Talk:Kathleen Stock/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Extended confirmed protection and sock puppetry

Given the appearance of gaming the 1RR system with IPs(regardless of if this is the case it sure is the appearance) I have indefinitely semi-protected the article to extended-confirmed level. Multiple IPs showing up right after the 1RR restriction was put in place to tag team a controversial edit is highly suspicious. To be clear anyone caught sock puppetting in this area will be blocked, possibly indefinitely. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I have clarified the restrictions to mention that the BLP may still be enforced and is an exemption from these restrictions. If you use this exemption you are responsible for making sure it is indeed required under the BLP policy and be sure to mention it in your edit summary. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 01:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Who could have predicted an invasion of IP editors after the 1RR was implemented? Not I, that's for sure. Another thing we definitely won't be able to predict is a bunch of inactive editors coming back from the dead solely to edit this article, accompanied by a horde of "new" editors who become EC editors remarkably quickly, with a suspiciously firm grasp of all the WP:Rules required to WP:Wikilawyer in this topic area. Tewdar (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the sarcasm. It is sooooo helpful in this situation. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
And thank you for implementing the 1RR, editing this article is now more exciting than playing Mr. Pop! 😁 Tewdar (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:DOB

The only source outside library authority files I can find for her birth date is Companies House, which expressly states "Companies House does not verify the accuracy of the information filed". I propose removing this information from enwiki per WP:BLP and WP:V. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Good point. I went ahead and removed the info, pending any RS. If we find just one source that reports on it, we should probably consider just listing the year of birth per WP:DOB. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Gender self-identification

This link Gender self-identification has disappeared from the article altogether that we translated in french on saturday. Is there any reason for this ? Nattes à chat (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nattes à chat:, there are multiple discussions above about changes to the lead, including ones that add and remove the gender self-identification link. Thank you for your translation work. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

"opposition to gender self-identification"

Hey @Newimpartial:: thanks for adding that source. Here's an interesting passage: "what she says she opposes, though, is the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters – that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex." It doesn't tell us that she "opposes gender self-identification". So, to do WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, perhaps we could fix the body so that we could fix the lead? I mean, if we're trying to get an accurate article, anyway... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

But the idea that gender identity is all that matters – that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex is what Stock (and others) mean by "self-identification". It doesn't mean anything other than this. So it seems that you are creating a distinction without a difference.
I have previously objected to the use of "gender identification" or "self-identification" in the lead and article headings, as already acceding to the terms of debate that Stock and her allies prefer. But if we are going to use those terms, we have to allow Stock et al. to actually mean what they mean, rather than engaging in OR revisionism. Newimpartial (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Fascinating response. I of course think that the WP:OR is coming from you. If we say "opposition to gender self-identification" and Stock hasn't said (or is reported to have said) "I oppose gender self-identification" -- I think it's OR, even if there's some sort of deduction you can come up with to make the equation. Has Stock in fact said "I oppose gender self-identification"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
If you can read Material Girls and find a difference between the objections to "self-identification" she offers in that book and the "institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters" as what she "says she opposes" in The Guardian, I'd like to know what you think that difference is. To me there is no difference at all - and in Material Girls she uses "self-identification" as a label for that which she opposes. Newimpartial (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
So you're content to go with your deductions and your own take on things -- cool, cool... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
No, I follow what the sources actually say. No ASPERSIONS, please. Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah -- so there is a source where Stock has said "I oppose gender self-identification"? Please, let's have that -- would be good to resolve this. PS: I'm going to continue in this mode -- so if you're worried about aspersions please proceed straight to ANI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
She endorses "objections to self-identification" and "opposes the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters", which is one of the ways she defines "self-identification". I'm afraid I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make - it's as though you were doing a word search for "I oppose gender self-identification" in her work and, seeing none, concluding that she does not verifiably oppose gender self-identification. That isn't the way language - or philosophy, or polemic - works. Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Ooh, digging in -- WP:OR on stilts -- thanks for the clarity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Serious question: why not just use the wording reported in the sources? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

