Talk:Janice Raymond

Untitled comment

Perhaps this article requires a disambiguation page if there are more than one notable Janice Raymonds. Iluvitar 20:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

the founding mother of transphobic feminism

The paragraph in which that sentence appears needs to be re-written to remove bias, or else deleted. Skoojal (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Funding Sources?

She appears to have been successful in accessing funds from some otherwise conservative US government agencies. Has this been the subject of controversy within US feminist circles? Calibanu (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Calibanu

Attempted substitution of new article

Another editor attempted to replace the article in full, with another article, which, among other things, deletes any reference to her infamous campaigns against trans womyn, including her outing Sandy Stone, her authorship of The Transsexual Empire in 1979, including the new intro she wrote in 1994, etc. While correction of specific details is appropriate, this whitewash was not. 72.83.168.24 (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article in the past has gotten perilously close to PR-generated, as much of her body of work is specifically aimed against trans people (specifically women). It's her shtick. 98.225.230.65 (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How can we improve the article?

At first glance, the article has several issues:

• When was Janice Raymond born? The two versions give two different years. Citations would be very helpful, but, in A Passion for Friends, she discusses joining a convent before Vatican II, and she mentions that most novices joined at between 17 and 25, which seems more consistent with 1943 than 1949.

• It might help to note that she was a nun - which would be important to several of her works.

• It might help to include a complete listing of her works.

• It might help to discuss her main ideas, if we can find suitable RS. Marja Erwin (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am amazed that such a hateful woman ever aspired to become a nun. --98.225.230.65 (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the modifier 'accusations' when referring to her transphobia/cissexism is even considered. Someone calling for homosexuality to be "Morally Mandated out of existence," and making it a point to publicly out lesbian women (like me) would be pretty easily considered a homophobe by any standard. Say what you will about the validity of her analysis, she wants to make a defining aspect of a marginal subgroup cease to exist. She is, by definition, cissexist, and her paper Technology on the Social and Ethical Aspects of Transsexual Surgery is transexterminationist on an ethical level comparable to the Tuskegee Experiments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.165.247 (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the article still has systemic problems

I suggest restructuring the article in roughly chronological terms, for example 1 putting her life history in the first section, 2 The Transsexual Empire, her involvement in the boycott of Olivia Records, etc. in the second section, 3 her involvement in anti-prostitution/anti-sex-work activism, and the related research in the third, 4 and her development of (cultural) feminist theory in the fourth. Moreover, this emphasizes that her academic career, activism, and publications dealt with many of the same issues. Marja Erwin (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I have the time to pursue this project alone, but I'm glad to try to help other editors, and I can help with research.

I'm not really sure how to go about this. I have read, and available:

• Raymond, 1994, The Transsexual Empire (2nd Edition)
• Raymond, 2001, A Passion for Friends (2nd Edition)

Both of those will require caution due to the restrictions on primary source interpretation.

• Nanda, 1990, Neither Man Nor Woman: The Hijras of India (who favorably cites Raymond on p 151)
• Namaste, 2000, Invisible Lives
• Julia Serano, 2007, Whipping Girl

I don't have any sources handy for her support of the criminalization of sex workers. These are strictly concerned with her anti-trans activism. Marja Erwin (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations

This article seems to becoming the victim of apparently biased editing. I removed several BLP violations and examples of vandalism from this article, but an editor, Marja Erwin, restored them - including an unsourced claim about the sexuality of the subject of this article. Marja Erwin actually accused me of 'whitewashing' this article for removing the BLP violations and vandalism. I have now removed the unsourced claims about Raymond again, and I am prepared to keep doing that if they are restored again. BLP, which I recommend that Marja Erwin read, allows this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.30.64 (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In the past, this article has had problems with people removing any reference to Raymond's transphobic career. I mistook 172's edits for another attempt to remove the references. As far as Raymond's sexuality goes, she discusses it in her books, and other writers do the same. Marja Erwin (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My first reaction was correct. 172 attempted to remove the multiply-sourced statement about Raymond's political attacks on trans womyn from the lead. Marja Erwin (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look carefully at the edit where Marja Erwin first reverted me, you'll see that it readded BLP violating material. That included an unsourced claim about Raymond's sexuality - although a source was added later, true. Other unsourced claims were also readded, until I removed them again.

