Talk:LGB Alliance

Description of group in lede

Please see Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 6#RFC on opening sentence, where adding "hate group" as a descriptor in the lead was question 2. ... The first part of the RfC found clear consensus on describing the subject as an "advocacy group" in the opening sentence as a neutral term. The second part also found clear consensus against describing the subject as a "hate group" in the opening sentence.

Raising the major issue of categorisation in this article, hate group?

Wikipedia has an objective to make the most informative statements that adhere to objectivity to serve the public civil purpose of contributing to knowledge. While statements can never be completely neutral, they are clear categorisations that we have established in the current literature and should adhere to them when discussing matters of public interest.

The LGB alliance is opposed to protecting the category of gender identity, and is publicly promoting the gatekeeping of medical resources for gender-affirming care and supports conversion therapy for trans people, and is considered transphobic by major human rights organisations and activists . I would like to bring attention to the editors the current wikipedia definition of hate group that includes discrimination against members of a certain nation, race or gender identity. The part of gender identity here is crucial. Thus, it seems imperative to correctly identity the LGB alliance as a hate group, rather than a campaign group. This is to be objective and neutral, rather than integrate biased views of the transgender population in editing practice. The other option to resolve this contradiction would be to edit the wikipedia entry of what constitutes a hate group, as it currently includes hate against people based on gender identity.

Proposed minor edit:

From:

The LGB Alliance is a campaign group founded in the UK in 2019, in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues.

To:

The LGB Alliance is a hate group founded in the UK in 2019, in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues.

OR

The LGB Alliance is a campaign hate group founded in the UK in 2019, in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ObjectiveBiology (talk • contribs) 14:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 6#RFC on opening sentence, where adding hate group as a descriptor in the lead was question 2. You'd need some strong sources that support calling the LGBA a hate group, and another RfC before it could be added. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Just came here to do this. I think I'm going to pin this on this page. Thanks for linking it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

> current wikipedia definition of hate group that includes discrimination against members of a certain nation, race or gender identity.

People discuss removing protection for religious beliefs and/or rolling them into a broader protection of personal beliefs. That isn't hate speech, it's a reasonable discussion of the specifics of laws required to protect the most people. Even if you are correct that the LGBA wants to remove or prevent gender-specific protections, your suggestion that this is from "hate", this wouldn't be an action that hurts anyone - it'd be a protected political opinion about the proper scope of protected categories.

This, and other panicked calls for action here and and in other articles, are generally because we refuse to actually quote the subject's words (LGBA here) in criticisms. So many of the "reliable sources" in this topic refuse to actually examine what was said and aren't, in all honesty, reliable at all. If they can't quote someone in context then they don't deserve to even be referenced, let alone in a meta-call for Wikipedia itself to explicitly label people a hate group. InverseZebra (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

First sentence: opposed to transgender rights movement

I proposed this as a first sentence:

The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in 2019 to exclude transgender people from LGBT Movements and to oppose the transgender rights movement.

For some months the first sentence has instead been

The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in 2019 in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues.

Obviously the high amount of attention to this organization is for one reason only: it "seeks to exclude transgender people from LGBT Movements and to oppose the transgender rights movement". There is not a disagreement or dispute here. The LGB Alliance exists for this purpose.

I am aware of previous discussions such as the one at Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_6#RFC_on_opening_sentence. In this and other discussions I see various commentators saying that something is in error, but not identifying what it is. The error is failure to say what the organization does. I think this is it.

Does anyone here think I am mistaken in my interpretation of the consensus of the sources? Speak up! Bluerasberry (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC) s

"Exclude transgender people from LGBT Movements" is a nonsensical phrase; if the movements are defined with the "T" in them, they don't exclude them obviously. Forming an organization focusing on the "LGB" part of the acronym is merely stating the purpose of this particular organization, not excluding anybody from other parts of the greater movement, any more than organizations like Mermaids focusing on the "T" are excluding LGB from the movement. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, the reliable sources seem to disagree with your reasoning about this. Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Then they probably aren't very reliable. It's an editor's job to call out obviously incorrect sources, regardless of their reputation, and contradicting basic logic is pretty damning. It's a shame that reliable-source status is so badly gamed right now.

This is why not having a subjects words in their article is actually anti-encyclopedic, because it makes the encyclopedia so easy to manipulate. From a cursory examination of LGBA's homepage (https://lgballiance.org.uk/) they only use LGB and no other variation. InverseZebra (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

If you prefer your own reading of WP:PRIMARY sources over reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, you might be more comfortable writing for an encyclopaedia with different policies than those of enwiki. Newimpartial (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

It's only painful when watching it be abused by people who game what's a reliable source to avoid actually addressing the subject's words, as is the case here.

I'm not saying we should trust the subject to write their own article, but if we're putting in a criticism section we'd better be sure it addresses words the subject has actually said and the best way to do that is to include their words directly, especially when it's a statement of intent. "We the LGBA feel X and will do Y". That, when archived and quoted, is what we're missing here. InverseZebra (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, I think your interpretation of the sources is very much accurate and dislike the framing of the lead sentence as well. Loki (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

What sources support "exclude transgender people from LGBT Movements"? As far as I can tell they thought Stonewall, specifically, should have stayed LGB, and now think of themselves as an LGB movement, as a separate matter from other groups that are LGBT (or even basically just T). Crossroads ^-talk- 06:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree "Exclude transgender people from LGBT Movements" is confusing as a phrase, but the current wording is a bit vague about what they opposed. Instead of "...in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues." maybe something like "...in opposition to the extension of the charity Stonewall's focus from LGB rights to LGBT ones"?. JaggedHamster (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

"Gay rights group was set up ‘to promote transphobic activity’, court told" - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/12/gay-rights-group-was-set-up-to-promote-transphobic-activity-court-told Selfisekai (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

‘Court told’ i.e. this is an allegation made by one side in a legal case. Therefore, it is not a suitable source. Wait until the case has been completely heard, and there has been a judgment. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the general gist of your proposed change but believe it could be better phrased along the lines of: The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group known for its opposition to the transgender rights movement and the belief that there is a "conflict between trans rights and the rights of [ cisgender ] LGB people". Primarily because their anti-trans advocacy should be the lead and that they attempt to separate trans people from cisgender LGB people is a part of that rather than the other way around.

Some scholarly sources to help plead the case:

Webster 2022: most recently, such public conflicts at the intersection of transgender and lesbian identities have manifested in movements and organizations specifically intended to separate sexual identities from gender identities (e.g., the British charity and advocacy group LGB Alliance).

Monque 2021: TERFs are not feminists, because they actively endorse the oppression of trans women (and sometimes other gender groups). Worryingly, some trans-exclusionary LGB movements have begun to form around TERF ideology (for example, the LGB Alliance in the United Kingdom and the Red LGB movement in Spain).

Simon 2021: LGB Alliance was founded in 2019 to oppose LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall's pro-transgender inclusion policies. LGB Alliance’s text (n.d.) is their official statement of their position against the GRA reform, in which they claim allowing people to self-identify “would spread confusion and would inevitably be a threat to our rights” and that there is a “conflict between trans rights and the rights of LGB people” which has “been exacerbated because of a radical change in the demands of trans people”. (Emphasis added)

Mackay 2021: These issues are taken up by the UK anti-trans-inclusion organizations like Get The L Out, Lesbian Rights Alliance and the LGB Alliance, for example, which I mentioned earlier in this chapter.

I'd also like to point out that here, admittedly in an opinion piece, the author states The plan to separate trans people from their feminist and LGB allies was initially conceived shortly after the Supreme Court made marriage equality the law of the land in 2015. A key document developed by the anti-LGBT group Family Research Council signaled the anti-queer movement’s effort to “drop the T” from the LGBTQ acronym. Since then, a British group called the LGB Alliance, which pushes an exclusively anti-trans message while claiming to be a charity for lesbian and gay people, has popped up and even received charity status in the U.K. That seperating the T from LGB is a far-right tactic is covered by the Southern Poverty Law Center in more detail here

At the risk of opening another can of worms, if someone collects the sources we could describe them as anti-trans in the lead. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

You reference Monque 2021 which is clearly an opinion piece, not factual, as it claims a specific view of feminism is incorrect which is obviously not a fact-based statement.

> TERFs are not feminists

Also, to use "TERF" correctly they'd need to establish that these people identify as feminists at all, let alone they have radical (academic meaning) beliefs. Using it the way they do is clearly a slur as much as any directed at transfolk and should show how "reliable" they are as a source.

You then reference Simon 2021 but it does not say what you say it does, despite you bolding it.

> there is a “conflict between trans rights and the rights of LGB people”

Your source doesn't claim they are opposing trans rights, only that they say "Stonewall's pro-transgender inclusion policies" conflict with homosexual rights. If there is a conflict then they're pretty clearly allowed to advocate for their rights.

