anti-trans" nor "phobic" in his views. It does not reflect his positions, in fact, it's a complete hatchet job, opinionated take on it. "Views on transgeder issues" would be a more adequate title. 92.238.89.128 (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

However, IP, by policy WP follows the sources rather than the opinions of editors. Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact his views are anti-transgender is surely not up for debate? It's been verified by numerous reliable sources, and is also obvious from just looking at what he's said. He's certainly not pro-transgender!Wikiditm (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It is, of course, very much up for debate. He is anti-self-ID because he believes, as many others do, that it is a policy that is harmful to women's sex-based rights, and anti-medicalisation of children with puberty blockers, particularly by the Tavistock Centre (which just last night was exposed by a Newsnight investigation as putting kids on the experimental blockers without proper evaluation first and over the objections of many health care officials - just as Linehan had said they were doing all along and which this article suggests makes him 'transphobic'). Lilipo25 (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Those are all anti-transgender stances. His motivation for them may be transphobia, or may be women's rights, it doesn't really matter. Those stances are all against what transgender people are widely campaigning for.Wikiditm (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again, this article doesn't say that makes him transphobic: the sources say it makes him transphobic. This article follows the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again, other reliable sources agreed with him, but every time any are included for balance, they get reverted again. Which allows for the justification of biased section headings like "Anti-transgender activism".Lilipo25 (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

What "reliable sources"? Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The heading "anti-transgender activism" is a violation of WP:LABEL: "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." I don't see the term "anti-transgender" sourced anywhere, and even if it were, it would need attribution, which is not feasible for section headings. Why can't we just use the lead wording, which has bipartisan endorsement from Lilipo25 and Newimpartial: "critic[ism] of transgender rights activism"? How is "anti-transgender" - which is vague - actually better? Crossroads ^-talk- 17:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly correct and in line with Wikipedia policy. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

If the heading were to be changed, say, to "criticism of transgender rights activism", then this wouldn't accurately reflect the content in the section underneath, most of which does not actually refer to transgender rights activism (having read through it, next to none of it does). WP:LABEL refers to value-laden terms, which the current heading "anti-transgender activism" is not. It is neutral and accurate, and reflects the content underneath.Wikiditm (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove properly sourced and accurate content. If we're going to include his tweeted defense of Rowling (which is a minor occurrence not covered by any UK newspaper or outlet and not really worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia biography anyway), then we must include specifically what he was defending her against, as it is included in the source. In addition, he did not address his comment to Hozier; he tagged Hozier in to the conversation and that is what the source says, so you can't change that (although, frankly, Hozier is irrelevant here and takes the paragraph off on a tangent).

Hi. I haven't done any such thing. I reworded a paragraph which was very distant from the source backing it. I did this to improve readability and also make it accurately reflect the source, which it now does a lot better. The final sentence is still not very readable, and will need improving in the future, but is ok for now.Wikiditm (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The original paragraph was very close to the source; your rewording was inaccurate at best. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

If you consider my rewording to be inaccurate or not close to the source, then please say how and we can work on improving it and getting it closer to the source. Merely branding it inaccurate is not particularly helpful.Wikiditm (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe I already outlined (in the above and below comments) how it was inaccurate: stating that the tweet was to Hozier instead of saying that Hozier was tagged, as the source says, and removing six words from his direct quote in the source that specifically stated he considers trans rights to be human rights. Also, you changed it to say that he defended Rowling's comments, when the source says that he defended her from abuse she was receiving over those comments; the meaning is very different. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This is pretty ridiculous. The distinction between "tweeting to someone" and "tweeting generally but only tagging one person" is wafer thin. I deleted 6 words from a quote which didn't change the meaning. Neither of these changes are at all substantial. And then you make up that I changed it to say he defended Rowling's comments, which I did not. Please keep the spirit of cooperation in mind.Wikiditm (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"Cooperation" doesn't mean agreeing with egregiously biased edits, and I would appreciate it if you would permanently cease using the tactic of pretending that I am simply difficult and 'uncooperative' when you make them and receive civil, reasoned disagreement in response.

The distinction is hardly "wafer thin" - I have frequently tweeted to all of my followers but tagged a person who might be interested in the tweet. That doesn't mean the tweet is addressed to that person alone, and you cannot make an assumption that is not in the source. And deleting only the six words in the short direct quote being discussed which specifically contradict the "he's transphobic" narrative being pushed here is blatant bias. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Most importantly, you absolutely cannot alter the words of his tweet, which is quoted in full in the source, to delete the part where he agreed that trans rights are human rights. The edit I made already stuck very close to what the source says. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed a part in parenthesis to improve readability. It is not great to quote things in full if readability can be improved (and meaning still conveyed) from part of the quote, especially when the full thing is pretty cumbersome.Wikiditm (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Cumbersome? It's a tweet - less than 280 characters in total. And the tweet is the subject of the paragraph. You removed a total of six words which contradicted him being "anti-transgender"; it didn't make it more "readable" but merely changed the intent and meaning of what he said. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the meaning and intent of the tweet, which seems to be primarily about criticising Hozier's approach to the topic, was changed by removing the brackets. On the other hand, it became a lot more readable, which was why I made the change. Perhaps there's a better solution?Wikiditm (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

A better solution would be not to remove part of a direct quote that is neither long nor cumbersome, but changes the meaning of what he said to eliminate his support of trans rights as human rights. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Most of it is criticism of transgender rights activism. Gender self-ID, medical transition of children, Mermaids, Tavistock Centre, and so-called "gender ideology" are all about transgender rights activism. The portions that are not about activism per se aren't really 'activism' on his part either - in fact, criticism more closely fits the section as a whole. "Anti-transgender" is obviously a value laden label, same as "transphobic" is, which is specifically mentioned at WP:LABEL. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to start an RfC on this and it would be great to have your input there.Wikiditm (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with Crossroads reasoning above. The section header "Anti-transgender" neither reflects the content of the section nor is it in anyway a neutral term. It is also an extremely vague descriptor. The change to "Criticism of transgender rights activism" is a much clearer descriptor. Happy to comment in RFC if started. AutumnKing (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Autumnking and Crossroads. Crossroads has made a very clear case to change the section heading and backed it up with Wikipedia rules. There is no doubt that "Anti-transgender" is neither neutral nor clear and should be removed. I will also be happy to comment in RFC if started. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I've just started an RfC on the topic of this heading below. Tagging everyone who has participated in the discussion above and would welcome comments. John Cummings Lilipo25 Newimpartial Bastun Bilorv Crossroads AutumnKing. Wikiditm (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud and Ceoil have also recently edited the section and should be notified of the RFC. Also Bring back Daz Sampson, who was very involved in the debate over this heading on the ANI that you opened last month. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

LGB Alliance Controversy

Apparently telling the true reason of the LGB Alliance controversy is bias, when indeed I was just stating the true reason for the controversy, rather than "people don't like how they treat LGB rights but others do". The LGB Alliance has attracted criticism due to their prominent views on transgender people, and also their perceived lack of focus on LGB People. The controversy is not due to transgender people saying "I want to be in it", but due to their prominent criticism of transgender people. It's all over their website, their advertising, their twitter, nearly all their material, it's a large focus for the group that is attracting the controversy, but no, apparently the reason for the controversy is apparently just because Transgender people aren't included. I could argue all day about how the LGB Alliance does indeed have a controversial view on transgender people, and how that would be very much unbiased to include in the article. In the end, skewing the reason for the controversy making transgender people seem like they're mad for being left out of the group is dishonest and biased. TheEthan8or (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, I may add, why is Linehan in the LGB Alliance when he's straight? Oh yeah, it's because of their views on transgender people. This should be included. TheEthan8or (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Having read through the paragraph and sources, I agree that the current wording is not accurate, and indeed may be misleading. Every article about LGB Alliance seems to concern their views on transgender people. There is nothing, for example, on gay marriage, adoption, or discrimination - issues which are typically covered by charities advocating for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights. In contrast, a key line from the Pink News article states "many in the LGBT+ community agree they are a transphobic hate group." This criticism goes well beyond what is currently stated in the article (that the disagreement is around simple exclusion). It also seems wrong to me to have the line "others disagree" and only cite members of the group itself. "Others" implies some element of independence and neutrality. A better wording here would be for example "LGB Alliance denies that they are transphobic, with members stating..." Finally, there are two links to the Spectator, which is strongly culturally conservative. I think the Times article is far preferred as a source for that statement, and the Spectator should not be featured.Wikiditm (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You both keep saying that anyone who has written in support of them is a "member" of the organization and must be discounted, but in fact LGB Alliance doesn't even have a membership. I have no idea why Linehan's sexual orientation should preclude him from supporting a gay rights organization, and frankly, Ethan attacking him for it is rather bizarre. There are many straight people who support gay rights and some were invited to the opening party. There are also many trans people who support the LGB Alliance and attended the opening, including Dr. Hayton. There is no reason to exclude her article simply because she supports the organization or to try to word it as if she is one of the people who runs the organization. She does not, nor does Linehan; their invited attendance at the opening does not make them part of the organization .And no, you cannot use PinkNews, which is an extremely biased website with a clear agenda against Linehan, as the source for most of this entry, and then discount a legitimate newspaper like the Spectator for leaning conservative. The bias against Linehan in this entire article by people with an agenda is out of control. My edit was balanced, gave both sides, and was properly sourced with newspaper articles. It is being deleted precisely for not being biased, and that is not okay. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps "supporter" would be a better word. I think the article saying "others" in that context hides the fact that the people in question have featured as major speakers at events. With regards excluding Hayton's opinion piece, the statement that citation is backing up (that supporters deny LGB Alliance is transphobic) just doesn't need quite that many citations - there's two sufficient links to pieces in the Times which are enough. The statement that I'm "trying to word it as if she is one of the people who runs the organization" is utterly bizarre. My suggested wording was "LGB Alliance denies that they are transphobic, with members stating..." and I am happy to use "supporter" instead of "member" here. Nothing about this suggests that the people being cited run LGB Alliance. And then the accusation that me or other editors have some ulterior agenda is very rude and uncalled for. I am trying to ensure the article is unbiased and factual, and I agree with the original editor's criticisms of the section in question.Wikiditm (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"Supporter" is a "better" word because it is true, while "member", as you know, means something completely different, is false and was fabricated as a means of dismissing the support of trans ppl who say LGB Alliance is not a hate group. No consensus was reached on the wording here. I am willing to agree to the wording as you went ahead and changed it, with the additional sentence that I have put in clarifying the controversy over the creation of LGB Alliance (the break from Stonewall).This strikes me as a more than fair compromise. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The additional information characterises LGB Alliance in a way which is apparently disputed by Stonewall (see the Independent ref on this). As such, it would need further sentences acknowledging this dispute, at which point the paragraph drifts from the subject of the article - it is about Graham Linehan, not differing accounts on the formation of a group which Linehan supports. The original wording was neutral (providing appropriate, equal coverage to supporters and detractors) and factual (accurately summarising each sides' view, using direct quotations to do so), and so doesn't need compromising.Wikiditm (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The additional information was sourced with news articles from WP:RS; whether Stonewall agrees with it or not is irrelevant as Stonewall does not dictate which news is included in Wikipedia and is not a WP:RS. You have inserted wording (without any consensus being reached in an open discussion, which you should not have done at all) which states that LGB Alliance is called a "hate group" by critics. As this is a very inflammatory statement, it is both relevant and important to include the reason why it is called that, according to WP:RS. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether Stonewall disagrees with it, but the fact it may well not be true.16:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiditm (talk • contribs)

It is completely true to say that the members who left Stonewall and created a new group SAID this was their reason for doing it. The fact that Stonewall doesn't like that they said it does not make it untrue that they did say it, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not the former member's statement should be included in Wikipedia, as it is contained in a WP:RS. Wikipedia is not here to do Stonewall's PR and their disapproval of a reliably-sourced statement has no bearing on Wikipedia content. Please stop deleting any edit that isn't entirely yours. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please take a breather on this. The paragraph, as it currently stands, is absurd. It reads like a child's stream of consciousness, it is irrelevant to the article topic (which is Graham Linehan) and it is factually dubious. It is highly unlikely that it will remain in that state, when the previous wording was neutral, legible, and most importantly factually true. It seems like you take it in turns to insult and abuse random editors when we are simply trying to maintain quality.Wikiditm (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that you need to "take a breather", Wikiditm . You have failed to show how the reliable sources are wrong in what they say the founders of LGB Alliance gave as the reason behind their organization's creation. You cannot show that the WP:RS are wrong, because it is true. You have refused all compromises offered by two different editors and inserted new text while the discussion was ongoing with no consensus being reached.