Note that I have re-written the badly written and sensational sentence reading, "She has also created much controversy over her writings against transsexualism which many other feminists have criticized as extremely transphobic in nature" into something that could be acceptable for a BLP. It is not neutral at all to have a sentence like that in a BLP; it looks like an attempt to criticize Raymond as strongly as possible. Plenty of feminists agree with Raymond's views - why isn't that in the lead too?

Someone put up a POV Dispute to the notes

I'd like to know what their concerns are and if they have any suggestions for improvement.Marja Erwin (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Further POV-dispute

I put up a POV-dispute tag, because a number of editors have expressed views that either:

1. . The article is too harsh on Raymond's views of trans people, OR
2. . The article is not critical enough of Raymond's views and actions Marja Erwin (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I believe there are systemic bias issues including:

1. A bias towards academic sources which are distant from either radical feminist or trans circles (thus impacting both sides of the above controversy), in large part because many of the original sources on the controversies are so ephemeral.
2. A bias away from sources which substantiate the existence and degree of the controversies, or which discuss Raymond's role in these.
3. Systemic bias against sex workers' advocates, which affects the coverage of those issues. Marja Erwin (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

First, please pay attention to WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY, as well as WP:BLP. It is a rule in Wikipedia that only citable, verifiable sources be used, preferably not self-published ones and personal websites. Scholarly and journalistic publications are generally preferred. Though these are not perfect, they have a higher likelihood of reliability than other sources. Verifiability is doubly important in the case of BLP articles, particularly ones which discuss controversial views of the person.

Second, I know there's a controversy between you and 127 and I need to get a clearer idea of what it is in the article each of you want changed and what you disagree about. That would help me maybe step in as a helpful third party and edit the article toward something that discusses Raymond's bio and her writings, and her reception by critics and supporters. It is also very important that the article *describe* any controversy around her views without *taking sides* in that controversy.

I have had experience as primary contributor to the article on the equally-controversial Melissa Farley and remember what a living hell that article became when myself and another editor were at complete loggerheads. Let's avoid that here. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned that Janice Raymond has a reputation, at least in trans and trans-allied feminist circles, for transphobia. This comes up in the works of Julia Serano, Viviane Namaste, or trans-inclusive blogs such as this on Bilerico: http://www.bilerico.com/2008/03/transgender_history_stonewall_and_its_fi.php Marja Erwin (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. But there's already a section on Raymond's views on transexuality. Including the fact that a lot of people find her views to be transphobic. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Having just come across this article (and being admittedly unfamiliar with the subject), it seems to me this controversy and criticism belongs in the article (which it is) but not in the lead (where I have removed it). It's not really appropriate to call someone transphobic (or similar terms) in the lead of an article, unless they're extremely controversial and such criticism is the most notable thing about them (see, for instance, Fred Phelps). Robofish (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, in that what needs to be acknowledged here (and which should be mentioned in the opening article) is that Janice G. Raymond is to transsexual women and women of transsexual background, what Fred Phelps is to homosexuals - namely, not just a person who hexpresses extremely hateful views, but someone who has made a career out of actively inciting and fostering hate speech and, in Raymond's case, transphobic actions, (eg. denial of rape crisis counselling, etc.) towards transsexuals and women of transsexual background. Her case is extreme enough and central to her career, to justify inclusion in the introductory paragraph. Violet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.79.20 (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

As for the claims of systemic bias, they may be fair, but they are result of the way Wikipedia works and our policy of reliable sources (which particularly applies to BLPs). Criticism from blogs, however widespread, is usually not included in BLP articles unless there's a good reason to, as they're not usually reliable; necessarily, we have to rely on sources such as academic articles, books and journalism instead. I would advise Marja Erwin, if you think this controversy is not given sufficient weight in this article, to try to find more sources of those kinds. Robofish (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Robofish. Your edits have been very helpful and have largely resolved my concerns with this page. 121.72.5.189 (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It is totally disgusting that this page was recently vandalized, and that the vandalism remained here, unreverted, for more than a week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.30.249 (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

At least we can agree she is NOT a feminist

Despite any POV issues that may exist, the fact remains that Janice Raymond is not a feminist by virtue of her anti-transsexual works. Per Wikitionary, feminism is defined as "A social theory or political movement supporting the equality of both sexes in all aspects of public and private life; specifically, a theory or movement that argues that legal and social restrictions on females must be removed in order to bring about such equality." Janice Raymond's work is about spreading fear and hatred of transsexual people amongst the people - something that is arguably not feminist. JessicaSideways (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Men who pretend to be women are still men, no matter what their mental disorder leads them to believe.