Why isn't it enough to say "The LGBA opposes trans-inclusive policies because it feels they conflict with LGB rights"? Why advocate for poorly-supported straw men? InverseZebra (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

If you are going to dismiss a peer-reviewed academic source as clearly an opinion piece, the object of your ire ought to be WP's policy framework for reliable sourcing, and not the content of this article. Editors are not really supposed to factor in their original interpretations of primary sources in determining article content. Newimpartial (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm explaining to another editor how they should evaluate sources so that they may participate in this as well. There is no single definition of feminism and so a source that claims that feminism - not libfem, or radfem, or xyzfem, but all of feminism - feels a certain way, is wrong. Perhaps this source explains this elsewhere but if so to quote them meaningfully we need to include both pieces.

As for calling a source an opinion, I will do so whenever one ventures from the factual discussion of a source and goes into lala land. As I said earlier, other editors are gaming reliable sources for exactly this intent - that they libel someone without actually presenting enough facts for anyone to question their claim. A "reliable source" is an approved starting point, but that status does not mean every article on the site is reliable, even in a given topic, or that they will remain so going forward. Editor need to read the source critically and see if it's even saying what it seems to be, if it's properly sourced itself, etc, etc. You are actually explicitly wrong, because editors are expected to be the final, not only, judge of the fitness of a reference. The last line of defense. Read even the context_matters section, this could not be accomplished without the editor applying their own personal judgement.

For these purposes, these sources are clearly biased and thus unacceptable. InverseZebra (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Once again, stating that peer-reviewed academic work goes into lala land and should therefore be ignored as opinion is pure venting in your part; it is simply not the job of editors to determine whether a reliable source has properly sourced itself, and your POV axe-grinding on this topic is a perfect example of why editors are supposed to rely on policy rather than WP:OR to judge the fitness of a reference.

Of course there is no single definition of feminism, but that doesn't mean that scholars using a particular definition of feminism in a specific piece of work are totally unreliable. It is also unreasonable for you to conclude that RS cannot be cited when they include an argument that certain positions are contrary to feminist principles and values. The slight of hand you are doing between fact and opinion - essentially, accusing sources of being biased in service of your own biases - isn't based on SO policy and really ought to be ignored in determining article content. Newimpartial (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. Editors vote on what sources are reliable so of course they're capable of judging which sources are reliable. If they weren't expected to use their judgement this voting mechanism wouldn't make any sense.

> Of course there is no single definition of feminism, but that doesn't mean that scholars using a particular definition of feminism in a specific piece of work are totally unreliable.

The entire topic, in which you accuse me of axe-grinding despite your hundreds of posts in, is disputed. So yes, when we both know that the definition of woman and feminism is up in the air, an "academic" attempting to define it for one side is obviously talking out their ass - unless they qualify which position they're speaking for. That source is no more reliable that Putin on the topic of Ukraine's borders.

A wise editor would skip using that article as a source because it's not reliable in this context, and move on to another. A wiser editor might even bring up the issue to initiate removal of the improper "reliable" status. InverseZebra (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Advocating the removal of content cited to academic sources because an editor happens to disagree with said content is simply not how Wikipedia works. Newimpartial (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Sign your comments in the future. You may find it easier to use the 'reply' UI rather than editing the page directly.

You're essentially lying to people about the rules here. Sources are re-evaluated all the time and this *is* the process. Advocating is how things are done here. Everything on wiki happens by someone noting a problem, calling it out, and getting people on side, then making community approved changes. It starts with little things such as pointing out that a source is saying something it can't know or which is logically impossible, and eventually triggers a watershed reevaluation of what we consider "reliable".

I'm specifically not going in and making unilateral changes, I'm explaining why some changes are needed so that we can discuss what those would look like and work on them together. You do want the page to best reflect reality, right? InverseZebra (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I want for this article to reflect reality according to the reliable sources on its topic, which appears to differ from your reality. If you believe you have pointed out that a source is saying something it can't know or which is logically impossible - well, I'm afraid you haven't done that. What you have actually done is to focus a hostile lens on a peer-reviewed, academic source and in so doing, misinterpreted it. That kind of WP:OR is out of scope even on Talk pages.

Meanwhile, your accusation that I am lying to people about the rules is both unsubstantiated and unWP:CIVIL - please don't do that. If you think you have identified a problem with the source, besides noting that it employs a specific definition of feminism, I'd love to hear it - so far you have simply laid down a barrage of WP:IDONTLIKEIT against a high-quality source without identifying any potential problem with the way it is currently used in this article. Disagreeing with a source and questioning its premises does not make said source unusable, regardless of the high stock you apparently place in your own Advocating work onwiki. Newimpartial (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

> That kind of WP:OR is out of scope even on Talk pages.

Saying that talking about the value of a source is unacceptable on a talk page isn't true and you should know that. If you don't mean to lie then stop and educate yourself. You're getting way too involved in sensitive topics and should probably step back for a bit. You're acting like we're in a revert war when we're merely discussing.

> without identifying any potential problem with the way it is currently used in this article. [...] What you have actually done is to focus a hostile lens on a peer-reviewed, academic source and in so doing, misinterpreted it.

No, I clearly identified a problem with how it's used in this article. It's all context dependent and it might be a fine source for another article which doesn't hinge on these fine points. If I had merely misinterpreted a source you'd simply debate it. You're trying to stop all discussion of sources because it's obvious I'm right.

> Disagreeing with a source and questioning its premises does not make said source unusable

No, the source being imprecise or biased in this area makes it inappropriate for this article. I'm pointing out problems with sources and their use in specific articles. If you can't refute this you should consider why. InverseZebra (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: the source being imprecise or biased in this area makes it inappropriate for this article - that is directly at odds with what WP:BIASEDSOURCES would lead us to conclude, and has simply been an unsubstantiated assertion on your part. If you want to argue that the article's stance that trans-inclusion is essential to feminism is not only wrong but disqualifies the source from being used in thus article, you have to actually make an argument rather than merely gesticulating. Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

> If you want to argue that the article's stance that trans-inclusion is essential to feminism is not only wrong but disqualifies the source from being used in thus article

To show their bias in claiming to speak for all feminists we need find only one self-identified feminist who is pro single-sex spaces. That's one of the LGB-A's stances. If you'd engage with the source material you wouldn't need to ask these questions.

> what WP:BIASEDSOURCES would lead us to conclude

No it actually supports looking at any source in a context-dependent per-article fashion to determine if it can be used. That's what I'm asking for here.

In opposition to your assertion that discussing sources is bad, it explicitly calls out that "editors should consider whether the source meets [requirements]". InverseZebra (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The statement in mainspace for which the Monque source is cuttently used (as one of two sources) is, The LGB Alliance has been described ... by articles in two scholarly journals as "trans-exclusionary". The idea that the article in question is not appropriate for this attributed statement in mainspace reads like special pleading not based in any of the WP:UPPERCASE to which you have gesticulated in this conversation.

As far as your claim that Monque is claiming to speak for all feminists, that is nothing more or less than a misinterpretation of the piece. Meanwhile, you assert that to discredit this caricature of the article, and thereby presumably to determine if it can be used, we need find only one self-identified feminist who is pro single-sex spaces. Discrediting peer-reviewed scholarship by means of our our own original arguments is exactly what WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH tells us not to do, and your convenient misinterpretation of the Monque piece in order to discredit it offers a perfect example of why editors are not supposed to do that. We are supposed to evaluate the fitness of articles for statements they could be used to support, but not by WP:POV-based exercises in OR debunking. Newimpartial (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

> Discrediting peer-reviewed scholarship by means of our our own original arguments is exactly what WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH tells us not to do

No. They directly tell us to raise the issue of bias or anything else that brings a source, or the whole article, into disrepute. For all your protestation you're doing your own original research too, to defend this source despite their obvious biases, as reliable enough. You seem more interested in keeping sources labelled as reliable than in their use in this context.

The Monque source uses the TERF slur while insinuating that "terfs" - trans exclusionary radial FEMINISTS - aren't feminists. Strong logic there. They took time out of their scholarly discussion of the topic to slur people they disagree with, right before deciding they can't identify as feminists. Very reliable indeed. The absolute picture of neutrality. InverseZebra (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Still haven't seen a single real reason not to include it. Still a peer-reviewed source last I checked.

Also TERF is not a slur lol, its an acronym which you literally spelled out. What exactly is a term for self-described "feminists" who oppose trans people? Particularly trans inclusion in public spaces? Does it stop being a slur if you say the whole thing instead of the acronym? What's next, "cis" is a slur? "Karen" perhaps? Not to mention, TERFS don't tend to care what other people want to be called, it's kinda their whole thing, so even if it was a slur, seems a bit like karma. But really though, a group who spend all their time shouting about how trans people don't deserve rights (in dehumanizing language most of the time) saying to call them "trans-exclusionary" is a slur is so ridiculous it's funny.

In terms of "TERF" being a slur as much as any directed at transfolk, I'm sure that TERFS feelings get hurt as much as trans people fear for their safety when they here "tranny" walking down the street. I'll be sure to tell all the trans people I know who've been abused, called slurs, or made homeless by their family that it's just as bad to call bigots making life harder for them TERFs. Totally equivalent... Not just bigots whinging at all... Reverse transphobia one might say, in the same vein as reverse racism.