The entire section is frankly off-topic, vastly too long and is at this point merely an endless and overly-detailed list of reasons one particular group hates him, much of which you are responsible for inserting; the whole section should properly be condensed to a single paragraph with an overview of the issue instead of this, but there is no way those angry at him will allow this article to be edited as an encyclopedia article rather than a tool of revenge on someone with whom they ideologically disagree. The best that can be done is trying to make it ever-so-slightly more balanced, and even that is like nailing Jell-o to a tree in a tornado.

You have already gotten 90% of the edit you demanded. Now stop adding "disputed" to the bit of information that is properly sourced, true, and that you and Stonewall merely don't like. And I think that at this point, it only makes sense to ask the question: are you a member of Stonewall or in any way involved with their organization? Lilipo25 (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Seriously?! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. If someone is repeatedly deleting/marking as 'disputed' information from WP:RS on the basis that Stonewall doesn't agree, it makes sense to ask if they are a member of Stonewall editing on the organization's behalf. And since one of the editors on this article literally tracked down my private social media account to harass me with thinly-veiled threats warning me to stop editing this page in the past day, I'm not here for faux outrage from any of you over me asking a logical question on the Talk page. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikidtm has failed to prove (or even attempt to prove) that the included information is false or that the RS does not say it. Therefore, the "disputed" tag has no business in the article and should be removed. If no such proof is offered, I will remove it. Should anyone be under the impression that continued stalking of me off of Wikipedia will intimidate me into withdrawing from editing on this page: it will not. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok this is pretty outrageous. I have been attempting to keep this paragraph accurate and neutral. Judging from comments on here, and the thanks I received for my initial edit wording, it seems like this (or something like this) is the preferred wording of several editors. In response, I've been met with a barrage of insults and accusations, that I'm editing on behalf of Stonewall, that I'm stalking people, that I have an agenda... All of which is totally uncalled for, but is being used to bully through a wording which isn't supported by anyone but the user above. Surely wikipedia has ways to alleviate problems like this? The reason I've marked the statement as disputed is because it is disputed, for example in the Independent ref. I don't think the statement should be included at all, as it's irrelevant to the article, poorly written, unbalanced, and factually dubious.Wikiditm (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not, in fact, state anywhere that you were the person who stalked my private social media account. Nonetheless, one of the editors of this page has done exactly that and that's just a bit more egregious than you being asked if you have a WP:COI. I have been declared on this very talk page within the past 6 months to be too "personally involved" to edit it due to what one of your contingent assumed to be my sexual orientation (also more egregious than you being asked if you have a WP:COI), and yet still managed not to sputter in indignation in response. So please do spare me all of the 'outrage' at a simple conflict-of-interest inquiry.

The entire article is unbalanced and poorly written, and this whole section is one long stream-of-consciousness mess. There is no real reason at all to even include the LGB Alliance in it, but since it's been added in order to claim that supporting the organization makes him "anti-transgender", it is necessary to include brief information about what the LGB Alliance is and why this is claimed. If you insist on an ever-growing, detailed list of all the ways he has supported one side of a debate over another instead of a proper summary of his involvement with the issue, then that increases the number of explanatory tangents required, and decreases the quality of the article.Lilipo25 (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I have once again left all of your information in and cut down the properly-sourced information you deleted which explains what LGB Alliance is, in order to attempt a compromise. But it belongs in there, as the paragraph makes little sense to a reader unfamiliar with Linehan or the organization without at least saying what the organization is. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to make Stonewall happy or satisfy those who hate the subject of the article, but to inform readers who don't already know about the subject. Just saying "some people say it's a hate group but its supporters disagree" is not enough context to make any sense of its inclusion in the article. Lilipo25 (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we're stretching things with the explanation and straying off topic, but it's brief enough and I'd support inclusion as a compromise. Have removed some extra words and the link to the LGB Alliance funding page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I am willing to accept your edit as yet another compromise. (I don't know where the link to the funding page was, but if it was in there, it was certainly correct to remove it). However, I see that Wikiditm has now deleted part of your edit, as well, in the continuing effort to use only Stonewall-approved information, so I suppose it's a moot point. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where they did what you claim. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to note, it's quite hard to compare versions when paragraph spacing is altered :-( Per WP:RSPSOURCES, neither Pinknews nor The Spectator are precluded from being used as sources. Perhaps three references to back the LGB Alliance as being transphobic and four defending it is overkill? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, and perhaps I wasn't clear in my statement there. I too feel that it is overkill, and the statements being made only really need a single citation. If we are going to cut the citation down to one or two, though, then I think the two we select should be the Times pieces. While the Spectator is not precluded as a source, it seems odd to me that we would cite it in support of something when the Times is the alternative.Wikiditm (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The LGB alliance bit of the article is bad and very obvious bias. I'm going to fix it up tomorrow. Awoma (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Considering that there's been a lot of discussion about it here in the last few days, you should probably bring your proposed changes here first. --Equivamp - talk 00:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say just state what the group says then state what the opposition says. At the moment it's all about what the group says, and not even in speech marks so it looks like wikipedia is saying that's the truth. Awoma (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Can we please not just delete chunks of referenced text, without discussing it here first? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Frankly I find it ridiculous to claim that the section on Linehan's anti-transgender activism is too long. Over the past two years, it's what he's been known for, sometimes tweeting hundreds of times a day about it. The man does little else. Amekyras (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Divorced

It appears that he got divorced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.222.75 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

We'll need a reliable source WP:RS before we can add that. Popcornfud (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There have been rumours of a divorce for ages, stemming from Serafinowicz' lack of support for Linehan's views on transgender rights, and her choice to revert to her maiden name at some point last year. If that's the reason you say they got divorced, then this isn't good evidence, and a proper reliable source is needed.Wikiditm (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Confusion over edits

There appears to be some confusion from another editor over the nature of some recent edits made by myself. I initially made this edit [1] which was primarily to remove a recently depreciated source per WP:RSP. In the process I removed a sentence which was only supported by that source (aside from a WP:SELFPUB source), and changed a section title. I now realise that this last action was counter to a Talk page discussion, for which I apologise. Black Kite then readded the sentence here [2] with a different source. I then made a further edit to reword the sentence to give it further context as well as presenting a more WP:NPOV, here [3], although I still had reservations that it was potentially WP:UNDUE for a WP:BLP. Bastun then reverted all my edits here [4] with the following edit summary This content, including the section heading, have been discussed at length on the talk page. Restoring consensus version, replacing the pinknews ref with Black Kite's one. I acknowledge that my changing of the section header ran counter to the previous Talk page discussion, however, the content I was replacing was not previously discussed on the Talk page. Additionally, Baston did not replace the PinkNews references, but reinstated them. I therefore partially reverted the edit here [5], retaining the consensus section title, removing the PinkNews references again, and reinstating content that did not breach consensus. Bastun proceeded to revert my edit again here [6] removing the PinkNews references in a subsequent edit.[7]. In Bastun's edit summary, they accuse me of making large edits covering multiple issues, and again claim that the wording regarding London Pride is subject to consensus. Please don't make such large edits covering multiple issues. There are at least two issues here. Restoring discussed consensus wording. This is not the case. My edits removed a depreciated source, and reworded a single sentence, about which no Talk page discussion had taken place. Bastun's last edit has in fact led to the sentence in question being duplicated within the article. I will now edit the page to remove the duplication, and restore the wording per my edit here [8], keeping Black Kite's source as I did the first time, and rewording to accurately reflect the content of sources, give the reader context and to maintain WP:NPOV. AutumnKing (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Please revert. Please check the talk page archive, where coverage of Pride and the protest has been discussed. What was there has consensus for inclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I missed the archive, I was looking for is further up the page. As you can see from my edits, once a replacement source for the PinkNews one was added, I have not attempted to remove the content, despite my inclination that it is WP:UNDUE, which therefore abides by consensus. I feel the rewording, and the additional source I have added, provide the reader with greater context to the comments. Without the rewording, the sentence implies that the protesters were generally against transgender people; the reword gives their context. It is also factual. Acknowledging that their viewpoint is controversial gives balances and adds to WP:NPOV. AutumnKing (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Describing anti-transgender protesters as anti-transgender protesters is perfectly accurate and fully complies, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud, your edits have removed the term "anti-transgender" from the sentence about the anti-transgender protesters, while your edit summaries suggest you only want to remove the word "controversial". Want to restore the former? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need to characterise them as anti-transgender when we say they carried banners reading "transactivism erases lesbians". Popcornfud (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, the reason it was deleted is that we don't need to say Linehan described them as "heroes" when we also say he praised them. I added the "praise" to paraphrase the "heroes" quote. Popcornfud (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Non-binary identity announcement

Linehan announced at https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1271449417304936449 (during Pride month and on the fourth anniversary of Orlando nightclub shooting, no less) of being non-binary. This is likely mockery, but it's not totally clear from the context of that post alone. WP:TWITTER suggests that this might be usable as a source unless it's an extraordinary claim; given Linehan's anti-trans activism and background as a comedy writer, would this fall under WP:EXTRAORDINARY as self-satire? os (talk)

It's a parody tweet. (And a rather nasty one.) Popcornfud (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It seemed that way to me, but I really didn't see enough context there to be sure. I was trying to look for a source use policy or recommendation on when authoritative sources might indulge in parody, such as comedy writers who might alternate between self-disclosure and humor (whether the humor is any good or not is another matter), but I couldn't find anything specific on that, outside of the specific use notes at WP:SOCIALMEDIA. I wasn't sure if it would be WP:UNDUE to make mention of this as a potential parody or not under discussion of Linehan's social media, especially given the large body of mockery of trans people which has come from Linehan in the past, but until it's clarified by Linehan to be an actual parody, or a qualified expert publishes something in a reputable source examining how it might constitute a parody, I am not sure it can even be mentioned, because someone could argue that stating it is merely parody might just be conjecture and non-encyclopedic. It would be great to find a reputable discussion of Linehan's social media posts which mock LGBT people, because there have been a number of them that I have seen; Linehan's social media controversy pertains often to this particular topic. The only mention I see is the "Dick of the Year" award. os (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we can't add coverage of his tweets until they're covered in reliable sources. We can't just link to his tweets and give our own assessment of what he's doing. Popcornfud (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

School is listed as in the incorrect location

change the reference that Whitehall is on the south side of Dublin, to the north side. Plunkett's is in Whitehall in Dublin 9 on the north side of the city http://www.plunketcollege.ie/location JGSaxcat (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

marking as answered! --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 19:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on heading on Linehan's activities in relation to transgender causes and people