To be fair, there's a valid debate on whether they're really feminists. I've seen some excellent papers discussing how it becomes a no-true-scotsman to say that bigoted feminists aren't feminists (suffragettes were often racist for example) and makes it harder to critically analyze bigoted trends within feminism. But the point raised that they actively promote oppression of trans women, who are women, still counts. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

> Reverse transphobia one might say, in the same vein as reverse racism

You're comparing a woman not accepting a male in her single-sex spaces with racial segregation? Hmmm.

> Also TERF is not a slur lol, its an acronym which you literally spelled out.

It is a slur, and what makes it clear is how much energy you go to in justifying it. And yes, so is Karen when used for women whose name is not Karen, to insinuate that her viewpoint does not matter because of her sex.

Cis is not a slur, but it is a label that not many people who it's used for identify with. It implies that they do believe in gender and agree with their "assigned" gender. That's not how most non-transgender people view themselves so cis is usually just inaccurate. I've seen feminists who've decried gender roles their whole life being called 'cis'.

> I'll be sure to tell all the trans people I know who've been abused

Right, by JK Rowling. We can see from the ongoing hateful and violent replies to her exactly which side is harmful.

> "feminists" who oppose trans people?

But do they, really? Or do they oppose the ability of any man to self-identify into single-sex spaces such as washrooms, sports, and prisons?

> trans women, who are women

But not the traditional kind of woman. You know, who birthed you and me. You can see how they, females, being smaller and weaker and at risk of sexual attack would feel strongly about this. They might feel that feminism implies female-ism, for, by, and about females.

> Still haven't seen a single real reason not to include it. Still a peer-reviewed source last I checked.

Their bias is reason enough. It renders their criticism meaningless. If you're pushing to make the whole article meaningless then of course you wouldn't see a problem. InverseZebra (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

1) Am I comparing people who say transgender people should be segregated from public spaces because just because they're trans to people saying other minorities should be segregated just because they're minorities? Yes. Also, TERFS oppose a lot more than the right to use the bathroom corresponding to your gender, but of course you didn't mention that. They also frequently attack transgender healthcare and nondiscrimination protections for trans people.

2) Still literally an acronym and not a slur lol. To be fair, TERFs are usually so privileged they don't have experience with actual slurs directed at them, so it's easy to see why they might get confused between a derogatory term for a demographic and a term to describe people who are bigoted towards a demographic. And of course you went to karen is a slur and sexist, completely ignoring how it's primarily used by people of color to describe racist white women and their privilege. Funny, calling karen a slur is kinda a reverse racism argument. Also, people calling cis a slur are just as ridiculous as those calling straight a slur lol. Or should we go back to the good old days when instead of "cis and trans people" we have "trannies and normal people"?

3) Ah yes, if someone says TERF they just don't like Rowling. Masterful argument. Wasn't talking about her and don't care to, others have covered the topic much better (but just as a sidenote, she's endorsed the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, an anti-trans think tank behind a lot of anti-trans legislation). In the real world, I'll be sure to tell my trans friends who've been harassed for using the bathroom, or just existing, or been kicked out of their home by TERFy parents, that a group of mostly upper/middle class white women who spend all their time calling trans people a threat are in fact just as marginalized.

4) Nah, they oppose trans people, as much as your weird hypothetical begs to differ. In the real world, men harass women all the time without needing to pretend to be trans. And if they did, they'd still be legally on the hook for harassment. There's no "trans people can harass anyone" law.

5) Moving on from 8th grade biology, define woman? Chromosomes, phenotypic presentation, sex hormones, organs, etc? Because their isn't really a definition of woman excluding trans woman that doesn't exclude cis and intersex women too. Trans woman are still women lol, cope. Also, nothing bigoted about arguments that women are frail and need protecting from any possible encounters with the big scary <insert entire demographic here>. Not to mention, does that make it ok for trans women to risk sexual assault? If cis women are in danger from cis men, why aren't trans women? At best we pass and are at just as much risk, and if we don't we're at more. Also, how do you know my birthgiver wasn't a trans man? Quick assumption to make.

6) Your feelings that they're biased because they're mean to the poor TERFs isn't actually a reason to remove the article grounded in wikipedia policy.

In short, whole lot of dogwhistles and sealioning, little in the way of an actual argument. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

> [... feminists] oppose a lot more than the right to use the bathroom corresponding to your gender

Some sure. But women don't have to do more than lobby to keep single-sex bathrooms for you to slur them as TERFs.

> I comparing people who say transgender people should be segregated from public spaces because just because they're trans

Who is arguing that the grocery store should be segregated based on gender identity? Women just want single-sex spaces to remain single-sex.

> And of course you went to karen is a slur and sexist, completely ignoring how it's primarily used by people of color to describe racist white women and their privilege. Funny, calling karen a slur is kinda a reverse racism argument.

Right, it's a slur. But you think it's okay because white women deserve it.

> Wasn't talking about [JKR] and don't care to

It's okay, I wasn't interested in what you'd have to say. I was using her as an example of perceived harm versus real death threats. TERF is a word Antifa uses in its signs and online threats towards women. It's clear that it's a slur, and being used to stigmatize and call for violence like all slurs. You do so much work denying that it's a slur while using it as often as you can, and always to imply that people hold *even more* bad opinions rather than engaging with what you see as their argumentative errors.

> they oppose trans people, as much as your weird hypothetical begs to differ.

Or is it that you see any callout of the difference between sex and gender, and the differential impact on one sex, as opposing trans people in general?

> In the real world, men harass women all the time without needing to pretend to be trans.

Which is why single-sex spaces were created. So that women could go somewhere without males. And if a man got in it wasn't a complicated question of his identity to get him removed and arrested. Fwiw, many women make a distinction between trans women and men using their existence as cover.

> And if they did, they'd still be legally on the hook for harassment. There's no "trans people can harass anyone" law.

A male claiming to be trans won't be stopped when following girls into the bathroom, or have the police called on him for loitering in the shower, so of course any male aggressor - and there are enough to warrant the creation of single-sex spaces - is going to use this defense.

> nothing bigoted about arguments that women are frail and need protecting

No. Women are smaller and weaker and thus more vulnerable. Recognizing reality isn't bigoted, and indeed women were the first ones to call for women's spaces in recognition of this.

> the big scary <insert entire demographic here>

Random street violence is 95%+ male perpetrated. Forcible sexual assaults are 99%+ perpetrated by people with penises, males. The risk of impregnation does make males quite scary. I don't know why you're so dismissive of women's time-proven fears.

> 8th grade biology [...] If cis women are in danger from cis men, why aren't trans women

Because males are on average bigger and stronger than females but trans women are males so there's no size or strength advantage. Gender is different than sex.

> Your feelings that they're biased because they're mean to the poor TERFs isn't actually a reason to remove the article grounded in wikipedia policy

No, because they make illogical claims such as calling these women "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" but also saying they aren't feminists. It makes sense that they probably can't tell supporting single-sex spaces from being anti trans. It shows that they aren't reliable, at least not here or in similar articles.

I'm only talking about terf and their usage of it as a red flag for a publication trying to slander and slur their opponents rather than present facts or engage with claims. It's not impossible but you'd be hard pressed to find a non-biased publication using slurs for the people they're discussing. InverseZebra (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

InverseZebra, I don't know how you expect your arguments to be taken seriously when you make new, completely unsubstantiated assertions at every turn:

Women just want single-sex spaces to remain single-sex - really? Women in general want to exclude trans women from spaces that are defined as belonging to women only? What is your evidence for this?

TERF is a word Antifa uses in its signs and online threats towards women - Antifa? Seriously? You are going to inscribe your conspiracy theory about persecuted "TERFs" within a broader conspiracy theory about Antifa, without offering evidence for either? That is really how you want to play this?

A male claiming to be trans won't be stopped when following girls into the bathroom, or have the police called on him for loitering in the shower, so of course any male aggressor - and there are enough to warrant the creation of single-sex spaces - is going to use this defense. You think that you can convince editors of the righteousness of your cause by recycling unsubstantiated transphobic tropes? This is where dog-whistle politics enters the realm of clearly-audible-whistle politics, IMO.

And then the reiterated assertion that "TERF" is a slur, without any recognition that the higher-quality RS do not actually support this characterization.

Re: trying to slander and slur their opponents rather than present facts or engage with claims - and this is exactly what you are doing in this discussion with your demonizing trans people as rapists. Are you sure you haven't previously been banned from discussing gender and sexuality on English Wikipedia? Because this discussion is starting to feel tediously familiar. Newimpartial (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

> this discussion is starting to feel tediously familiar.

When you don't read what people say I can see how that would happen.

> you sure you haven't previously been banned from discussing gender and sexuality

I'm sure you're juicy for another show trial regardless. I'm discussing the quality of sources. You're the ones muddying the issue by assuming my motives rather than engaging my points. You're demanding proof that terf is a slur and yet you object to that very proof as being transphobic.

I don't believe that there's any argument you wouldn't call transphobic.

> You think that you can convince editors of the righteousness of your cause by recycling unsubstantiated transphobic tropes

I was talking about males using trans policies as cover. As much as you want it to be, that's not transphobic. And it's one area of LGBA and other women's concerns about the conflict of women's rights and trans rights. It's clearly not a hate position and yet you try to make it into one.

> demonizing trans people as rapists

No, demonizing males as rapists.

> Antifa? Seriously? You are going to inscribe your conspiracy theory about persecuted "TERFs" within a broader conspiracy theory about Antifa, without offering evidence for either?

Yeah, the masked mob which assaulted the women protesting at the Wi Spa and later at the Port Townsend YMCA were largely antifa, and had put out calls online for other antifa to come help them beat up terfs. I'd post proof but you'd complain about the source, so search for it yourself.

> Women in general want to exclude trans women from spaces that are defined as belonging to women only? What is your evidence for this?

Well, that they call the spaces single-sex spaces.

> the reiterated assertion that "TERF" is a slur, without any recognition that the higher-quality RS do not actually support this characterization

That's the issue I raised, that you keep diverting from. That the high quality sources aren't high quality or reliable. I've already used the quotes given to show that Monque is fatally inconsistent within a single sentence. Of course they won't call out their own slurs, a quality publication wouldn't use them in the first place.

If they can't be trusted to state the issues correctly then how do you expect readers to believe that they can accurately represent LGBA's opinion enough to judge and criticize it? InverseZebra (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

So you are refusing to provide any RS support whatsoever that anything you have asserted in this discussion is based in any kind of reality? (Backs slowly away.) Newimpartial (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

> any RS support whatsoever

Being that this is a talk page and we're talking about the sources themselves I'm not going to be limited to providing sources that you've vetted.

But otherwise, what would you like proof for? How do you need proof that a sentence is self-contradictory when you can read it yourself? InverseZebra (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You haven't even concinced me that you believe some specific sentence of the source to be self-contradictory, much less that there is some policy-based reason to think it unreliable for the claim sourced to it in the article. You have, however, convinced me that YOUDONTLIKEIT and that you demand a good deal of SATISFACTION from your interlocutors, although you have some difficulty remaining CIVIL as you pursue your POV. Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

> although you have some difficulty remaining CIVIL

You sure do love to post all the WP:LINKS but most of them contradict you, such as the ones about reliable sources and bias that say editors should use their own judgement to call out bad sources.

> You haven't even concinced me that you believe

Thankfully, as much as you portray yourself as a gatekeeper, convincing you has never been my primary goal. There are many editors and readers and you are only one.

> You have, however, convinced me that YOUDONTLIKEIT

Do you like bad sources? You make it seem like that's weird.

> you demand a good deal of SATISFACTION from your interlocutors

If you fail to engage reasonably or in good faith I point it out. InverseZebra (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I think several people here are violating WP:NOTFORUM by using this talk page to engage in culture-warring with only tenuous relation to the actual article. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I've made a claim about the quality of sources and have been asked to explain myself. Until it became so clearly ill-faith it seemed reasonable to engage. InverseZebra (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Coming somewhat late to this. To Newimpartial: You refer to the Simon thesis as a peer-reviewed academic source and say the object of your ire ought to be WP's policy framework for reliable sourcing, and not the content of this article. But [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP] says: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. So this Master’s thesis could not be a ‘reliable source’ for Wikipedie. And Inverse Zebra is correct when they say: Your source doesn't claim they are opposing trans rights, only that they say "Stonewall's pro-transgender inclusion policies" conflict with homosexual rights. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't referred to the Simon thesis even once in this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I know it is a convoluted conversation, but Sweet6970 is wrong. It is Monique 2021 that is the source being discussed, and which was first cited here by TheTranarchist. -- Colin°^Talk 17:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I also called out Simon as Sweet6970 said. Monque was just more egregious so conversation settled there. InverseZebra (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: the TERF slur - and yet there is no agreement among scholarly sources that TERF is a slur. You are assuming the thing you purport to prove, once again. Newimpartial (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on TERF says it is "typically considered derogatory" (even though it was originally coined as a neutral description), citing Oxford English Dictionary. The article then gives citations on both sides of a debate over whether it is a slur, representing this as an open debate in which there is no consensus. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what the correct wording is for the first paragraph but I also think the present wording is not an accurate description of who they are, just who they say they are. To repeat what I said in an earlier discussion I don't think that taking the LGB Alliance's website at face value is sensible. Like other groups that are considered by some to be a hate group what they say on their website and what they do are quite different. One example from their website; "We fully support trans people in their struggle, for dignity, respect and a life lived free from bigotry and fear.", this is not present in their opposition to making conversion therapy for trans people illegal in the UK.

What are the rules around this and where has this kind of issue come up before and been resolved well?

John Cummings (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

If someone has a source saying that LGB Alliance was founded to exclude transgender people from LGBT Movements and to oppose the transgender rights movement then they should (a) direct us to the source, and the quote saying this, and (b) explain what this could possibly mean. How could any organisation ‘exclude transgender people from LGBT movements’? The wording proposed by Bluerasberry, and inserted by them without gaining consensus for it, is nonsensical and is not supported by the body of the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• I put a notice of this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#LGB_Alliance and also messaged Wiki LGBT+ groups in other channels. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, you put a notice with a very biased statement, "This is a transphobic hate group." Not "This has been alleged to be a transphobic hate group", or even "I believe this to be a transphobic hate group", but simply stating it as if it's an indisputable fact. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

unambiguously a transphobic hate group The weight of the sources establish that the mainsteam LGBT+ community including almost everyone considers this organization to be a transphobic hate group. There is nothing controversial about saying that. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to name a single thing they've campaigned for that isn't transphobic. Considering literally all of their activism is centered around attacking the rights of trans people, and the majority of their press coverage covers that, they're matter of factly a transphobic hate group.

Not to mention, while they're mostly a transphobic hate group, they're homophobic as well. See their positions on LGBT clubs in schools, gay marriage, or even their repeated assumption that transgender people can't be LGB, an old homophobic and transphobic position. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

JaggedHamster has suggested (11:42, 4 October 2022) as an alternative wording: in opposition to the extension of the charity Stonewall's focus from LGB rights to LGBT ones. Something along these lines makes better sense than the wording which has been promoted by Bluerasberry. Is there any general support for JaggedHamster’s proposal, or anything similar? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The use of "extension … from LGB rights to LGBT ones" implies that Stonewall was previously LGB-only and is now adding trans-rights issues to their focus. That is simply not true — while Stonewall used to be criticised for paying insufficient attention to trans people's concerns, they have always claimed to represent the LGBTQ+ community more generally. OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The terminology Stonewall use at https://www.stonewall.org.uk/our-work/campaigns/2015-stonewall-extends-remit-become-lgbt-charity-and-begins-journey-trans is that they extended their remit in 2015 to become a LGBT charity, would that be a better choice of words? Or https://www.stonewall.org.uk/vision-change has it as extending their "remit to campaign for trans equality alongside lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) equality"? JaggedHamster (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Given that the change was in 2015 and this group didn't form until 2019, I wonder if the wording should be a bit less suggestive of a change in Stonewall's mandate being the proximate cause of the rift. Maybe something like ...formed in 2019 in opposition to the LGBT charity Stonewall's advocacy for trans rights.--Trystan (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this looks good to me. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I oppose. The word "founding" should not be in the first sentence, nor should mention of Stonewall. The origin story is much less important than what the organization actually does. Find a wording that presents the consensus view of this organization's activities. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't support the suggested phrasing "The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group known for its opposition to the transgender rights movement and the belief that there is a "conflict between trans rights and the rights of [ cisgender ] LGB people". It has the same issue as the existing introduction, it talks about why the say they were set up (taking their claims at face value), not what they actually do. What is an established process to review the existing reliable sources to come up with a definition? John Cummings (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Further proposals

Previous ideas are insufficient for failure to state what the organization does. Here is one option -

• The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group which opposes the transgender rights movement.

Who has other ideas? If you oppose stating what the organization does, then explain why. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

My proposal for the lead paragraph is the following. It covers both the specific origin, which I think is important context, and has a clear emphasis on the details of their mandate. I don't find the current article's list of founders (only one of whom has an article) meaningful info this early on in the article, so I have left it out.