This section has long had the heading "Anti-transgender activism." However, this has been challenged and changed a number of times with many alternatives being proposed, including "Transphobia", "Anti-trans controversy", "Transgender controversy", "Anti-transgender harassment", "Transphobic comments", and "Views on transgender issues." Following a recent edit, it currently stands at "Criticism of transgender rights activism." What should the heading be?Wikiditm (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support current wording of "Criticism of transgender rights activism" It needs to be both unbiased and clear. Anything with "Anti-transgender" in it is neither of those things. My preference would be for "Views on transgender issues", but I believe that the current heading of "Criticism of transgender rights activism", added by Crossroads, is also a very good one: it is specific and neutral in tone. I have no objection to keeping that. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support "Opposition to Transgender Rights Activism" as suggested by Equivamp, below, changing my vote from "Criticism of transgender rights activism", above. Equivamp's suggestion is the most neutral and clear heading proposed yet. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• My personal view is that the old heading, "Anti-transgender activism", is accurate, neutral, concise, and true to the material of the section. All the suggested alternatives do not meet one or more of these criteria. For example, anything which suggests Linehan is transphobic (or perhaps anything which focuses on the controversial nature of his activism) is not neutral. A heading with the word "comments" or "views" or "harassment" is not true to the material underneath, or accurate, as the section is about a wider activism which may encompass more than just one of these terms. The most recent change, to "criticism of transgender rights activism", also fails to meet this criterion. Looking through the section, very little of it is accurately described by that heading. Firstly, the majority of what is covered is not accurately described as "criticism" but a more general "opposition." Secondly, the majority of what is being opposed is not accurately described as "transgender rights activism." The most noteworthy parts of his activism are the ongoing opposition to Mermaids and the Tavistock Centre, along with the police warning he received not to contact Stephanie Hayden (who is transgender). The Tavistock Centre is an NHS clinic, and so is not appropriately summarised as "transgender rights activism." The interaction with Stephanie Hayden (see [9]) again has nothing to do with transgender rights activism. The opposition to Mermaids is perhaps the only part which is accurately described like this, but is only really a half-truth. Mermaids does engage in transgender rights activism, and Linehan is opposed to that, but his opposition is really to everything which Mermaids does - including medical counseling and other activities which are not accurately described as transgender rights activism. For these reasons, I think this is a poor heading for the section. The previous heading, "Anti-transgender activism", correctly encapsulates all of the material. Linehan has stood in opposition to transgender rights activism in the Mermaids example, but also transgender healthcare in Tavistock, and transgender individuals in the Hayden example. The main opposition to this previous heading seems to be that it is not neutral. I think it's worth pointing out that it's been criticised on both sides for this, some people saying it is too nice to Linehan, while others saying it is too disparaging. In reality, I think this is perfectly neutral. "Activism" is neutral and encompasses all that Linehan does, without passing judgment (one can surely imagine activism you consider "good" and activism you consider "bad"). "transgender" is the topic to which his activism relates. All of the material relates to this topic somehow. Some of it relates to transgender healthcare, some of it relates to transgender activism, some of it relates to transgender individuals, but all of it is related to transgender experience and debate in some way. Finally, if the heading were just "transgender activism" it would be almost universally misunderstood to mean that Linehan is advocating alongside the trans community, when he is actually in opposition. The suffix "anti" shouldn't be interpreted here as "bad", but "opposed to." People can be "anti-capitalist" or "anti-abortion" or anti any position on any number of debates. This is a neutral and accurate way of summarising their position without applying any value or judgement one way or the other.Wikiditm (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I have laid out my own position below, but felt in necessary to directly address you point regarding the prefix "anti". You are right that it means "opposed to". If someone is therefore described as "anti-transgender" what does that imply they are opposed to? The implication is that the person is against transgender people in general, whereas Linehan has directly stated the opposite. Linehan says he celebrates that trans people are at last finding acceptance: “That’s obviously wonderful.” But, he says: “I disagree fundamentally with certain aspects of current activism. They don’t realise the damage done by certain outrageous claims.”[10] The term is essentially synonymous with transphobic, which in a WP:BLP fails any measure of neutrality. AutumnKing (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The section in its current form has varied examples of what Linehan is against - transgender rights activism, but also certain elements of transgender rights, transgender healthcare, and certain transgender individuals. Essentially, on anything related to transgender issues, Linehan places himself in opposition (anti-) to the transgender community. This is a personal and political philosophical stance which is reflected throughout the material in the section. This opposition isn't necessarily good or bad, it's just opposition. Transphobia, on the other hand, is a value-laden term and so should not feature in the heading.Wikiditm (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree the section illustrates the things that Linehan is against, where I would disagree is that the term "anti-transgender" is sufficiently precise to encompass such. Whilst the prefix "anti" is not necessarily good or bad, to phrase as such one must be directly opposed to something. Linehan is not opposed to the transgender community (which in of itself is represented by diverse views and opinions); he is opposed to particular issues. There is nothing neutral in the label, to be anti-abortion is against abortion; anti-capitalist is against capitalism; anti-transgender is therefore against transgender people. That is neither neutral nor is it what the sources show Linehan to be. AutumnKing (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support current wording of "Criticism of transgender rights activism", as the most literal and neutral descriptor of the section’s content. Heading the section as "Anti-transgender activism" appears to be neither neutral or accurate. (Strikethrough due to proposal by Equivamp, supported below) Whilst Linehan is clearly a vocal critic in this area, none of the content regarding his actions clearly qualify as "activism". Labeling his actions as "anti-transgender" is full of ambiguity. In this instance, his comments are clearly in opposition to a range of issues, but nowhere does he disagree that transgender people do or should exist or have rights. (see [11]) This is a WP:BLP, and use of such a section header would appear to go against WP:BLPSTYLE where it states Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking. From a perusal of the sources, I do not see Linehan being commonly labelled as anti-transgender. Additionally, the phrase anti-transgender is nearly synonymous with the label transphobic, which WP:LABEL expressly includes as value-laden. As such, I believe that the current section title of “Criticism of transgender rights activism” is the most appropriate. AutumnKing (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I restored the consensus version, "Anti-transgender activism", as it's the long-standing version, has consensus, and I didn't know what "2-1 majority on Talo" meant. I guess they mean "Talk"? The section on the talk page here is long, has been moribund since April, and has a handful of participants over the last couple of days. That's certainly not sufficient to establish that consensus has changed, and claiming that "the old title wasn't in compliance with policy, my current version is" does not make it so. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment There does not appear to have ever been any such consensus. I have asked at least a half-dozen times over the course of a year for you and/or Wikiditm to provide a link to a discussion where any consensus on this heading was ever reached, as I am unable to locate one. Neither of you has ever responded, so it would appear not to exist at all. You cannot simply revert the heading to this repeatedly and declare that it is the "consensus" version without there ever having been any such consensus. This is not good faith editing, and you should not have changed it after this RFC was opened to discuss it and while it had only just begun being discussed. I will change it back; please wait until a consensus is actually reached here before altering it again or declaring it the consensus. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Anti-transgender activism was the consensus version, is neutral, is accurate, concise, and true to the material of the section, as argues elegantly by Wikidtm above. Linehan's activities over the last couple of years, as covered in the material in that well-referenced section, transcend mere "criticism of transgender rights activism" and encompass actual activism on his own part. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I ask again, as I have numerous times over the past year, for a link to the discussion where this "consensus" on "Anti-transgender activism" was reached. I have never seen any consensus on this, but each time the topic is discussed, several editors state that heading is the consensus version and restore it on that basis. Please link to the consensus discussion. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Anti-transgender activism is the neutral, accurate phrase to be used. Linehan's activities are well documented as anti-trans, regardless of how he would like to frame his behavior. Material corroborating that has been well supplied in the past. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

User:HandThatFeeds May I ask which corroborating material has been supplied to justify the section header? I have gone through the sources in the section, as best I can due to paywalls, and not a single one describes Lineham as an "anti-transgender activist". One calls him transphobic. Nearly all refer to his disputes with and criticism of transgender activists. WP:BLPSTYLE states Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Not only is the term anti-transgender both contentious and loaded, it is also imprecise, in that it is not clear what exactly the subject is opposed to. AutumnKing (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose anything which says "anti-trans", "anti-transgender", or "transphobic". These are obviously value-laden labels, thus falling under WP:LABEL, which states that these are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. (Emphasis added.) In-text attribution must be used in such cases. Note that these terms also have zero sources supporting them, which makes them WP:Original research as well. Likewise, there are zero sources calling him an activist.
  Support "Criticism of transgender activism", "Criticism of transgender rights activism", or "Views on transgender issues". Most of the section is in fact about his criticism of transgender activism. Gender self-identification, medical transition of children, Mermaids, the Tavistock Centre's use of puberty blockers, and the comments Rowling received all concern transgender activism, and this makes up most of the section. Even the bits about the IT Crowd episode and Stephanie Hayden use sources that contain "activism" or "activist" in the title. "Views on transgender issues" works as well, and actually seems ideal. I'm not sure why some editors are so driven to describe Linehan's views in the section heading, something not generally done in other biographies.
  I emphasize that any claimed weaknesses in the alternative phrasings in no way allow us to default to the pre-existing wording, which is a blatant WP:BLP violation. Crossroads ^-talk- 13:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Could you point me to some discussion (outside of this page) where the phrase "anti-transgender activism" has been found to be "value-laden" in the sense of WP:LABEL? I am aware that "transphobic" has been discussed and should not be used without attribution except where it appears very widely with respect to the subject. However, "anti-transgender activism" seems much more neutral to me. Newimpartial (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Its value-laden nature is obvious, in a WP:BLUESKY fashion. Note that the "words to watch" at WP:LABEL are not meant to be an exhaustive list of value-laden labels, per the ellipsis (...) shown there. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

But it isn't BLUESKY at all. We can (and do) use all kinds of "Anti-X activism" labels in wikivoice, without difficulty from "values", from "anti-social activism" to "anti-capitalist activism" to "anti-GMO activism" by way of "anti-pedophile activism" and "anti-Trump activism". What makes "anti-transgender activism" uniquely controversial, besides your own evident POV? Newimpartial (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to butt in here: anti-capitalist = opposing the concept of capitalism; anti-GMO = opposing use of GMO; anti-pedophile = opposing the legitimisation of pedophilia; anti-Trump = opposing the politics of Trump; anti-transgender = opposing the concept of being transgender. That is not what the sources show Linehan actions to be doing, nor is it a label given to him within them. AutumnKing (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Linehan denies the concept of gender, expresses the belief that trans people are labouring under 'delusions', opposes reassignment surgery and supports gender conversion therapy; that is 'opposing the concept of being transgender'in any practical sense. Please see the examples I have provided below. Newimpartial (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

And just as a note to the closer, Crossroads has not provided any evidence, nor has he received any evidential support, for his assertion that "anti-transgender" is covered by LABEL to a greater extent than, say, anti-gay or anti-black, or that there is any consensus anywhere at WP against using these terms, or to use them only with attribution. Crossroads has also insisted that there are "zero sources calling him an activist", although multiple sourced have in fact been provided describing his "activism" and "campaigns". And an attempt to CRYBLP block consensus, by any editor or small group of editors, to deny consensus and whitewash BLP headings, really needs to fail for the health of the project. Newimpartial (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Propose "Opposition to transgender activism", as "Criticism" doesn't accurately describe all of what's there (per User:Wikiditm above), and "Opposition to" is clearer than "Anti-transgender". --Equivamp - talk 17:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Opposition is definitely a good word that we can use in the heading, and it will help with clarity in distinguishing the heading from transphobia. Any restriction to transgender activism is not so good though. Most of the examples in the text do not relate to transgender activism. For instance, it is wrong for the heading to suggest that the Hayden case was an example of him being opposed to her activism - he received the police warning because of harassment directed at her, the transgender person, not her activism.Wikiditm (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

He directly harassed her, but she was chosen as a target because of her activism, yes. So, one form of his opposition to transgender activism is harassment of an individual transgender activist. --Equivamp - talk 17:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support "Opposition to transgender activism". It's nice and clear. I personally don't feel that "anti-transgender activism" is neutral - "activism" connotes something positive, or at the very least something with a leg to stand on. His views on transgender people aren't a debate over whether or not dogs or cats are better, they have realistic and tangible (especially for myself, seeing as I live in the UK and have seen first-hand the quite frankly baffling quantity of transphobes we seem to produce) effects on a minority people. Opposition will always be the right word for me. He's not an activist, he's hateful. Anti-transgender activism is not what he's spouting off on, it's an opposition to people advocating for basic human rights.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support "Opposition to transgender activism" I hereby change my vote to support "Opposition to transgender activism, as proposed by Equivamp. It is clear, concise and unbiased. This is an excellent choice.Lilipo25 (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Please remember WP:NOTVOTE. The reasons for supporting something are what is important, not numbers.Wikiditm (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Which part of "it is clear, concise and unbiased" didn't sound like reasons to you? Lilipo25 (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• I also support this option alongside what I said in my main comment above. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• I would also support the option of "Opposition to transgender activism" as adhering to WP:BLPSTYLE, per my previous comment. AutumnKing (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think Anti-transgender activism is a fine clear and accurate header (while "Criticism of transgender rights activism" is not an accurate or neutral summary), per Wikiditm. I am not opposed to a compromise like the vaguer "Views on transgender issues" if that has more support, although it's true the section extends beyond "views" to things like statements and substantive actions and activities: maybe, taking a cue from how politicians' articles summarize their "views+actions" on topics, we could say something like "Position on transgender issues", if we are going the 'vague' route? "Opposition to transgender rights", to expand on Equivamp's suggestion, would also be good. -sche (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Anti-transgender activism: the phrase "transgender rights activism" can be used as a dogwhistle by transphobes to refer instead to "transgender people". We shouldn't use it in Wikipedia's words for that reason. To the argument that the phrasing "anti-X" is not neutral, I'm a little confused—there's plenty of topics where I'd be happy to call myself "anti-X", even where others might use the phrase disparagingly. He's involved in activism to limit the transgender community, nothing controversial or unclear about that. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 20:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

With regard to usage of "anti-transgender", it is imprecise as a descriptor. What does it denote that the subject is in opposition to? If someone is anti-apartheid, than they are opposed to apartheid. Logically, if someone is anti-transgender, then they are opposed to either transgenderism as a concept or to transgender people themselves. Nothing in the sources supports that. Describing Linehan as "anti-transgender rights" would be more accurate, but still imprecise, as it leaves open to interpretation which rights are being opposed. Additionally, labeling Lineham as "anti-transgender" is not supported by the sources in the article. Equivamp's proposal of "Opposition to transgender activism" seems the most neutral and accurate. The term "transgender activism" is also one commonly used in main stream media, to refer specifically to people campaigning/advocating for particular rights for trans people, which the section demonstrates Linehan is opposed to. AutumnKing (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

So - "anti-transgender activism", then? You've convinced me! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Please show me a reliable source describing Linehan as an "anti-transgender activist". That descriptor is not only loaded and inaccurate, it is also unsupported by the sources used in the article, making it a WP:BLP violation, per WP:BLPSTYLE. AutumnKing (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I know we are not allowed to use Pinknews any more (!?), but gcn referred to his 'consistently critical campaign against trans issues' and attitude referred to his 'anti-trans crusade'. So 'anti-transgender activism' seems sourced and moderate in this context, though I would personally prefer 'campaign' as a better heading for WP. Linehan certainly does beyond objection to transgender rights to object to certain aspects of transgender existence, as his opposition to reassignment surgery (and related Godwin's Law infractions) makes plain. Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, I would disagree. The gcn quote consistently critical campaign against trans issues doesn't support "anti-transgender", just "anti-particular-trans-issues". Attitude does refer to Linehan as transphobic, and does so in the source used in the article as well. However, one news source referring to him in that manner does not qualify as commonly described that way in reliable sources. I completely understand why yourself and others view Linehan as transphobic or anti-transgender, but as you yourself say in a previous discussion on this page by policy WP follows the sources rather than the opinions of editors and the sources do not assign those labels to him. Use of them violates WP:BLP. AutumnKing (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Disagreement is fine, but I still see mich more here than 'anti-particular-trans-issues', which strikes me as whitewashing in this context. From the gcn piece, for example, he clearly sees himself as playing an active role in support of conversion therapy: 'Feminists all over the world are now looking to the UK as the place where the resistance to all this stuff started: I do like to think I had something to do with that.' And there's his stark opposition to reassignment surgery: 'When I first got into this conversation I would see young girls getting double mastectomies and hysterectomies and I didn’t think I’d have to talk about it long. I thought others would see this was obviously wrong, and step in. None of that happened. I’ve been left swinging in the wind by people who I thought were my friends. I have to keep speaking out.' These are not the actions of someone who is only 'opposing trans activism', this is someone engaged in public opposition to trans issues in general, or rather, to trans identities themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I am left confused by your examples. First, you state that the quote which begins "Feminists all over the world are now looking to the UK" is "clearly" proof that he is playing an active role in supporting conversion therapy, but that quote says nothing at all about conversion therapy, nor does the source it is taken from suggest anywhere that he was referring to conversion therapy. As far as I can tell, Linehan has never stated that he advocates conversion therapy at all. And then you take a quote about "young girls" being given double mastectomies and hysterectomies and say it means he has a "stark opposition to reassignment surgery", but he says nowhere that he is opposed to it in every case or even for adults at all. And then you use both examples to extrapolate that he is opposed to "trans issues in general, or rather, to trans identities themselves". That is a rather large stretch and wholly unsupported by your examples. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The first quote I cited above from gcn was in the specific context of, in gcn's words, supporting and assisting Stella O’Malley – a psychotherapist and public speaker – in compiling a list of ‘gender critical’ therapists for parents with transgender children, which is what is known closer to where I live as 'gender conversion therapy' and is often banned as a human rights violation. As far as the 'young girls' specification is concerned, I see no evidence that he is reacting only or primarily to surgery for legal minors, nor does he anywhere accept that reassignment surgery is an appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria, AFAICT. In spite of his insistence that he is 'not transphobic', Linehan has engaged in a consistent pattern of deadnaming, refusing to use pronouns, and denial that gender identity 'exists', which is why reliable sources call him 'transphobic' and 'anti-trans'. Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC

Again, this is the opinion/conclusion you are drawing. One reliable source labels him transphobic. We need more that that to support the use of anti-transgender as a section title, otherwise it goes against WP:BLP. AutumnKing (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I am looking at the gcn article right now, and I'm afraid the quote is not in the specific context you claim at all. His request for help for Stella O'Malley is mentioned as one among several other activities of his two paragraphs earlier; the writer does not in fact relate the quote back to that specific activity anywhere. Furthermore, your characterization of gender critical therapists for children with dsyphoria as "gender conversion therapy" is opinion and not fact.

As for the "young girls" quote, there is no evidence that he was referring to reassignment surgery for everyone; "young girls" means only "young girls" unless he said otherwise. And as far as your claim that he has never accepted that reassignment surgery is an appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria, it took me 30 seconds and one google search to find multiple times that he has said exactly that, including an April 9, 2019 tweet in which he said "Transexuals are those who suffer from gender dysphoria and need surgery and drugs to alleviate that." and the Irish Times article from January 22, 2019 in which he was asked about surgery and drugs to treat dysphoria and said "“Adults can do what they want, but it is dangerous to offer surgery and drugs therapy to young teenagers going through puberty." Lilipo25 (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