The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 in opposition to LGBT charity Stonewall's support for transgender rights. The LGB Alliance advocates against gender identity education in schools, a ban on conversion therapy for trans people in the UK, medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform.--Trystan (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Trystan: Would you be willing to reverse the order of your first and second sentences? I oppose emphasis on the brief time of the organization's founding and defining it in terms of another organization which Wikipedia's international readership is unlikely to recognize. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I would find it much harder to mentally digest in the reverse order. Explaining they broke away from an LGBT group over trans rights gives context for the list of stances.--Trystan (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I honestly think that their origin story is not really lead-worthy, certainly not in the very first sentence. It doesn't receive a lot of weight in the article itself, which is instead focused heavily on their activism, which is by far the main thing they're notable for. So therefore I propose:

The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 to oppose transgender rights. They advocate against gender identity education in schools, a ban on conversion therapy for trans people in the UK, medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform. Loki (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This version seems the best suggested so far. However, I think we should somehow include the fact they frame their opposition in terms of a (nonexistent) conflict between the rights of cisgender LGB people and trans people, followed by criticism of that position from relevant sources. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to be careful to state the views of LGBA and its critics without taking a position on whose views are true or false, existent or nonexistent. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Your preference here does not reflect Wikipedia policy - articles are to reflect the facts and conventional interpretations stated in independent, reliable sources - FALSEBALANCE is not ok where it departs from consensus reality. Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

There are other proposals which have been made - these are immediately above this section. It is confusing to have 2 discussions going on at once. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: You have my support and encouragement to WP:REFACTOR this section I started. Delete move rearrange in whatever way makes sense. In the end I suppose a list of options and a selection process would be ideal. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 Comment:, please can suggesters link to the sources that support their suggested sentences, this will make it easier to see that they're supported by sources. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The lead should really just be summarizing the sourced material already in the article. Sources in the lead are the exception rather than the rule.--Trystan (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but the sourced material already in the article already gives a very strong impression that the LGB Alliance are in fact transphobic generally, and don't just oppose Stonewall specifically. Loki (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 that takes the position that a conflict exists between those who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, and those who are transgender, and advocates for the LGB side of such conflicts. They were formed in opposition to LGBT charity Stonewall's transgender focus. (Sources: [1] [2]) *Dan T.* (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  This version doesn't reflect what the majority of sources say. Two sources from the Times, a paper that's notoriously anti-trans in its coverage, doesn't override the rest of the sources. Not to mention, they don't advocate for the LGB side of such conflicts, they say they do that, there's a big difference (since reality shows LGBT people have been fighting side by side for decades and transgender rights aren't at all in conflict with LGB rights whatsoever. Cisgender LGB rights I add, since people seem to keep conveniently forgetting trans people can also be LGB). They weren't founded in oppositon to Stonewall's transgender focus, but the fact they advocate for trans people at all. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  That's your opinion. Your opinion or mine don't matter here, but LGBA does have the (reliably sourced) opinion that such a conflict does exist, so that (stated as what LGBA believes, not as an objective fact) should go in the intro. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  Secondary sources trump primary sources, dawg. Random FRINGE beliefs do not belong in the lede where they are not consistently reported in secondary sources, per WP:BALANCE. Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  When it's an article about a specific organization, the beliefs of that organization are relevant, whether "fringe" or not. Apparently the Flat Earth Society isn't notable enough to have its own article (there is one for a band of that name, however), but if it did I'd expect its lede to state its beliefs, however wacky they might be. I see the ledes for Mermaids (charity) and Stonewall (charity) state the purposes and activities of those organizations succinctly, without reference to what critics say, and largely sourced from those groups' own websites. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  Here's a secondary source quoting a founder of LGBA as saying it was founded to "prevent the dissemination of the lie of gender identity". [3] Is that better? *Dan T.* (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps, "to promote its view that gender identity is a lie" or "to promote its view that gender identity is a pernicious ideology", if you'd allow the paraphrase. Newimpartial (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Dan T. Also I don't see any evidence that scepticism about gender identity is a "fringe" view. Reading the coverage in a variety of media, it seems to me pretty mainstream. For instance in The Guardian there have been articles both for and against that view. And some quite respectable public figures, not only right-wing reactionaries, have shared that sceptical opinion. When several notable women (Joanna Cherry MP, JK Rowling) and gay men (Matthew Parris) say they don't agree with the Stonewall line on this matter, Wikipedia should give fair representation to that position. Alarics (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  While I understand that some WP editors believe that gender identity is a lie, this view is unsupported by the wide consensus of reliable sources in the relevant fields and is therefore WP:FRINGE. If quite respectable public figures dispute the scholarly consensus on climate change or on the Nazi Holocaust, we do not therefore present BOTHSIDES on the matter, nor do we present groups of climate change or holocaust deniers as taking any thing other than a FRINGE position. The same is true here. We never base WP articles on the range of opinion that is or isn't expressed in WP:RSOPINION sources and I see no reason why this topic would be different: no matter how many WP editors happen to take a view at odds with scientific consensus. Newimpartial (talk)

If we have to change it then let's just go with Bluerasberry's suggestion at the beginning. Succinct, and seems quite accurate and well-sourced, as well as unlikely to be as controversial as alternatives. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree – the wording proposed by Bluerasberry (The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group which opposes the transgender rights movement) is very similar to the argument that it should not be a charity, because it is supposedly campaigning against transgender rights, rather than for the interests of LGB people. So this wording would make Wikipedia agree with Mermaids’ side of the current legal dispute.

The current wording is better than any of the new wordings which have been proposed. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

If most reliable sources support the claim that they oppose the trans rights movement, we write as much. If that makes the LGB Alliance look bad, that's their problem, not ours. Madeline (part of me) 11:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

to Madeline: being in opposition to Stonewall’s policies on transgender issues is not the same as being opposed to transgender rights. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I predicated my claim with If most reliable sources support the claim…. I was simply rebuking the point expressed in the post I replied to, that using the wording would break NPOV regardless of sourcing. Madeline (part of me) 12:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

to Madeline: The inf in the article is not that RSs support the claim that LGBA is anti-trans, but that various people have said that it is anti-trans. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sweet6790, you offer a strangely backwards argument. If the RS on this matter present a reality that is aligned with the situation that has prompted the Charity Commission hearings, we are not supposed to present that reality in Wikivoice? That doesn't sound like WP policy... Newimpartial (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

to Newimpartial: You refer to ‘the situation that has prompted the Charity Commission hearings’. But it wasn’t a ‘situation’ which ‘prompted’ the Charity Commission case. It was Mermaids which instigated the case against LGB Alliance. The proposed wording which I quoted just gives Mermaids’ view. It is perfectly possible that LGB Alliance will win the case – we don’t know the outcome at present, and in fact the hearing has been adjourned, so it will be some time before we know the decision. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Right, but the language in question doesn't say anything about what the Charity Commission will decide - it talks about what the organization actually does. The sources supporting this statement are not primarily making attributed statements, "Mermaids says that the Alliance does X", but rather factual statements in their own voice, "the Alliance does/is X". The sourcing on "the other side" that would require an attributed statement in our article doesn't seem to exist, or if it does, it certainly hasn't been presented here. Your argument that we can't present what the RS say about the Alliance - not about the outcome of the Charity Commission case, but about the documented activity of the Alliance - unless there is a ruling against the Alliance in the case - well, I am unaware of any support for that (seemingly odd) position in terms of WP policy. Are some thought police censors being employed here that I don't know about? Newimpartial (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Please direct me to the RSs which say in their own voice ‘the Alliance does X’, and exactly what they say the Alliance does.

I don’t understand your reference to ‘censors’, but I don’t suggest you explain, because I think this would bring us into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The best, most up to date source I could find says:

LGB Alliance claims its purpose is to see “lesbians, gay men and bisexuals living free from discrimination or disadvantage based on their sexual orientation”. But ever since its inception, the organisation has campaigned to erode trans rights and paint the trans community as dangerous to women and children....Over the following months, the group targeted the census for asking respondents to list their “sex registered at birth”, inclusive sex and relationships education in schools, and reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) to make legal recognition easier for trans people.

I think that's a pretty clear statement that 'the Alliance does X', where 'X' is campaigned to erode trans rights and paint the trans community as dangerous to women and children. Newimpartial (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Is PinkNews really the best source on this? We don't have a scholarly source, general media, none of that? Crossroads ^-talk- 22:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not aware of any consensus that general media sources are preferable to PinkNews in this context. Of course scholarly sources are preferable. Newimpartial (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

PinkNews is an obviously biased source, and the article quoted is more of an opinion piece than a factual news report. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence for either element of that assertion. Newimpartial (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's turn it around. Is it your position that PinkNews is not a biased source, and that the above quoted article does not express opinion? Crossroads ^-talk- 02:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

In that article in particular, I don't see any statement that would qualify as the writer's (or the publication's) opinion, as opposed to factual reporting. Newimpartial (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you please answer the first part of my question as well. Whether we agree PinkNews is biased or not would help in future discussions... Crossroads ^-talk- 02:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not aware of any sources on this article's topic that are free from at least the potential for bias; PinkNews strikes me as less biased than most of the sources currently used in the article. WP:BIASEDSOURCES reminds us: When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. In terms of those criteria in particular, I think PinkNews stands up well as an Independent, Reliable source on this article's topic. Newimpartial (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

PinkNews is listed as a reliable source for factual reporting in the list of Wikipedia perennial sources: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#PinkNews. No sources are entirely free from biases. That is why it may be good to attribute statements and provide readers with all relevant views from the reliable sources available. Hist9600 (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Founded in Britain, now international?

The article now lists chapters in Ireland, Iceland, Australia, and I have a source for a new one in Vermont. Wouldn't it be more apt to open with saying the group is International, founded in the UK (or specific UK country), with several chapters worldwide? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

While some of the international offshoots are real, others seem to be little more than Twitter accounts. (There are also a lot of other Twitter accounts that may be genuine attempts to start a group or just be astroturfing or parodies.) The LGBA doesn't claim direct affiliation with any of them, even the ones listed on their website. That is why the "International groups" section is carefully worded as it is. I'd be inclined to leave it as it is. If any of the other offshoot groups have any actual activities, covered by reliable sources, then they can be added to the section. The main thing is that we let our readers know that there are some other groups and I think we already have that adequately covered. DanielRigal (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

List of proposals

I think this is everything proposed above. Did I miss any, or does anyone have further proposals?

1. The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in 2019...
   1. in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues.
   2. to exclude transgender people from LGBT Movements and to oppose the transgender rights movement.
   3. in opposition to the extension of the charity Stonewall's focus from LGB rights to LGBT ones
   4. to promote its view that gender identity is a "lie
   5. to promote its view that gender identity is a pernicious ideology
2. The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group known for its opposition to the transgender rights movement and the belief that there is a conflict between trans rights and the rights of cisgender LGB people.
3. The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group which opposes the transgender rights movement.
4. The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 in opposition to LGBT charity Stonewall's support for transgender rights. The LGB Alliance advocates against gender identity education in schools, a ban on conversion therapy for trans people in the UK, medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform.
5. The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 to oppose transgender rights. They advocate against gender identity education in schools, a ban on conversion therapy for trans people in the UK, medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform.

Does anyone see a way to get consensus here, or should we do an RfC? Ideas for what's next? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I support a mixture of 4 and 5, with the first sentence reading The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 to oppose transgender rights and LGBT charity Stonewall for it's support of them Thank you for laying them out, I think that helps us look for a consensus here more informally. If we can't moving it to an RFC seems the best move. Also, I prefer transgender rights to transgender rights movement since they aren't critical of a movement but the rights themselves, with attacking organizations that support trans people being a part of that. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I support 1(1) i.e. The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in 2019 in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues. This is the current wording. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much Bluerasberry for supporting this discussion.

I don't think that 1 is sufficient, again it just talks about their history and who they say they are, not what they actually do, I don't think that any of these options are incorrect, just what we chose to emphasise. I agree with the above comment about clarifying they are against the rights themselves, not the movement. My suggestion would be to leave the founding information until after a description of what they actually do:

• The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group which opposes transgender rights. They advocate against gender identity education in schools, a ban on conversion therapy for trans people in the UK, gender affirming care including puberty blockers for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform. It was founded in 2019 in opposition to LGBT charity Stonewall's support for transgender rights.

If this is taken to an RFC my suggestion would be first to agree on what whould be included and then which order we put the information.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I like 1.2, 2, 3, 5, and TheTranarchist's mix of 4 and 5. These are all pretty direct about their actual agenda and don't get bogged down in their history. If I had to support one over the others, I'd say I like 2 best, because I think saying they're "known for" opposing transgender rights is a little easier to get from the current sources than saying they were founded specifically to oppose transgender rights. Loki (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I like 3 or 5. And I honestly think Stonewall should not be mentioned in the first sentence. The founding circumstances of an organization may seem extremely important to its supporters but as time goes on it becomes less and less relevant, and is not the main thing that defines it anymore. After all, any political party or movement started off as a very small local reaction to some other existing thing, but we don't make it defining. --Dan Carkner (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

4 or 5 are good or John Cummings version. The more descriptive options are better in general. Silverseren^C 16:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

So far it's very much seeming like 5 is the option with the most support. We currently have 3 or 4 people (depending on how you count TheTranarchist's proposal) supporting something including 5, with only two people supporting something else. Loki (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there any source which actually supports {{tq| ..formed…to oppose transgender rights…’? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

2 seems best of these possibilities, more neutral and is more informative. It needs support from sources though. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Full protection

Due to ongoing edit warring and the controversial nature of the dispute above, I have full-protected the article for a few days. Please work together, civilly, to achieve consensus before using an edit request to request changes. Many thanks — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems like the previous edit war over the lede returned after the full protection expired. I'd greatly appreciate if all involved editors avoided changing the lede from its previous status quo while discussion is ongoing in the talk page. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

LGB Alliance is a British organisation

@Newimpartial: This article is about the British organisation. Your edit which makes it say The LGB Alliance in Ireland has been listed among far-right extremist groups by the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism is making the article say that LGB Alliance Ireland is part of the British organisation. It is clear that this is not the case, per the section International groups lower down the article. Please do not make edits which contradict the sources, and which cause the article to not make sense. You should self-revert, and in any event, you should have raised this matter on the Talk page, instead of reverting Crossroads and myself. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you and Crossroads raised entirely different concerns (neither of which is valid in context). As to your claim that this article's scope is limited to the UK group, that view has not had consensus for some time - the main concern raised in the most recent discussion of this was that the article not give a misleading impression of actual existence to "chapters" that might consist of a single Twitter account. The status quo text on this was misleading, so I have made appropriate adjustments, and have also (I hope) removed any impression left by the first paragraph that the Irish group is part of the UK organisation. Newimpartial (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you and Crossroads raised entirely different concerns… For heaven’s sake, Newimpartial – did you not read Crossroads’ edit summary? – Revert, WP:UNDUE in lead. Refers only to Ireland offshoot; also the group making this claim appears to be non-notable and by two researchers who left the SPLC (why?). Unclear if they are reliable or their opinion is noteworthy. We both raise the concern that the ref only refers to ‘the Ireland offshoot’.

And I agree with Crossroads that your addition is UNDUE for the lead.

You have now made various references to the UK. I don’t wish to get involved in discussions of Irish politics, but Northern Ireland is legally part of the UK. ‘Ireland’ may refer to the whole island, or it may, and very commonly does, refer only to the Republic. So it is now unclear whether Wikipedia is saying that LGB Ireland is part of the ‘UK’ organisation.

And I don’t agree with your change in the wording of ‘International groups’ from ‘similar’ to ‘shared’. This is an overstatement, and I prefer the wording by DanielRigal.

Sweet6970 (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Not to split hairs, but you were claiming that LGB Alliance Ireland is out of scope for this article; this was not one of the issues Crossroads raised.

Also, the only information we actually have about the relationship between the UK LGB Alliance and LGB Alliance Ireland must be either from RS or ABOUTSELF sources. The UK group links it among the other international groups, and the NGO lists it alongside other hate groups operating in Ireland. If you think any text in this article wades into Northern Irish politics or makes any assertions about the (rather opaque) structure of the Alliance that the article does not support.

Incidentially, the "British" that I removed from the lead sentence was unsupported by sources, as far as I know, and implied that the scope of the original UK campaign group excluded Northern Ireland - if you have any evidence supporting that, I would very much like to see it. Newimpartial (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

No, you’re certainly not splitting hairs – you are claiming I said something I didn’t say. My edit summary was It does not make sense to say ‘ It has been listed among far-right extremist groups in Ireland….’ when the article is about the British organisation. The previous wording is correct. The article used to start: The LGB Alliance is a British campaign group founded in 2019 in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues. i.e. the subject of the article is the British organisation. I have accepted the addition of the section on International groups, but that doesn’t alter the fact that the article is about the British organisation.

As regards the organisation being British – the company is registered as a limited company with the Registrar of Companies for England & Wales. Similarly, it is registered as a charity with the Charity Commission for England and Wales.

You have not justified mention of the Irish organisation in the lead.

You have not justified your change in the wording of the International groups section from ‘similar’ to ‘shared’.

And it really would be better not to change the wording of the first sentence of the lead whilst there is a discussion going on about this.

Sweet6970 (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that a charity registered in England (and Wales), rather than Scotland or Northern Ireland, is correctly referred to as British but not UK? Now that seems counterintuitive. Newimpartial (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like we have different intuitions. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit by John Cummings [4]– neither the Irish nor the Australian organisations should be mentioned in the lead. This article is about the British organisation. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to you that the scope of this article has, for some time now, included LGB Alliance organisations outside the UK. Per LEADFOLLOWSBODY, this is now reflected in the lead. As with the Irish case, the designation of LGB Alliance Australia as a hate group has received independent, RS coverage. Given your insistence in prior discussion on Talk that we should not follow the RSs as they report on the GPAHE reports, this looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The reference to the foreign organisations is UNDUE in the lead – since the article is about the British organisation. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Further, you have not replied to my objection to the change from ‘similar’ to ‘shared’. ‘Shared’ is inappropriate, because it suggests a close connection between the organisations, which are in fact independent of each other. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

What is the sourcing for the "independence" of the chapters? Newimpartial (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

If you want to say they are connected to each other, you need to provide a source for this. I don’t know what you mean by ‘chapters’. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

"Chapters" is a term some RS use for LGB Alliance Ireland, Australia, etc. - tbe RS certainly see them as connected to each other. :) Newimpartial (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

From GPAHE:

Ireland: The Irish LGB Alliance (LGBA) was founded in 2020 and is an offshoot of the UK LGB Alliance ... In general, LGBA opposes gender-identity education in schools, medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform. ... Irish LGBTQ+ activists contend that its membership is mostly UK-based, though the Irish chapter insists “all our committee members are living in Ireland.”