digression about gender conversion therapy

I will deal with the outstanding issues later, Lilipo, but the tweet you cite from Linehan can only be understood as 'trolling', since he is insisting on providing a definition of the (outdated and generally offensive) term 'transsexual', when in the rest of his writing he consistently exists that 'biological sex' is 'observed' and unchanging from birth. His statement that 'adults can do what they want' is not a recognition of transgender existence any more than his trolling Tweet about transsexuality. Newimpartial (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Yes, I am aware there is contention in the trans community over the use of the word, NewImpartial, as I have seen more than a few arguments between those who claim it for themselves and those who find it outdated and offensive. But that is not a debate I have any inclination whatsoever to become involved in, and it is only a distraction from this RFC anyway. Let's be clear: I did not say anything at all about his recognition of transgender existence, nor did I claim that he had, and anyone reading this thread can see that. You very specifically stated that his comment about surgery for "young girls" meant that he is opposed to reassignment surgery for anyone, and that he has never said otherwise. I very specifically showed you where he has. Pretending that I was responding to something else entirely is dishonest communication and it makes coming to any kind of agreement all but impossible. Please try to adhere to WP:NPOV and avoid negative language concerning the article's subject ("trolling", etc.), as well as stating opinions as facts. Much of what you have stated as his own words are distortions of the sources and attribute his words to things he wasn't even discussing (such as your repeated insistence above that he specifically said in this article https://gcn.ie/graham-linehan-campaigns-against-trans-people-work/ that he has declared himself an active leader in a campaign to practice 'conversion therapy' on trans people, because he said that feminists around the world look to the UK; anyone looking at the article can see that the quote is not connected to anything about therapy by the writer). Then, in order to keep the discussion honest, I am obligated to point out that what you've said is not true, and then you respond by seizing on something else entirely to claim offense at, etc. None of this is conducive to a constructive RFC. Please, let's try to stick to the actual facts here. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC) As per the articles and tweets cited in this discussion and elsewhere, Linehan opposes reassignment surgery for everyone, not just for 'young girls', though he accepts rhetorically that 'adults can do what they want' as I noted previously. Concerning the gcn article, which I initially linked and have read carefully, Linehan absolutely does take credit for elements of anti-trans backlash: I do like to think I had something to do with that. In the context of the article, he must be referring to excluding trans women from women's spaces, promoting gender conversion therapy and deadnaming his opponents, which are the only positions mentioned to that point (subsequently he elaborates on his distaste for and opposition to reassignment surgery). Let me break this down for you, Lilipo: when we say we are using reliable sources, we therefore have to trust them to edit quotes accurately and place them in appropriate context. That is what makes them RS. In the context of the gcn article, what could Linehan be referring to in that quote except for except excluding trans women from women's spaces, gender conversion therapy and deadnaming? Those are literally the only positions discussed to that point. As far as WP:CIVIL is concerned, I haven't written anything in this discussion that is not both true, and supported by evidence. Please refrain from unsubstantiated ASPERSIONS and other UNCIVIL behaviour. Thank you. Newimpartial (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Let me break this down for you, NewImpartial, (ok, I just feel silly talking like this): the source is reliable. Again, you have made a number of assumptions unsupported by the source. Making statements like "what else could he be saying" and "he must be referring to [one of the things the writer mentioned in another paragraph, not taken from a quote of Linehan's], etc.- I'm sorry, but these are not good faith arguments. It's not worth arguing them any more, however. First, because I have already linked the article and anyone can simply look at it and see for themselves, and secondly, because as Crossroads has correctly pointed out below, Autumn King has provided a number of WP:RS which do not use the term anti-transgender to refer to his views, and so your argument fails WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, (I do wish you would stop crying ASPERSIONS! UNCIVIL! every time I disagree with you, no matter how civilly, or remind you to adhere to WP:NPOV. It really makes any discussion so difficult). Lilipo25 (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Lilipo, NPOV is a content policy, not a conduct policy. Both you and I each bring a POV to this Talk page discussion, as we should. I do not "cry UNCIVIL" every time people disagree with me, but only when editors actually cast aspersions, as in your I am obligated to point out that what you've said is not true, .. Please, let's try to stick to the actual facts here. Many editors do a fine job of disagreeing, becoming frustrated when, without making things personal and I believe you and I could both learn by example; we are certainly each responsible for our own conduct. To argue that editors need to read sources intelligently and with effective comprehension is the epitome of a good faith argument - though of course if other editors' reading comprehension fails, my argument fails. But your comment that my argument is not "in good faith" - because you don't like my argument - does violate the AGF pillar of WP. On the actual issue here, an absence of argument is not an argument for absence: a list of sources that do not use such terms as "anti-trans" or "transphobic" is not an argument against the use of those terms. Only actual dispute over the terms would show them to be controversial, and the only case worth noting that Graham Linehan is not transphobic is - you guessed it - Graham Linehan. Newimpartial (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC) It is not WP:UNCIVIL to point out that what you are claiming a source says is not in the source at all. However, your remarks about my "reading comprehension" failing and me needing to read sources "intelligently" certainly is. Along with your suggestions below that Crossroads' very civil and reasoned arguments disagreeing with you are just like the arguments that only people on the "far-right" and "white supremacists" make, you are clearly making WP:PERSONALATTACKS rather than arguing the question of the RFC. Again, please stop. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Lilipo, I am not doing the thing you say I am doing. Please stop casting ASPERSIONS and violating AGF. And the "general critical therapy" discussed in the gcn article is synonymous with gender conversion therapy, as multiple editors have pointed out to you below, with sources. So:CIR may apply here, as well. Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC) I respond to this claim below. Crossroads -talk- 15:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC) With regards the exact details of Linehan's stance, this is not easy to ascertain as it is prone to change with time. He frequently talks in terms of restricting the scope of his opposition. He will indeed say that the issue is solely about minor, but then also oppose adult surgery at length. For example [12] [13]. I don't think it is wise for us to take snapshots of what Linehan is saying at a certain point in time and tie our wording to that. We need to be focusing on what the material of the section covers.Wikiditm (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC) To finish with your last comment, Lilipo, Linehan the gcn article mentions three actions taken by Linehan, which he refers to in the passage I quoted as 'resistance to all that stuff': exclusion of trans women from women-only spaces, gender conversion and deadnaming. The paragraph reads as follows: Linehan is also highly active on Twitter, with just over 600,000 followers that he uses to voice his anti-trans views, as well as to defend women-only spaces and facilities. He was recently criticised for both supporting and assisting Stella O’Malley – a psychotherapist and public speaker – in compiling a list of ‘gender critical’ therapists for parents with transgender children. He was also criticised in 2018 for using the platform to deadname – naming a trans person’s birth name rather than their chosen one – a transgender lawyer, which also resulted in him being given a police warning. In this context, there is no reason whatever to think he excluding his promotion of gender conversion therapy when he takes credit for his own role in promoting trans-exclusionary feminism.Newimpartial (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Rather than cherrypicking quotes, I think it better that we just link the article here so that anyone who would like can just go read it and see that the Linehan quote you used above is from two full paragraphs after the writer - not Linehan - listed those activities, and that the writer does not tie Linehan's quote back to any particular one of those activities, as you claimed: https://gcn.ie/graham-linehan-campaigns-against-trans-people-work/ Lilipo25 (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Please see my comment above; we must trust reliable sources to be, you know, reliable. Newimpartial (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC) I haven't suggested that the sources were being unreliable. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Then read the article. The author and editorial team include a quotation from Linehan where he takes credit for UK leadership on trans-exclusionary or 'gender critical' activism of some kind. According to the article, what he did on that front was to promote trans women's exclusion from women's space, to promote gender conversion therapy, to deadname his opponents and to oppose sex reassignment surgery. On what basis in the article would you say that gender conversion therapy was excluded from his self-congratulation? It has rather pride of place in the first part of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC) You continue to repeat that the article says he promotes "gender conversion therapy". It does not. Asking people to help someone compile a list of gender critical therapists (which would be therapists who don't adhere to outdated 'boys like sports and trucks and the color blue, while girls like dolls and makeup and pink" stereotypes) is not "gender conversion therapy", and more importantly, the article does NOT say it is, anywhere. It also does NOT say that he opposes sex reassignment surgery for everyone - it quotes him as saying he is against it for "young girls" (he has said numerous times that it is especially harmful for girls still undergoing puberty to have SRS). Your personal point of view is not what the article says, nor is it fact. You get upset when I point out that your claims are simply not true, but they are not and that is not my fault. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Lilipo, thanks for reminding me to respond to your comment here, but it is a matter of fact, not opinion that gender critical therapy and gender conversion therapy are the same thing. We are not talking here about "gender criticism" - primarily concerning gender roles - in the sense most feminists support; we are talking about the "gender critical" position - opposed by most feminists - that denies that gender and gender identity exist. As Gemma Stone wrote for The Independent, 'Gender critical health professionals are trans conversion therapists by another name. These are exactly the therapists that Graham Linehan was supporting. And please stop insisting that my statements are "simply not true" when they are both true and reliably sourced. Newimpartial (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC), moved and amended by Newimpartial (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC) The Independent allowing Gemma Stone, a trans activist known for extreme abuse of feminists on social media, to guest-write an op-ed does not make what Stone says fact not opinion. If we are going to declare that editorials in newspapers now constitute fact, then we are going to have to start declaring the opinions expressed in op-eds by women you disagree with, like Kathleen Stock, Julie Bindel, Suzanne Moore and Debbie Hayton, fact, as well. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC) If you aren't happy with the writer of the first source you can use the second.Wikiditm (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Lilipo, this isn't at all matter of her (or my) opinion: academics and NGOs are making the same point. Pathos too. And nobody argues to the contrary, since the "other side" are people who advocate trans conversion therapy, regardless of whether it is called that or 'gender critical' therapy. As Wikidtm has pointed out immediately below, 'gender critical' therapists recognise that a ban on 'gender conversion' therapy is aimed at them. Also, Lilipo, 'extreme abuse of feminists' on the part of Gemma Stone is not one of the more credible allegations you have made on this Talk page. Hyperbole doesn't become you. Newimpartial (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC) NewImpartial, please do try to tamper the overt condescension, as it violates WP:UNCIVIL. Gemma Stone has been banned by Twitter at least twice for, in her own words "operating multiple accounts with abusive purposes", including posting graphics of characters pointing guns with the words "SHUT THE FU*K UP, TERF". So it is indeed credible and not hyperbole. As always, you simply dismiss those who support gender critical therapy as not permissible sources on gct BECAUSE they support gct, and declare that we must only listen to the opinions of activists like Stone. And that's not how it works. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC) If you have reliable sources who support gender critical therapy, I would love to see them. From a Canadian perspective, there don't seem to be any. Newimpartial (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC) You can start with this statement, posted by the British Medical Journal, from four London physicians and medical professors from King's College London [14]: While respecting individuals’ right to a different viewpoint, it is neither mandatory to affirm their beliefs nor automatic that transition is the goal, particularly when dealing with children, adolescents and young adults. These risk closing the ‘open future’, as well as life-long physical problems including lack of sexual function, infertility and medical dependency. With 85% desistance amongst referred transgender children (8) and increasing awareness of detransitioning (9, 10), unquestioning ‘affirmation’ as a pathway that leads gender dysphoric patients to irreversible interventions cannot be considered sole or best practice... In effect, transitioning children who would otherwise have grown up lesbian, gay or bisexual may introduce another form of conversion (6). A well intentioned but permanent medical pathway for all is unlikely to achieve the best long-term outcomes. Confirming disgust in natal sex or external sexual organs, especially for those with prior childhood trauma, risks medical collusion with, or reenacting of, abuse. But perhaps you were looking for op-eds by guest writers, like the one by Gemma Stone that you provided as "proof"? Here's one from USA Today: [15] And I know that you won't like the source, but there's also this article in the National Review [16] Lilipo25 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Your first source is a 'rapid response' offered by four FRINGE experts who object to the concept of 'assigned sex' as 'ideological'. Your second source is an anecdotal story tinged with ideology. I thought you were looking for reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Well, I knew it was pointless to give you sources because you'd just dismiss them as FRINGE, etc for not agreeing with you. But you asked. This isn't the place for a debate over "assigned sex" vs. "observed sex", but I personally won't discount four medical doctors and professors whose expertise was judged valid enough by the British Medical Journal to post as FRINGE. And the second one is no more "anectodal" than the source you provided by Gemma Stone. At any rate, it's clear that there is debate on the issue and it is not established "fact" that gender critical therapy is conversion therapy. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC) But neither of your sources, reliable or not, disputes the reassertion that "gender critical" therapy is conversion therapy; they just support conversion therapy. That is not ay all the same thing. And I just liked Gemma Stone's turn of phrase; I provided more serious sources above, in case you haven't noticed. Newimpartial (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC) I gave you three sources, not two. You just ignored the third. And your argument continues the same way: if they support anything other than transitioning children, that makes it "conversion therapy", even when their stated reason is that because 85% of kids who identify as trans no longer ID that way as adults - with most instead identifying as gay or lesbian - pro-transition therapy is often "conversion therapy" for gays. There's no real point in continuing this thread, which has drifted far from the topic of the RFC. You won't convince me and I won't convince you, but the fact remains that cannot assign our personal opinions to Linehan and claim that he has said things he has not said. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC) You want me to react to USA Today's anecdotal story of a transphobic parent complaining that their son's school accepted his gender identity in his mid teens? That article is not a RS for anything beyond the 'phobe parent's opinion. Nor will you gain any credibility here by citing outdated desistance statistics that use poorly collected data from the 1970s and 1980s, which were cited in passing by your Neanderthal doctors in London. But for the record, I never once proposed adding a reference to gender conversion therapy in the Linehan article, while my use of the term in Talk is covered by BLUESKY as well as anything might be. Newimpartial (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC) It is exasperating trying to have reasoned discussion when you call medical or scientific experts whose views you don't like by such insults as "Neanderthals" and dismiss a father writing about his autistic and easily-influenced 14-year-old daughter as just a "transphobe". You demand published sources, but no matter how many you are given or what their level of expertise, you declare them FRINGE bigots. We may all have our own opinions and biases, but these just are not good faith arguments. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC) I am sorry to exasperated you, but not all sources are reliable, and not all reliable sources are equal. There is nothing unCIVIL about dismissing FRINGE bigoted sources as what they are, as long as I am not unCIVIL to the person citing these questionable sources - which I believe I have not been. I asked for reliable sources supporting "gender critical therapy", and I was returned a "quick response" on a journal's website and two one-sided, maudlin anecdotes from the American press. This confirms my impression that quality sources on "that side" of this discussion simply do not exist. I doubt I could have made my point so eloquently on my own. Newimpartial (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC) Once again, you pretend that something I said was about something it was not, which is deliberate WP:BAITING. You know very well that I did not say or suggest anywhere that it was UNCIVIL for you to say sources are FRINGE and bigoted because you disagree with them. That's just bad faith arguing. I said it was WP:PERSONALATTACKS for you to claim that only "white supremacists" and the "far right" make the valid points that other editors are making, and WP:UNCIVIL for you to use condescending language toward me ("Hyperbole doesn't become you, Lillipo" ; "Let me break this down for you, Lillipo") and to tell me that I need to learn to read "intelligently" and that my "reading comprehension fails", etc. I do not believe that "American press" is any less valid than British press. You showed me an Op-Ed of a personal account from a British newspaper and said that no one says differently, so I showed you one that said the opposite from an American one. The New Republic article wasn't an "anecdote" at all. And you dismissed four esteemed professors of medical science from a British university as "Neanderthals" because you disagree with their expertise. As always, sources are only "reliable" if they agree with you, so there's never any point in showing them to you, but you just keep saying none exist and demanding I show them to you. All that really matters here is that you have not shown any valid reason to include inflammatory and biased wording in the subject heading. Autumnking's extremely well-laid out, detailed argument has made the case far better than I ever could have, and makes it clear that calling him "anti-transgender" violates Wikipedia policies and best practices. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC) Surely you meant National Review rather than New Republic, and this story you cited is both anecdotal and ideological. And where did I say no one says differently?, as if Linehan were the only "anti-trans activist" promoting conversion therapy? I said that nobody distinguishes between gender conversion therapy and gender critical therapy, and once again you have made my point for me, by finding no sources that do so (reliable or otherwise). Oh, and re: CIVIL, you are the one accusing me of bad faith: You demand published sources, but no matter how many you are given or what their level of expertise, you declare them FRINGE bigots. We may all have our own opinions and biases, but these just are not good faith arguments. Not only is that false; it is a CIVIL violation, so I was not BAITING at all - yet another ASPERSION on your part. I am not the one moving goal posts here. I will admit to a problem with condescending tone, but that is nothing compared to your repeated (and false) accusations. Newimpartial (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC) And once more, you pretend that something I said was in response to something else entirely. I said you were WP:BAITING for doing exactly that, repeatedly, NOT for calling the sources you don't like FRINGE bigots. And you responded with more baiting, pretending I said something else. Also, I did not say that you claimed Linehan was the only person in favor of gender critical therapy - I said you claimed that all sources say it is "conversion therapy", and I showed you several sources that did not. Yes, I meant National Review. I have made no false accusations nor have I been uncivil, but the latter part has certainly been a challenge when you continually misstate what I have said and use an overtly condescending tone to do it. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC) I propose to hat this as off-topic, But I did not misstate anything. You said You demand published sources, but no matter how many you are given or what their level of expertise, you declare them FRINGE bigots. We may all have our own opinions and biases, but these just are not good faith arguments. In that passage you have falsely accused me of violating WP:AGF, which is in itself a CIVILity violation, as I have pointed out repeatedly above. There has been no goalpost-moving, topic changing or "BAITING" on my part whatsoever. I never said that all sources say gender critical therapy is conversion therapy, as you falsely claimed above. What I said was that nobody disputes that gender critical therapy and gender conversion therapy are the same thing. I have said this over and over again, and perhaps you misunderstood, because you have come back with sources that support gender critical therapy but that, while interesting for their FRINGE perspectives, do not at all try to distinguish it from gender conversion therapy. Just so that you do not accuse me of "misstating" again, what you said in your own words was Template:Two when in fact you have produced exactly zero sources arguing against the "fact" in question, just some humble doctors and a couple of melodramatic anecdotes used to suggest that "gender critical therapy" might be a good idea. Sometimes I wonder if I am the only one in this conversation looking up to see the sky as blue. Newimpartial (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC) Yes, some "humble" doctors, being the faculty of a prestigious medical school. And 'melodramatic' anecdotes, as they are op-eds that disagree with you. I am weary of trying to use reason and be civil with someone who will do neither. You have failed to adequately justify using a loaded and biased section heading like "Anti-transgender activism" and it has been shown that Wikipedia policies will not allow it. Nothing else matters here.Lilipo25 (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC) It looks to me as though thus RfC is not heading in that direction but by all means, you do you. But please stop insulting me ("trying to use reason and be CIVIL with someone who will do neither") or you will be back at ANI. Cheers. Newimpartial (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

A quick search on this exact story found quite a lot of people talking about this link, such as [17] and [18]. Drawing your attention in particular to the second link, it says "The intention behind the list of therapists has been compared to ‘conversion therapy’. In Ireland, there is currently no legislation which outright bans the practice. During May 2018, the Prohibition of Conversion Therapies Bill passed into the second stage of the Seanad, however it has not been brought forward yet." The implication that this bill, on conversion therapies, will have an impact on "gender critical therapists" is clear.Wikiditm (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

And Autumnking, beyond Pinknews we have gcn, Attitude, gay star news,Vox and huffpost.uk referring to Linehan as 'anti-trans' and 'transphobic' in their own editorial voice, and on the other hand, we have him insisting that he isn't. BLP requirements on BALANCE and NPOV in this case seem pretty clear, to me. Newimpartial (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, just a tiny distance below this comment we have a litany of sources from Autumnking2012 that qualify as WP:RS just as much that do not use the term. The section heading fails WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, simple as that. NPOV is based on all the reliable sources, including ones with either POV, and, yeah, British sources too. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV should really be on our radar when trying to decide a heading. Any POV in text should be attributed, which is currently the case, but a heading should not have POV. Any POV, attributed or otherwise, would be undue if appearing in the heading anyway. The aim should be for NPOV.Wikiditm (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources that don't use a label cannot be used to imply that said label is controversial, without additional evidence. I am a bit shocked to see you make that argument here, Crossroads, since until now I have only really seen that 'logic' used by right-wing Fringe apologists to try to strip 'far-right' or 'white supremacist' off their favorite articles because not all sources use the term.