Australia: In general, LGBA and its international chapters oppose gender-identity education in schools, medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform.

From independent coverage:

Pink News: LGB Alliance Ireland is an offshoot of the UK pressure group, and like it claims that trans rights are in conflict with LGB rights while devoting the vast majority of its efforts attacking advancements to trans rights. ... It dedicates much of its report to the UK group, which has, among other things, campaigned against life-saving gender recognition reforms, gender-affirming healthcare for young people, and letting trans people use single-sex spaces and services. ... LGB Alliance Ireland fell onto GPAHE’s radar after its UK counterpart compared LGBTQ+ inclusion to “bestiality”, said co-founder Heidi Beirich.

Star Observer: According to GPAHE, the UK-based anti-trans group LGB Alliance’s Australia chapter has supported Jessica Hoyle’s case seeking exemption under Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination laws to hold some singe-sex events that would ban trans women.

In short, LGB alliance Australia and Ireland are chapters of the UK group, and we have ample reason to include their classification as hate groups in the lead. Perhaps even to note, as independent coverage has done, that most of the reports center the actions of the UK branch. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the fact the Irish chapter/offshoot has been listed as a hate group was already in the intro, all I did was add that the Australian version has also been listed (along with some small grammar changes). Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

There’s a confused edit history on this – the ref to the GPAHE report was first added to the lead on 21 October[5], and was written as if it applied to the British organisation. This was subsequently amended to refer to the Irish organisation. I disagree that the references to these foreign organisations should be in the lead, since the article is about the British organisation. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Massive problems with sourcing

I reached the end of the first paragraph of the lead before giving up on trying to make sense of this article's current sourcing.

• The BBC News source is used to support article text that the LGB Alliance advocates for "a ban on conversion therapy for trans people in the UK, gender affirming care including puberty blockers for children reporting gender dysphoria". There is nothing in the source to corroborate this. There is no mention of conversion therapy or puberty blockers in the article at all; the only section in the source relating to the LGB Alliance is a direct quote from Bev Jackson, saying: "We don't think children should be allowed to self-diagnose any medical condition. The numbers of referrals are so huge that I believe this is a social problem caused by miseducation. It is impossible for the NHS to deal with all of these young people who are coming forward. We need to take a step back and ask why are so many young people presenting at the clinic for a gender treatment?" This quote does not corroborate that the group as a whole advocates for a "ban" on anything.

• Likewise, The Telegraph source does not confirm the cited text that LGB Alliance "opposes gender-identity education in schools". Instead, the only relevant statement in the source is a quote of Kate Harris saying: "If I was in school today, I would be taken to one side and helped to come to terms with the fact that I was gender non-conforming. And how special would I feel? What child would turn down additional attention?" This quote does not in any way confirm that the group as a whole is "opposed" to "gender-identity education in schools".

• This article makes extensive use of PinkNews (35 of this article's current 114 sources), which according to its own Wikipedia article has made numerous libelous claims and has an extensive history with Stonewall. The current version of the lead here confirms LGB Alliance was "founded ... in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall". WP:RSPS says "There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented on PinkNews' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject." That's hardly a glowing endorsement of its neutrality or capability for investigative journalism with regards to its reporting on LGB Alliance.

• Regarding its use in the lead, PinkNews is used to support the text that LGB Alliance opposes "gender recognition reform." However, the previous Telegraph source specifically says LGB Alliance "do[es] not want to see further reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA)." So the more substantive source used immediately prior discredits what PinkNews is used to cite. That definitely doesn't bode well for the other 34 instances this source is used in the article.

It's clear from even this most cursory glance at current sourcing, that this article requires a healthy dose of WP:TNT in order to adhere to the core Wikipedia policies of neutrality and verifiability. I'd TNT this article myself, but don't have the time, patience, or strength to edit an article when the entire topic is currently under ArbCom "discretion". Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

And by "numerous", you mean two and were very plainly issues of individuals upset at their own statements and past history being described. I think that sort of statement on your part pretty clearly showcases your personal biases on this subject matter. And why you would make this sort of section post. Silverseren^C 01:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I made "this sort of section post" because content in this article is not verifiable in the references used in the article. That you're already seeking to politicize this section by not WP:AGF speaks volumes. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding its use in the lead, PinkNews is used to support the text that LGB Alliance opposes "gender recognition reform." However, the previous Telegraph source specifically says LGB Alliance "do[es] not want to see further reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA)."

Here, one example of many in your original post. This statement pretty clearly shows you don't understand what you're even quoting. The source says they oppose "gender recognition reform", which you then quoted a Telegraaph article of them saying that they don't want to see reform of the Gender Recognition Act (the reform being the expansion of trans rights in the law). Hence, they oppose gender recognition reform. Where is the contradiction exactly? Silverseren^C 01:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 was introduced to allow people with "gender dysphoria to change their legal gender", according to the Wikipedia article for the act. Current sourcing says nothing about any proposed changes revolving around "the reform being the expansion of trans rights in the law". All you've done is point out yet another glaring sourcing issue. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to replace the lede source with any of the ones in the section further down in the article. Or you can use this one as well. Silverseren^C 02:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

If you dont understand that PinkNews is a more consistently reliable (and less obviously biased) source on this topic than The Telegraph, then IMO you should not be offering an evaluation of the article. Also, the article is required to use NPOV terms based on the highest quality sources addressing the overall domain (in this case, LGBT rights) in general, not whatever terms the BBC or The Telegraph happen to use. Please read for content. Newimpartial (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Care to provide evidence by way of RfCs, ArbCom measures, AN reports, or any other venue that shows consensus of PinkNews being "more consistently reliable" than The Telegraph or BBC? You saying "the article is required to use NPOV terms based on the highest quality sources addressing the overall domain (in this case, LGBT rights) in general, not whatever terms the BBC or The Telegraph happen to use. Please read for content." reads a lot like "infer what I'm inferring from the sources". If content on Wikipedia is not immediately WP:Verifiable, then it can be removed, much more so for political topics. The entire purpose of this section was to discuss overall source quality. Responses here so far, as well as this, read a hell of a lot like a blatant threat and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Homeostasis, I have previously linked to multiple discussions where The Telegraph and The Times have been pilloried brought into question for their treatment of transgender issues. Rather than do so again, I will point out simply that this limitation has been noted in multiple, high-quality WP:RS including academic sources. Meanwhile, PinkNews has a green rating at RSN with the only noteworthy limitations concerning outing, which they don't do any more and which is by no means relevant to the use of the source here. Newimpartial (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The Telegraph and BBC are also rated green on WP:RSPS. The only discussions I can find in talk archives here regard this Telegraph source, which is still used in the article, BTW. I can't find links to any particular Times article, or any notably harsh criticism of that publication, in the archives at all.

I admit this entire discussion has gotten off to a bad start. For my part in that, I apologize. I want everyone to know that I have not edited this article or begun this discussion with any ill intention. I may be a straight cis-male, but my intention in starting this discussion was to help address the issues I observed in the article. I've been a Wikipedia editor for nearly 15 years, so I notice when sources don't line up with content. Hope you all fix these issues eventually, using more explicit/more credible sources. That being said... bye. Have a happy life. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I dispute your characterization of these sources:

• I am not sure in what world Bev Jackson, from the LGB Alliance, a self-funded lobby group, said: "We don't think children should be allowed to self-diagnose any medical condition. ... " in the context of this article about said medical treatment does not constitute verification for opposes ... gender affirming care including puberty blockers for children reporting gender dysphoria.

• I am not sure in what world Lesbians are facing “extinction” because of the “disproportionate” focus on transgenderism in schools, a controversial campaign group for gay rights has claimed. does not constitute verification that said campaign group (the LGB Alliance) opposes gender-identity education in schools.

• PinkNews is RSP green and frankly is more reliable on trans issues than the majority of British news sources.

• You literally say the Telegraph source backs PinkNews up. The claim is that they oppose ... gender recognition reform. The Telegraph source says they admit they do not want to see further reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). I really don't know what to tell you, it seems like you have entirely misread either the source or the article here.

Loki (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

What Newimpartial is saying (01:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC) here is that if anyone disagrees with them, they should not be editing the article. This does not contribute to the discussion.

Regarding Loki’s points:

1st point: The source wording given does not support opposes ... gender affirming care including puberty blockers for children reporting gender dysphoria.

2nd point: The source wording given does not support opposes gender-identity education in schools

3rd point: Loki has given no reason to support their view that PinkNews is more reliable than other sources.

4th point: Loki is correct: the proposed reform of the Gender Recognition Act would allow self-ID. LGBA is opposed to this, as is said in the source and the article.

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Sweet, are you under the impression that a source has to use the exact same terminology (e g., "gender-affirming care") to support a statement in our article? Newimpartial (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

No.

The wording in our article should be an accurate representation/summary of what is said in the source.