You have not established (except for an illicit appeal to 'blue sky' argumentation) that anti-trans is a term requiring attribution per LABEL, much less shown that anyone besides Linehan would argue that he is not, in fact 'anti-trans'. According to our BLP policies, we are not supposed to give undue weight to the article's subject, which your argument here is currently doing since no other sources have been proposed supporting Linehan's POV. Newimpartial (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding what you said above - a list of sources that do not use such terms as "anti-trans" or "transphobic" is not an argument against the use of those terms. Only actual dispute over the terms would show them to be controversial - says who? Here's what WP:LABEL says: Value-laden labels...are best avoided unless widely used [Note! Not "rarely used and otherwise not specifically disputed"] by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Your claim that it's not value laden is absurd on its face. Speaking of WP:ASPERSIONS, trying to equate me to the far right and white supremacists certainly is aspersions. The differences in sourcing in such cases are obvious - those figures really are widely described as such. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC) updated Crossroads ^-talk- 16:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

NewImpartial, you absolutely must stop equating editors who offer civil arguments that you don't like to white supremacists.It is WP:UNCIVIL and violates WP:PERSONALATTACKS (and just as a heads up: when you respond with "I never said you were a white supremacist, I just said that only white supremacists say the things you do", that isn't any better). Please stop. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Lilipo, if anyone feels attacked my something I have written here, the place to discuss that as ANI. I have tried to be strict in both my AGF and CIVIL practices here. And I haven't equated anyone with anything.

Crossroads, the fact remains that you are performing exactly the same argumentation as those whitewashing articles on the far-right: they count the RS who don't use a label against those who do, and then insist that BALANCE prevents use of the label. That just isn't how it works: if some quality RS use a label, and others refrain, then the label can still apply in terms of NPOV and BALANCE. If this is true of such value-laden labels as "white supremacist", why wouldn't it be true of the more descriptive "anti-trans" (and parenthetically I would note that you still have not answered my question here about why anti-trans should be used more hesitantly than, say, "anti-Trump", when it comes to attribution. No matter how many synonyms you come up for for "obvious", it just isn't). Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Trump is a politician who is unfortunately the current US President; transgender are a group of people. Just another apples and oranges comparison. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Questions - 1) Is "Transgender Rights Activism" a thing? As in, capitalised, used as a common term? Is it the TERF equivalent of... well, TERF? 2) Where in this section does it describe Linehan criticising activism by or on behalf of transgender people? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no proposal to capitalise the term "transgender rights activism". In fact the current proposal is to use "transgender activism", which I would agree with the proposer is a better option. This, or the equivalent "transgender activist", is indeed a common term. It is used in the sources in the article - here [19], here [20], here [21], here [22] and here [23], also here [24] and here [25], although the latter two could be argued to be using Linehan's voice. It is also a commonly used term in media articles generally. A quick google search generated the following for the Guardian [26], [27], [28], [29], [30] and [31], for the Times [32], [33], [34], [35] and [36] and for the BBC [37], [38] and [39]. Conversely, none of the sources in the article use the term "anti-transgender activist" in reference to Linehan. AutumnKing (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Then why is it capialised now? And would you care to outline where in this section does it describe Linehan criticising activism by or on behalf of transgender people? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I would oppose the need for it to be capitalised, and as demonstrated above, both the options I would support are not capitalised. Sources show it is a common term, uncapitalised, and that is how it should be used in the section header. With regard to your second question, I prefer the term suggested by Equivamp, which would be "Opposition to transgender activism" as opposed to using criticism. This opposition is clearly demonstrated throughout the section. It is also accurate to the sources, for example: vocal about his opposition of the trans movement[40]; regularly vocal critic of transgenderism[41]; an outspoken commentator on transgender issues in recent years[42]; the entire article at [43] AutumnKing (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Those exact sources seem to give a very good reason why we shouldn't use any wording which restricts Linehan's apparent focus to transgender rights activism. The Telegraph says he is a "regularly vocal critic of transgenderism", not transgender rights activism but all of transgenderism as a whole. The Times says he is an outspoken commentator on "transgender issues." Again, not just activism, but more wider transgender issues (such as his opposition to certain forms of transgender health care).Wikiditm (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The section encompasses a wide variety of issues, but it has to be labelled in a reasonably concise manner. As I have repeatedly stated, "Anti-transgender activism" violates WP:BLPSTYLE in that it is loaded, inaccurate and unsupported by sources. "Opposition to transgender activism" seems to the best fit for neutrality and accuracy. Linehan is clearly stating strong opposition to particular issues. In that context, may I ask how you would word the section header, ie "Opposition to .....". Alternative options would be most useful. AutumnKing (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Anti-transgender activism is my preferred wording here. It is not loaded, and is certainly not inaccurate. In terms of accuracy I think it is a clear winner over alternatives, as "activism" accurately encompasses the range of Linehan's statements and actions in the underlying material, and "anti-transgender" accurately encompasses the broad philosophical basis on which his actions lie. "Opposition to transgender activism" is also neutral, but does not accurately describe the content of the section - most importantly it does not accurately cover his opposition to the Tavistock clinic, or his harassment of Stephanie Hayden. It also feels obvious that if Mermaids were not engaging in activism, he would still be opposed to their medical counseling and educational output (indeed these seem to be his largest issues with the charity). I don't have a wording which is superior to anti-transgender activism. If forced to start the heading with "opposition to..." it would probably need to be "Opposition to a wide range of transgender causes , activities and individuals" which I think is far better summarised as "Anti-transgender activism."Wikiditm (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Have now removed the capitalisation from the article, as it is unnecessary, unsupported and not a substantive part of the Talk page discussion. AutumnKing (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

In relation to this, it seems that the term "transgender rights activist" or "trans rights activist", as shortened to TRA, is used as a pejorative and possibly a dog-whistle. Although it is a natural turn of phrase to use, as seen in AutumnKing's links above, and also for example in , we should be very careful about using this term, and should definitely aim for alternatives, especially when the topic is already contentious.Wikiditm (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no suggestion to use the acronym TRA, which I agree is often used as a pejorative. However, the fact that a term can/has been used as a slur, does not exclude its use in appropriate context, nor does it insinuate that is is being used negatively (see use of TERF). Additionally, the term is used directly by the sources cited to describe who Lineham is opposed to whereas the term "anti-transgender activist" is not used in the sources, in reference to Linehan. AutumnKing (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Acknowledged, but, to be clear, when I posed the question above, Lilipo25 had changed the section heading in the article to "Criticism of Transgender Rights Activism", capitalised. Hence my question. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yup, my bad on that one. I temporarily forgot that we don't capitalise all the words in section headings on Wikipedia. It wasn't intended to reflect on the phrase itself. Lilipo25 (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

anti-transgender activism is probably the most wiki-appropriate description of his behaviour --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Objections have been raised on the basis that the description is imprecise, loaded, and that it not supported by any sources. It would be useful if you could expand as to your reasoning for considering it the most wiki-appropriate, as at present I can see no grounds on which it meets standards for a WP:BLP. AutumnKing (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I know that you have raised objections on these grounds. many of the points I would make have already been made elsewhere. He's pretty open about his position, and has rallied against trans rights and anything that would have apositive impact on trans people on more occasions than I can count. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Anti-transgender activism seems pretty clear cut imo, does anyone know what Graham Linehan describes his position as? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Linehan has described himself as a "self-identification sceptic."Wikiditm (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

According to his Daily Mail piece, Graham describes himself as against "authoritarian trans rights activists", whatever that means. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - while recognising that this section contains questions as well as statements, some contributors are contributing a lot - I'm seeing one person on almost twice as many contributions as the next most frequent contributor (who happens to be the person who called the RfC). WP:BLUDGEON is a thing. (This contribution moves me onto joint 3rd, but one of mine has been a question and one has been this comment). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Clearly this is a reference to myself, and is in fact the second time this month [44] you have seen fit to pass judgement on the way in which I chose to edit on Wikipedia. I am attempting to generate discussion and alternatives, in order to achieve a consensus that satisfies WP:BLP, not to dominate the discussion. This isn't about who says the most, who is right or who is wrong, but about coming to a reasonable consensus that best satisfies Wikipedia's standards. AutumnKing (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

+1. -sche (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'm seeing an excess of policing other user's contributions from one side of this debate. As long as people are contributing constructively and using Wikipedia's own guidelines to respond to specific points raised, which they are, it seems unnecessary to make accusations of WP:BLUDGEON or to ignore stated reasons for a position and make accusations of WP:NOTVOTE. Both sides must be free to contribute and respond to points raised in an RFC. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - One is "an excess" to you? Hyperbole, much? Ok, then... (Why are we not indenting any more?) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment It should not have been difficult to tell from context that the reference was not, in fact, all about you. Perhaps we could stick to discussing the topic of the RFC? Lilipo25 (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Criticism of transgender activism seems a good heading to me as it's not in any way inflammatory and is a fair description. I would OPPOSE any inclusion of 'anti-trans' or 'transphobic'.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Anti-trans activism is accurate. We don't go with "criticism of trans activism" for the same reason we don't go with "criticism of equal rights" for racists. Guy (help!) 17:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial I am containing here to try and disentangle from the discussion above. Apologies from the get go for the length of this response in my attempt to be thorough . For me, fundamentally, this is about adhering to WP:BLP, with particular reference to WP:BLPSTYLE with these particular points in mind; Tone BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects and Balance Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. As you yourself have stated, we need to follow the sources. I have therefore once again looked through the sources in the section, to see how Linehan is described.

• In the Telegraph [[45]] Linehan is described as a regularly vocal critic of transgenderism.
• The Irish Times [46] states that he has defended his views on transgender issues and that has tweeted extensively about transgender issues. While he has many supporters, his comments have opened him to online accusations of bigotry and transphobia. The only reference to him in the article as transphobic comes from a quote from a petition, not direct reporting.
• The Times [47] state that he has become an outspoken commentator on transgender issues in recent years and that he tweets almost exclusively about transgender issues. He has many supporters, but has also been accused of expressing transphobic views..
• The Sunday Times [48] does not label Linehan at all, and neither does
• The Guardian [49] with the only reference to transphobia a quote from Stephanie Hayden.
• The inews [50] piece says he has been vocal about his opposition of the trans movement and again, the only reference to transphobia is from the same quote from Hayden.
• The Extra piece [51] talks of Linehan becoming what they (his critics) claim to be a vocal critic of transgenderism?, that he has tweeted extensively about transgender issues. While he has many supporters, his comments have opened him to online accusations of bigotry and transphobia. and that Despite being labelled ‘transphobic’, Linehan defends that his concerns have stemmed discussions with transgender and lesbian friends. This last one is particularly important. The fact is that some people have labelled him transphobic. However, the reporting of such does not do the same.
• Talk radio [52] describes him as someone who has become a vocal critic of transgender issues on Twitter,.
• Newsweek [53] does not label Linehan.
• Beyond the joke [54] says his comments about gender issues that have caused controversy..
• The Newsnight text reads as [55] his vociferous arguing online and that critics have accused him of being a transphobe.
• The Metro [56] reference that he is involved in a public row with some members of the transgender community..
• The Independent [57] again does not label Linehan or his actions.

Two of the sources do label Linehan transphobic;

• Attitude [58] stating the comedy writer is still on his transphobic rant.
• GCN [59] stating Due to Linehan’s transphobic comments and actions.

However, as per WP:LABEL transphobic is a contentious, value-laden term, which are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject Two of twelve sources does not qualify as "widely used".

Of the extra sources Newimpartial has supplied, which are not used in the article;

• The GCN piece talks of his consistently critical campaign against trans issues and his adamant stance on gender identity. which wouldn’t qualify but does also state his anti-trans views which is the first reference to Linehan specifically being anti-trans.
• This second Attitude [60] piece also refers to Linehan as transphobic.
• For some reason, I can not access the Gay Star News [61] article, so I will have to discount that unfortunately.
• The Vox [62] piece, mentions Linehan in passing and talks of his Twitter obsession with trans people and trans issues.
• The Huffington Post [63] piece is a blog/opinion piece, so not really suitable for use as a reliable source in a WP:BLP, per WP:NEWSORG but does describe Linehan as having voraciously taken up the ‘cause’ of anti-trans activists.

So even if we were to consider these extra sources, we have two which call him anti-trans, and three which call him transphobic out of sixteen sources in total. If we are to count these together, which would be an acknowledgement that anti-trans is synonymous with transphobic, that does not realistically qualify as "widely used", per WP:LABEL. Additionally, those sources which do not label him as such are those which could be considered to be presenting the most neutral viewpoint and draw from a wide spectrum of media, from the BBC, to The Times, to The Guardian, to Metro.

Anti-transgender is synonymous with transphobic in the same way that anti-gay is with homophobic or anti-black is with racist. In order to ascribe those titles, we need to have sources to back it up. We do not. The section title needs to be neutral, which is why "Opposition to transgender issues" would work, or "Views on transgender issues" or "Opinions on transgender issues" or even "Views on transgenderism". Again, apologies for the length of reply, I was attempting to lay it out in as clear a manner as possible. AutumnKing (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the work that evidently was. For the convenience of those reading, I will give the opening and relevant passage from gay star news, Transphobic writer and comedian Graham Linehan made headlines last month for trying to get funding for trans charity Mermaids canceled.... Linehan instructed his anti-trans supporters to email the Big Lottery Fund’s CEO, Dawn Austwick. From context (and common sense), it is clear that "his anti-trans supporters" are "those who support him in his anti-trans stance", not "those of his supporters who happen to be anti-trans". So actually we have three sources for "transphobic" and four for "anti-trans" in full editorial voice, out of seventeen.

As far as "transphobic" is concerned (and this is not narrowly the topic of the RfC), I have not promoted its use in wikivoice in cases like this since it was decided to fall under LABEL. However, I do think "widely regarded as transphobic" would work, since it is (a) clearly true, (b) not contested by really anyone but the subject, and (c) supported by the three publications noted, plus Pinknews, plus the Irish Times ("accusations of bigotry and transphobia"), plus the Times ("has been accused of transphobia") plus Extra ("despite being labelled transphobic "), plus Newsnight ("accused by his critics of being a francophone"), with the Guardian and inews citing Stephanie Hayden on his Transphobia. That is ten on 17 sources noting that he is called/labelled/accused of being transphobic (in a sample that wasn't selected to make this point), which I think is ample to justify "widely regarded".

Finally, as far as "anti-trans" goes, I would draw attention first to the Telegraph. Its phrase, "vocal critic of transgenderism", seems to me to be perfectly evocative of what "anti-transgender" means to our readers, and this is not a source that is trying to curry favours among "transgenderists". The phrase "opposition to the trans movement" (inews) and "vocal critic of transgender issues" (news radio) also strike me as saying essentially the same thing as the four sources using "anti-trans". I dispute that these are all circumlocutions for "transphobic", as you state above, but they all mean something that is clearly not captured in the whitewashed "views on" phrases suggested above. There is something (or several things) about transgender people, transgender identities, and transgender activism that Linehan feels compelled to publically oppose. If this were another group, and a celebrity were opposing, say, black people, and black activism, I dare say we would not be nitpicking hit counts in the use of the label "anti-black" or "racist", WP:LABEL (which I still don't see as applying to "anti-transgender") or no. Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

With regards the parallels with "anti-gay", this wording is actually used on wikipedia precisely to avoid issues of LABEL, for example this section on anti-homosexual attitudes achieves neutrality without compromising on accuracy. This also includes a quotation from a relevant group to the subsection stating that they oppose a "homosexual activist movement." I think the parallels are clear with our dilemma here.Wikiditm (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

We can't use sources which say "accused of transphobia", specifically not putting it in their editorial voice, to support "widely regarded as transphobic". They themselves don't endorse the label, and never say it is "widely" used, or how often it is used. To derive "widely regarded" from those is WP:Original research. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I would be fine with 'widely accused of transphobia'; after the first, say, dozen public accusations and used of the label, the distinction between 'has been accused by his many critics' and 'has been widely accused' is without a difference. There is OR and there is common sense, and it is pedantic (and against policy) to insist that the Times or the Guardian use the word 'widely' before we do, particularly since no sources at all argue that he is not widely accused of transphobia. Outside of the British Isles, I dare say it's the main thing he's known for. (When a news outlet says that someone is accused of holding a position, and that they are regarded as holding a position, that is a difference of editorial spin and emphasis; they amount to exactly the same underlying factual claim. To argue otherwise is sheerest nit-picking). Newimpartial (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG, of course, does not say opinion pieces cannot be used. What it actually says is "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." ~ so we can certainly refer to the HuffPost and/or it's author - "Emrys Travis, Disabled Students' Officer at Cambridge University Students' Uni, describes Linehan as having...", etc. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Aaaanyway - isn't a large chunk of the above just distraction? This RfC is about the section heading which for ages had been "Anti-transgender activism" and is now "Criticism of transgender rights activism." Aside from the fact that there is still no "criticism of transgender rights activism" attributed to Linehan in the article, nobody is actually looking for the section title to be changed to "transphobic activism", "Linehan's transphobia", or anything else involving the word "transphobia." Continued discussion of the word in the context of an RfC on the section heading is needless distraction, even deflection. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Newimpartial, it is inappropriate for you to simply declare that this "RFC is headed for nonconsensus" and so you are putting the version you are advocating into the article. I ask that you please revert your edit. This RFC is still ongoing, and declaring that your version is the one that gets used because you think this will end in nonconsensus is not how this works. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the best practices in "how this works" is WP:BRD, which I have followed in this instance. I am simply following due process, rather than engaging in a SUPERVOTE. This edit of yours was a SUPERVOTE, was not "how this works", and did not follow BRD, but unlike some edit warriors I took my time before restoring the stable version. Newimpartial (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

As you know, that edit of mine was not a SUPERVOTE but merely restoring the version of the heading which was in place when this RFC was begun, after Wikiditm changed it without consensus being reached. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This is yet another false accusation, and really disappointing to see when I have tried my best to ensure a constructive conversation. I have not changed the heading without consensus, and you know this.Wikiditm (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. It was Bastun who changed it without consensus being reached, not you, and I have confused the two of you. I have struck through where I stated it was you. My apologies. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Bastun restored the stable version, which was the policy compliant course then and now. But I'm sure they both appreciate your apology. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I have asked you repeatedly to stop WP:BAITING. You know full well I did not apologise to Bastun and you are again trying to provoke an angry response. Please stop. Bastun did not restore a "stable" version, because as I demonstrated to you below, "Anti-transgender activism" has never been "stable". It has been changed over and over since it was first put in and Bastun has merely reverted it each time. That is not stable. Again, I ask that you stop BAITING. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

A section heading that was stable with the formulations I mentioned for something like 95% of the time for an 18-month period, but was interrupted by a series of drive-by editors changing it and then failing to participate in meaningful discussion per WP:BRD, is still a stable version AFAICT. Until this RfC, the last meaningful discussion on this heading was in early 2019, and that discussion reached consensus for "anti-transgender" something or other. This discussion could reach a different consensus, but it certainly hasn't yet. Newimpartial (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I reverted. [64] As I stated, regarding it being headed for "no consensus", I think so too, but see WP:NOCONSENSUS: "for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." The "contentious matter", in this case, was the label "anti-transgender". WP:BLP matters do not favor the WP:STATUSQUO, as STATUSQUO states: During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo (except in cases where contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people. See also WP:BLPREMOVE: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: 1. is unsourced or poorly sourced; 2. is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research)... Crossroads ^-talk- 15:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Lilipo is mistaken on this point. From January 25, 2019 until Crossroads made the controversial change on June 20, 2020, the heading for this section was either "opposition to transgender rights", "anti-transgender activity" or "anti-transgender activism" (it had been changed from "transphobia"). The stable, prior consensus version is clearly "anti-transgender activism".

As far as Crosstoads's BLP argument goes (which in truth amounts to a CRYBLP), whitewashing a BLP, or undue deference to the views of its subject, is also a BLP violation. That Linehan is active against transgender individuals and transgender rights is in fact not "unsourced or poorly sourced" - it has been demonstrated at this RfC with a remarkable list of sources, some of very high quality, and there is certainly nothing original about the interpretation of his activity on Twitter depicted in this article.

No heading that has remained with so little change for almost 18 months should be blanked as "controversial", especially given the eyes on this article. And the argument, made elsewhere on this page, that "anti-transgender" is an emotionally laden term somehow different from anti-gay or anti-spam, and is uniquely unsuited to WP, is entirely spurious not yet provided with any evidence or logic from its supporters, besides THEYDONTLIKEIT. Transgender is an adjective, like gay or black, and if there is to be some difference in how we treat these identities there should at least be an argument put forward. So BRD, please? Newimpartial (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

No, NewImpartial is mistaken here. First, the stable subject heading before it was changed to "Anti-transgender activism' in January 2019 was Transgender issues. It was briefly changed to Transphobia by an IP account in January 2019: this was up for less than two hours before being changed to Transgender rights by Onetwothreelp on January 25, 2019 [65]. "Transphobia" was never an accepted or stable version of the heading on this article. The heading hasn't been stable since.

While it would take me at least a full day, even if I had nothing else to do, to go through the entire edit history of the last 18 months and provide every diff for the many, many times this subject heading has been changed over the last 18 months, there have definitely been numerous times when editors changed it because they found "Anti-transgender activism" to be biased. It was always changed back, usually by Bastun. But it has not been a "stable" version at all, and to say that it has been "anti-transgender activism" or something similar for the past 18 months is not true..

I can give a few of the times when this happened here. Although this is not a complete list, I think it amply demonstrates that the heading "Anti-transgender activism" has never been stable and has been regularly opposed by editors: April 2020 changed to Transgender controversy by me, reverted by NewImpartial: [66] ; October 2019 changed to Gender critical activism by an IP, reverted by Bastun [67] ; September, 2019, changed to Pro-Feminist Activism by a different IP, reverted by Bastun [68]  ; August 2019, changed to Pro-feminist ally activism by PlantedKiss, reverted by Bastun [69] ; August 2019, changed to Activism by Forty 4, reverted by Bastun [70] ; June 2019, changed to Gender critical activism by Squigglet88, reverted by Galobtter [71] ; April 2019, changed to Transgender Issues by Onetwothreelp, reverted by Bastun [72] ; April 2019, Bring Back Daz Sampson removed the section altogether and summarized and integrated the information into an existing section, reverted by Bastun [73]. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

As I demonstrated above, there has in fact been much change in the heading over the last 18 months. It has been in dispute the entire time that Bastun and a few others have insisted on removing any other heading put in over and over. So it is certainly not, as Wikiditm says below, "well beyond dispute that the status quo here is 'anti-transgender activism'". Lilipo25 (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

When we're looking at a period of 18 months, things like "an anonymous IP account changed it to this for 2 hours" doesn't strike me as a very good argument for anything. Apparently trying to disprove the status quo with this seems absurd to me.Wikiditm (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood, Wikiditm. That was not an attempt to disprove the status quo. Newimpartial said above that the previous heading on the section before "Anti-transgender activism" was "Transphobia". I was showing that this was incorrect: it only read "Transphobia" for less than two hours after an anonymous IP account changed it to that and was quickly reverted. The actual previous heading was "Transgender issues" So you see, my pointing out that it was an anonymous IP account and it was only that way for two hours was a very good argument to make that point. I hope that is clear now. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes I see. I don't think it's correct to say that "Transphobia" was the status quo prior to "Anti-transgender activism."Wikiditm (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

As above, it is well beyond dispute that the status quo here is the heading "anti-transgender activism." The aim of this RfC is to get a full idea of what people favour in terms of a heading and why. On that, "anti-transgender activism" is no more or less contentious than "opposition to transgender rights activism", and neither of these should be defaulted to on the grounds that the other is contentious. In this instance, the "removal of contentious material" would mean having a blank heading, which is obviously ridiculous. We are going to need a heading, and it would be great if we could present reasons for preferring one heading over another rather than try to force something through against the general views of the wider editorial community.Wikiditm (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This is my understanding/view as well. -sche (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree entirely with Newimpartial's statement above. Absolutely no BLP issue exists with the section heading "Anti-transgender activism". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Anti-transgender activism" has indeed been the stable version for pretty much 18 months, and yes, I restored to that stable version, including on occasions when a drive-by IP decided to randomly change it. Please refrain from breaking up other people's comments to insert your own answers, Lilipo. It's rude, unhelpful, and against talk page guidelines. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Most were not IP accounts. A number - me, Bring Back Daz Sampson, Onetwothreeip, etc. - were also not 'drive-by' editors but people actively engaged in editing the article and discussions about it. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

So, aside from drive-by anon IPs changing a section heading, Lilipo25 has pointed out above the times that the neutral and accurate heading "Anti-transgender activism" has been restored by editors. Lilipo25 is clearly implying that these were or are some kind of problematic reverts, or wouldn't otherwise be bringing them up. So Let's look at them:

• "Removal of defaming and misleading information regarding Graham Linehan at the request of Mr Linehan" is the edit summary of one of the five edits ever made by PlantedKiss, all of which were to this article. So, a CoI issue involving a single-purpose account;
• Editor Forty.4 changed the section title to "Activism" with an edit summary of "From the POV of Linehan and his supporters his activism is not anti-trans. We don't have sections on pro-life activism titled 'anti-choice activism', because it's POV)". I reverted, saying "we actually have many "anti-abortion" headings and articles. Restoring consensus version" and user did not engage on Talk page.
• Editor Squiggle88 changed the title to "Gender critical activism". Galobtter reverts, with an edit summary of "Gender critical is an euphemism." Squiggle88 does not engage on the talk page, and their edit is their one and only contribution to WP, ever.
• Editor Onetwothreeip changed the section heading to "Transgender issues" and made many other changes. I reverted the change of section heading (only). Onetwothreeip has previously contributed on this talk page and may well contribute here. They did not revert my change or discuss it on talk at that time.
• Editor Bring back Daz Sampson removed the section and its references entirely, replacing it with it a single sentence that, shall we say, presents a particular viewpoint. There was no consensus for that change. I understand that editor is not at liberty to contribute here, so I have not pinged them, but I honestly don't believe anyone is suggesting now that the topic should not be covered within its own section.