Sweet6970 (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

And saying that minors should not receive affirming treatment for gender dysphoria that they themselves report is opposing gender affirming care...for children reporting gender dysphoria. It is right there on the tin. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh come on, Newimpartial. "We don't think children should be allowed to self-diagnose any medical condition. ... " is not the same as “opposes ... gender affirming care”. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Homeostasis07, I agree the article has issues. Unfortunately, there's way too much 'here's what I think the sources really mean' going on here as well as double standards about greenlit sources and source bias - favoring one bias over another and absurd claims about which source is more biased. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

You are aware, I hope, that the corpus of high-quality and academic sources is at odds with you over what claims...about which source us more biased are absurd? I'm sure your prejudices unexamined underlying assumptions lead to more accurate conclusions than an actual examination of evidence, eh? Newimpartial (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC) revised by Newimpartial (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial: It is absolutely unacceptable to accuse another editor of harboring "prejudices". That, along with SilverSeren above accusing me of having a "personal bias", really does not create the impression of this being a collaborative page. If you're so quick to rush to judgement about users's personal motivations, then it's probably time you take a step back from editing in this topic area. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you see the irony in telling other editors to step back from this topic area after you yourself stated you "don't have the time, patience, or strength to edit an article" in this topic area? ––FormalDude (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Homeostasis, I trust that my prior comment has been adjusted to your satisfaction. I was carried away by my frustration with an editor who refuses to recognize the authoritative evidence contradicting their prior assumptions, which has been presented to them repeatedly but which they elect to ignore. My apologies. Newimpartial (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No, FormalDude, I see no irony in that statement. I do, however, see irony in you following my contributions page for 4 months solid, though. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I've been watching this page for months. I assure you I have zero interest in increasing the number of interactions I have with you. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Right Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

So anyway... nothing in this discussion has resulted in any attempt to address the content issues evident in this article. A core tenant of Wikipedia is that if content is not verifiable, it can be immediately removed. Instead of addressing the issue of unverifiable content, users have thrown around DS notices, accused editors of "POV-based tag bombing", having personal biases" and "prejudices". This is certainly not an ideal situation. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Well seeing as you have yet to achieve a consensus that there is a problem, much less propose any actual solutions to problems that you're seeing, there doesn't seem to be anything to do at present. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

As opposed to sourcing the content in the lead such that it's actually verifiable? Wow... Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Silverseren and Loki's reading of the sources and the points you've raised. WP:LEADCITE is the relevant guideline, and the content on conversion therapy, puberty blockers, and opposition to gender-identity education in schools are already cited in the article's body. Silverseren did suggest on 27 October that you could easily rectify the LEADCITE issues by taking citations from the article's body, but you have yet to actually do so.

As for PinkNews' "numerous libel claims", while 2 is certainly a number, it does not meet the threshold for numerous. The RSP clarifier on additional considerations applies for PinkNews only refers to claims on a person's sexuality. Despite the five discussions on the source, none have actually reached a consensus that additional considerations apply anywhere other than that.

Honestly I'm really not seeing any actual problems here, bar the sadly usual sniping between a handful of editors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not the responsibility of the user raising concerns on a talk page to fix said concerns, especially when that user - and others - have been subjected to extensive threats, insults and WP:Badgering. The WP:ONUS is on the users adding the content in the first place to make sure their prose is supported by the sources immediately following said text. Multiple users above have expressed genuine concerns RE sourcing, but these are apparently falling into unwilling ears. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 04:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not the venue to complain about the conduct of other editors. Take your concerns to the proper noticeboard or drop them. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Homeostasis07 case against PinkNews (that PinkNews has made "numerous libelous claims") is, as already mentioned, rather undermined by "numerous" being two. In the UK, claims of libel are common. In 2020, there were 43 such cases against media/news outlets in the UK, 10 of which were against the publisher of the Daily Mail. That's just one year.[6] and newspapers require legal departments to anticipate and respond to such.[7] The fact that PinkNews responded with a published apology and correction in fact demonstrates a trustworthy news organisation. But it is interesting that editors have shoehorned two libel cases into the PinkNews article, when there are no such entries in The Guardian or The Daily Telegraph articles. Instead, the lost libel cases suffered by both papers are so numerous that, if mentioned at all, appear in the biography of the journalist. For example, the Telegraph lost a notable libel case from George Galloway over allegations that he took money from Saddam Hussein[8] and the Turkish PM Erdogan over allegations he accepted a donation to his political party from Iran[9]. I think someone demanding we regard The Guardian or The Daily Telegraphs as unreliable because they have a history of making "numerous libelous claims" would be laughed at. The Daily Mail, on the other hand, is on another level. -- Colin°^Talk 10:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments on behalf of the Charity Commission at the resumed hearing

The hearing about the challenge to charitable status has resumed. [10] The Guardian’s report includes:

“The creation of LGB Alliance has promoted constructive debate on “difficult and problematic issues” of sex and gender, the Charity Commission told a court on Monday, during final arguments over whether the gay rights group should have been given charitable status. “

and ““An institution whose purpose is to promote the rights and fair treatment of lesbian, gay and bisexual people will be acting for charitable purposes,” he said. “The issue is whether LGB Alliance was actually established to pursue the pro LGB purposes it set out or whether it really has anti trans purposes.”

Any comments about adding something about these comments on behalf of the Charity Commission?

Sweet6970 (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Why are editors determined to include every bit of tittle tattle in a court case? And above, just select one side? The Guardian is incorrect in saying "the Charity Commission told a court on Monday", for the Charity Commission (as a government department) did not say that and could not say that. It was, as the subsequent sentences make clear, the opinion of Iain Steele, counsel for the commission, who, unlike the Charity Commission, is not required to make neutral statements but is explicitly employed to be biased on their behalf in this court case. The article goes on to say "he stressed that it was unreasonable to expect the Charity Commission to look behind the stated purposes of an organisation" which is an interesting opinion but quite evidentially false (even if it is an admission of failure). The Commission does investigate organisations, as editors here who have enjoyed piling tittle tattle in the Mermaids article will know.

Look, people say things in court. We don't have to report it all as much of it, on both sides, is guff. Could we just wait till we get a verdict and then write it up. -- Colin°^Talk 22:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Colin, I am not determined to include every bit of tittle tattle in a court case. The quotes I selected are not ‘tittle tattle’ – they are, as you are aware, because you mentioned it in your post, comments made by counsel for the Charity Commission. I highlighted them here because I found them somewhat surprising, and hence, interesting. I don’t understand what you mean by ‘selecting one side’. And I don’t know who you are referring to when you say editors here who have enjoyed piling tittle tattle in the Mermaids article.

I have not added anything on this to the article – I deliberately raised the question on the Talk page here because I wanted other editors’ opinions on this. I suggest you read/re-read WP:AGF WP:NPA

Sweet6970 (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Well you proposed adding it, and both articles are filled with tittle tattle about ongoing investigations by newspapers/commissions/courts, which presumably were added by "editors" rather than the pixies.

An encyclopaedia is not about giving a running commentary about everything that those who appear in court have said. It is quite obvious that some parties in the case will describe LGB Alliance in positive terms and some will describe it negatively. And we already state the basis of the case, which is whether the LGB Alliance purpose is not what it claimed, and that true purpose does not deserve charitable status. We don't really need some random counsel to add to that. By "selecting one side" I mean that you took the arguments made by one side on yesterday's day in court and neglected to propose including anything from Mermaids' counsel's summing-up comments, which included 'LGB Alliance’s “worldview and objectives are based on conflict and confrontation. This makes its approach fundamentally unpleasant, aggressive and corrosive of public discourse.”' That view of LGB Alliance is diametrically opposite to the one ("LGB Alliance has promoted constructive debate") you proposed "adding". So, you proposed adding one side.

But we don't just dump random bits of what each side said about each other. If you want a running commentary of the case, go on Twitter or read your newspaper. Nothing encyclopaedic is going to happen till it concludes. -- Colin°^Talk 12:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I said: Any comments about adding something about these comments on behalf of the Charity Commission? because I was dubious about adding anything, and wanted comments from other editors as to whether something should be added or not. I was not intending to positively suggest that something should be added. However, I can now see that it might be reasonable to interpret my comment in that way.

I agree with your comments about not adding a running commentary to the article – for this reason I was opposed to adding the various comments made at the hearing which are currently in the article under Challenge to charitable status.

Regarding ‘side’ : one of the reasons I highlighted these comments was because they were made on behalf of the Charity Commission. You are referring to the ‘sides’ as LGB Alliance and Mermaids, which was how I understood it – but the Charity Commission is another ‘side’, and that was why I found the comments made by their counsel surprising and interesting.

So far, you are the only person who has responded to my post, and as you are opposed to adding anything, obviously I will not be adding anything based on the news report to the article (unless there are further comments from other editors).

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Goodness me. -- Colin°^Talk 17:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Colin's said much of what I would have. I'm not sure why we'd include mid/late case commentary from one of the three QCs involved, as ultimately what is more noteworthy will be the final judgement when it is issued. I think it's probably enough for now to just say that the case is still ongoing. Whenever the judgement is issued, then we'll likely have reactions from legal scholars and commentators to help us assess and document the significance of the case (if any beyond the confirmation or removal of charity status). Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)