So - no problematic reverts. Or is anyone disputing that? Anyone got any evidence or content to add supporting "Criticism of gender activism" since the last time I asked? Yes? No? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

1. I brought up the examples of some of the editors who changed the subject heading because Newimpartial incorrectly stated that the subject heading has been "stable" and had stayed the same for 18 months.

2. I stated that they were not all "drive-by IP accounts" because you incorrectly stated that they were.

Kindly do not assign motives to my comments correcting misinformation that I have not stated. That's against AGF. Thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Lilipo, while we are on the topic of misinformation, I was not the one who said the section had stayed the same for 18 months. That was Bastun. I would like to be able to expect a higher degree of accuracy in your future contributions, given the standard you expect of others.

I was the one who said the heading was "stable" until last weekend's proposed change, because it was stable for many months. Drive-by editors making changes and not participating in BRD Talk page discussions do not affect the stability of the version at all. Newimpartial (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, it was accurate. I was referring to this quote from you: From January 25, 2019 until Crossroads made the controversial change on June 20, 2020, the heading for this section was either "opposition to transgender rights", "anti-transgender activity" or "anti-transgender activism" (it had been changed from "transphobia"). The stable, prior consensus version is clearly "anti-transgender activism".

I have already responded to your incorrect statement that all of the editors who changed the subject heading during that time were "drive-by editors not participating in BRD" by showing that they were not, so I won't reply to that again.

While the level of condescension in this comment ("I would like to be able expect a higher degree of accuracy in your future contributions") isn't quite as egregious as many of your other comments to me throughout this RFC ("Hyperbole does not become you, Lillipo" ; "Let me break this down for you, Lillipo" ; the deliberate baiting/taunting of telling me you just know Bastun appreciates my "apology" to him when I hadn't apologised bc I had not said anything wrong, etc.), it's still condescending, so I will ask yet again that you please stop. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Lilipo, I promise to use a more encouraging tone with you when you stop mis-stating facts. In the passage from me that you just quoted, I said that the stable version was "anti-transgender activism", and I said that for the previous period back to January, 2020, the heading had been formulated in three ways, two with "anti-transgender" and one with "opposition to". These are two distinct statements, and both are factually correct. I did not say what you said here, that the heading "had been the same for 18 months", which would have been a factually incorrect statement. I try not to make factually incorrect statements, and when I (inadvertently) do, I acknowledge and apologize for them. I leave the conclusion to be drawn from this as an exercise to the reader. Newimpartial (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I'm so glad to hear that you 'acknowledge and apologize for' your factually incorrect statements. In that case, I do accept your heartfelt apology for incorrectly stating, yet again, that the heading had only been formulated those three ways "From January 25, 2019 until Crossroads made the controversial change on June 20, 2020", even though I've already shown you diffs in which it was also formulated a number of other ways during those 18 months, including Pro-feminist activism. Pro-feminist ally activism, Gender critical activism and just plain old Activism. Don't feel too badly about it. As you said, it's been a valuable exercise for you and I'm sure you've learned something that will serve you in good stead the next time you make a factually incorrect statement while claiming that you try not to make incorrect statements. (Btw, it's so kind of you to promise to be 'encouraging' toward me, as I'm sure you know just exactly how much your opinion means to me). Lilipo25 (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Snarkasm doesn't really become you, Lilipo. If you can't tell the difference between long-running stable versions of article headings and the alternatives briefly proposed by drive-by editors, well, WP:CIR.

Oh, and adroitly moved goalposts on your previous erroneous statements. Nicely executed; almost Trumpian.

Newimpartial (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

So - no problematic reverts. Or is anyone disputing that? Anyone got any evidence or content to add supporting "Criticism of gender activism" since the last time I asked? Yes? No? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The RFC is ongoing and reading it it doesn't seem right that the exact content was changed from how it was at the beginning of the RFC to how it is now. Lots of editors have not expressed support for the current title. It shouldn't have been changed.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

There has been a number of discussions peripheral to the RfC, so I thought it would be worth restating where the core of the debate is at and people can hopefully discuss these core issues a bit more. At the start of the RfC, there had been a number of alternative headings proposed, and so I and others addressed them all separately. Since then, there seems to have formed a main alternative of "Opposition to transgender rights activism," suggested by Equivamp above. As there is total overlap between this alternative and all other alternatives, both in terms of the arguments being put forward and the editors supporting them, I think it makes sense to view this as the alternative wording. The main argument against the wording "anti-transgender activism" remains that it is not neutral. As I mentioned at the start, this combines the views that it is biased in support of Linehan, and that it is biased against him. While most editors do not apparently see this lack of neutrality, there doesn't seem to be any consensus on this issue. Initially there was complaint about the word "activism" not being neutral, but the current complaint seems focused on the term "anti-transgender." It would be great if those supporting this argument could provide more details as to why exactly they think this heading is not neutral, especially in relation to other content on wikipedia and elsewhere which uses wordings such as "anti-capitalist" or "anti-gay" in a neutral context. On the other side, the main argument against "opposition to transgender rights activism" is that it is inaccurate or otherwise a poor fit. I've not seen any real attempt to dispute this. It seems accepted that this heading is indeed a poor fit for certain parts of the content, such as Linehan's opposition to Tavistock. However, it is viewed that this is a less significant problem than the neutrality issue with "anti-transgender activism." As Crossroads wrote early on "any claimed weaknesses in the alternative phrasings in no way allow us to default to the pre-existing wording." As such, I think what this comes down to is whether or not we think there is a neutrality issue with the "anti-transgender activism" heading, and if so whether we think this is more or less important than stated issues with "opposition to transgender rights activism."Wikiditm (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Choice of connective

In this edit, I changed the connective in the following sentence from "and" to "but": He has said that "anyone suffering from gender dysphoria needs to be helped and supported", and has voiced concern over early transgender intervention for children. The reason is simple—as I said in my edit summary, "uncontroversially, one clause is about increasing support for gender dysphoria and the other about restricting it". This change was reverted by Lilipo25 who argued that "The two parts of the sentence are not directly contradictory and it isn't up to Wikipedia to suggest they are." I don't agree with this argument, because the word "but" doesn't imply a contradiction e.g. in the sentence "I will do my laundry this week, but I haven't gotten around to it yet". It implies only a link between two clauses that express one positive and one negative statement (grammatically, not evaluatively). "I want my edit in the article (positive), but I will not edit war to put it there (negative)." For an example to make clear the separation between grammar and evaluative opinion: "I am wrong (positive), but I will not let it damage my confidence (negative)." My edit is purely an edit in terms of cohesion, not an ideological one as Lilipo25's is.

If this is a hill any user feels like dying on, they should argue instead with the claim my change actually requires: "anyone suffering from gender dysphoria needs to be helped and supported" is a quote which expresses support for something (positive) and "has voiced concern over early transgender intervention for children" expresses opposition for something (negative). The question of what you think about Linehan's views is irrelevant to this claim. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 06:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This may end up on the lamest edit wars list. "but" and "and" clearly both work fine in this sentence.Wikiditm (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The connective term "but" implies a judgment (saying that his second statement contradicts his first), but frankly, one connective word isn't even close to important enough to merit an entire section discussion of its own on the Talk page and I don't care enough to debate something this small, so do whatever you want. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with "but", but/and if it's controversial, I think it's easy and probably better to sidestep the issue entirely by just making them two sentences. He has said that "anyone suffering from gender dysphoria needs to be helped and supported". He has also has voiced concern over early transgender intervention for children. (Drop "also" if you like.) -sche (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This is probably the best option. Even "and" could be said to be connecting the two statements in a WP:SYNTHy manner. --Equivamp - talk 20:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate quote

Due to the sensitivity around this page, I will not make the edit. Purely for reasons that this is an encyclopaedia, this section is frankly absurd. By all means state that he supported someone and that objections were made but an incorrectly spelt, informal and attacking quote from a seemingly random person with starred out swearing? Come on. Look at it...this is an encyclopaedia.

In June 2020, Linehan defended J. K. Rowling from abuse after she made comments which were called transphobic. He linked to a blog post featuring screenshots of abuse Rowling had received, writing: "People who parrot meaningless meme-speak like 'Trans rights are human rights' (Who says they aren't? No one) while ignoring the abuse received by women who speak out against gender ideology ... You are literally useless." Hozier, named in Linehan's tweets, responded "You won’t drag me into your weird, obsessive little culture war, mate. I wrote a message in solidarity of a group who’s life expectancy ranges in the 30’s solely due to murder and suicide (is it any wonder). Is your back not *aching* from bending to punch so f******* low."

NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Balance? Neutrality? His actions provoked a reaction. We shouldn't cover what he did, without also covering the reaction (which is every but as ungrammatical as Linehan's tweet, already quoted.) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think either quote is necessary and the section (if included) should state things rationally, fairly and in appropriate language. This is NOTNEWS NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

NEDOCHAN You are, of course, correct. The quote is highly inappropriate and doesn't belong on Linehan's page. I am exhausted. Someone else needs to remove it. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need to quote Hozier's entire reply, although it seems appropriate to mention it or quote some of it, such as the first sentence. (I notice the whole thing has been removed at present, amid all the back-and-forth...) -sche (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's re-inclusion would probably be WP:UNDUE. It was not nearly as widely covered as the rest of the material in that section.Wikiditm (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I think if we're including an attack on named individuals then the response of one of those individuals is due for inclusion, in the interests of balance and neutrality. Removed the starred out swearing, lest it offend the sensibilities of passing MMA fans. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

In this discussion four editors have taken issue with this quote and argued that it shouldn't be included as is. One, who put it in, disagrees. And then put it in again! Here is the place to discuss, don't just reinstate your preferred option.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

You don't think it should be included and in fact want the whole section removed, so hardly balanced. Lilipo wants the quote removed. -sche says it should be included, reduced. I say it should be included (and reduced it). That's 2:2. Wikiditm at least explains why they believe it shouldn't be included, rather than just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and since their contribution it has been further covered in the media by the likes of broadsheet.ie, evoke.ie, hotpress.com, etc. So, a weak 3:2. Certainly not 4:1. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Banned again

He seems to have been banned again, as of 27 June.

I attempted to source the article, but was told my sources form Metro were unreliable. I have some links to other sources which might be usable instead, but I'm not 100% sure. Independent, Mirror. Also, I noticed that there were some other Metro articles that were sourced in the article, but these don't appear to have been removed? ISD (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I had added the Metro article, but have replaced it with the Mirror article as it's a more reliable source. The Independent article doesn't mention that it's a permanent ban, but the Mirror article quotes Twitter saying that it is - hence needing both. Tvcameraop (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Just spotted in the Irish Post that mentions the permanent ban. Is this allowable as a source? ISD (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks fine. There's nothing bad about adding a source that it turns out is poor and is later removed though. Feel free to add something and then if others need to improve or correct something they can. See WP:BOLD Wikiditm (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Mirror should be fine as a source for this, but a better source would still be welcome. I'm happy with the current wording, but as soon as Linehan comments on this we will need to cover his comments also.Wikiditm (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Independent and Guardian now added. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)