You mean like, a philosopher who ... has developed the fullest gender-critical case against trans inclusion? [1] Yeah, that's fine with me. Opposition to trans inclusion seems much more accurate to me than opposition to "self-identification". But the edit warriors have insisted on using the primary-sourced term. Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Did that comment seem clever to you? It will be evident to others that the intention was to sidestep the question rather than to answer it. I could pose it more specifically, but the section heading makes clear what this discussion is about. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I prefer the language used in the highest-quality of the available sources. I don't see why you think that is somehow out of scope; this isn't an RfC between only two options, you know... Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure, sure. But to the matter at hand: you are not producing sources for "Stock is opposed to gender self-identification"; you've only engaged in obvious WP:OR for it. Self-revert, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The journal paper that Newimpartial is a WP:SECONDARY source on Stock, and it does indeed say what Newimpartial quoted from it. That said, it seems as though the URL for it was broken. This however should be the correct link to that paper. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The primary and secondary sources both note that Stock objects to and opposes what she refers to as "gender self-identification". That doesn't require OR, only reading comprehension, and your objection to that appears to be IDONTHEARTHAT rather than anything based on sources or policy.
Also, I fixed the broken link Sideswip9th pointed out. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
If the sources work in that way, then it won't be at all difficult for you to quote the passages that do the work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
We have both quoted one of the relevant passages, but for some reason you object to its plain meaning. I do not have the time (or the stomach) today to go through the passages from Material Girls but I invite other editors to do so; in it she articulates what she refers to as "self-identification" and lists her objections. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
For the quotation given by Newimpartial in its fuller form, "I then consider in greater detail the arguments made by Kathleen Stock, a philosopher who, as far as I am aware, has developed the fullest gender-critical case against trans inclusion" On the PDF version that quote is from the final paragraph on page 1, in the introduction. In the HTML version it is in the third paragraph of the introduction. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: you mean the passages you used (in this very section) to engage in WP:OR to arrive at your preferred conclusion? Coming in part from the source you added where the wording is in fact different? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
[Citation needed] @Nomoskedasticity:. Unless you're talking about a different quotation that I can't see, the only change that Newimpartial was to trim some extraneous words that did not change the context or meaning in any way. I have already provided both the fuller quote and its location on the PDF and HTML versions of the paper. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Trimming the words quite obviously changes the meaning. Any objection to using the wording that appears in the source provided? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
If you are proposing, in lieu of "opposition to gender self-identification", "opposition to the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters – that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex": actually I object to that wording, because it defers far too much to the rather particular views held by the subject than is appropriate in a BLP lead paragraph. Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
As I said earlier, If you can read Material Girls and find a difference between the objections to "self-identification" she offers in that book and the "institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters" as what she "says she opposes" in The Guardian, I'd like to know what you think that difference is. To me there is no difference at all - and in Material Girls she uses "self-identification" as a label for that which she opposes. As far as I am concerned, the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters means the same thing as self-identification - because that is what Stock says - and she is opposed to this. I haven't seen you produce any evidence or argumentation, Nomoskedasticity, to support any other interpretation. Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I think perhaps an explanation is in order for how the trimming, with correct use of an ellipsis "quite obviously changes the meaning". The article in question is a peer-reviewed research paper by a peer of Stock, and provides a description of Stock and her non-academic work in this topic area. I'm not quite sure what your objection is to it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

As has been borne out above, sources don't support the blanket statement here but rather the version here more akin to the status quo antebellum. That wording is supported by the mainstream media across the mainstream political spectrum. More recently, this paper has been pointed to, but there are issues with it. It is in SAGE Open, a pay-to-publish megajournal, and hence is rather poor. It is clearly taking a side in the dispute and hence is not secondary to it; it speaks to advance a particular partisan side. And lastly, that source also uses the same language as the other sources: The proposed reforms aim to replace the current medicalized process of gender recognition with one based on self-identification and self-declaration. Later when talking about Stock, the source says, This argument appears confined to trans women who, in accordance with the proposed reforms, will be able to obtain a gender recognition certificate on the basis of self-declaration/identification. It goes on to argue it goes beyond that, but it does use this terminology too. Crossroads -talk- 21:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

You have read the Sage paper, have you, Crossroads? How you could call it poor compared to what The Times and The Telegraph are putting out, I have no idea. And the paper situates Stock's position as one against trans inclusion, rather than being only against self-identification, which is the point I (and also, not coincidentally, Stock's critics as documented in RS) have been making all along. Newimpartial (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, now we're judging the sources by how good they sound to us rather than by Wikipedia's rules? It's still a source engaged in the controversy. Also, I forgot to point out that the source also uses gender-critical in its own voice, despite the claims by some here that we must never use the term and that it is equivalent to "race realist". Crossroads -talk- 22:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
A source engaged in academic critique, and a source engaged in a journalistic controversy, are not on the same level of reliability according to WP policy. Newimpartial (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I've checked WP:RSP and WP:RSN, and apart from one discussion about SAGE Open Medicine there have been no discussion on the reliability or unreliability of SAGE Open as a source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Stock's statements on gender self-identification are clear. She states in her book ("Material Girls") that she views gender self-identification as a perfectly valid step in itself, in terms of an individual constructing a narrative about their own life. She also draws a distinction between (1) how people narrate their own lives, and (2) how uncritically this then narration should be taken by wider society as an objectively valid account that should override any other considerations - for instance, those arising from biological sex. Stock's book is not a complicated read; she has gone to great effort to set her ideas down as accessibly as possible. Stock's stance is that it is perfectly possible to view "self-identification" in terms of gender identity as a valid - and positive - concept, without accepting that it automatically trumps any kind of categorisation or other consideration based upon biological sex. I don't understand why some people in this discussion find it so hard to distinguish between her actual (clearly stated) position and saying that Stock "opposes gender self-identification". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewMorris (talk • contribs) 00:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree that her views are clear, but my conclusion is the opposite of yours. With "gender self-identification" having a set meaning, distinct from "gender identity", Stock's words and actions obviously oppose the former. However Stock uses the term, everyone else uses gender self-id to refer to the ability to change gender/sex based on your own self-identification without additional procedural/medical requirements. Newimpartial has been saying this all along. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, both Stock and "everyone else" (so far as there is an "everyone") uses the term in the same way: to mean the idea that laws/rules/regulations should classify a person (whether a change or not) according to their self-statement without any medical or other requirements. Stock's position appears to be that in some circumstances, this is fine, but not all. Crossroads -talk- 05:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The position your describing is fairly summarized as "opposes gender self-identification". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
"fairly summarized" -- there's no place here for special private meanings of words/terms. This topic gets enough toxicity even without that sort of distortion of language. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that necessarily is a fair summary and in any case, we don't need to summarize it, we just relay how the mainstream media summarizes it. Crossroads -talk- 06:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The first source cited in the lede states quite categorically what it is that Stock opposes. That is what the Reliable Sources (and for that matter, the Wikipedia article on the topic) refer to as gender self-identification. Crossroads' comment that Stock's position appears to be that in some circumstances, this is fine, but not all is not supported by Stock's own writings or the secondary sources presented thus far. Newimpartial (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you please indicate exactly which source you're referring to, and then provide the relevant quote? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I ask in part because the first source given in the lead is her Sussex profile, and I don't think you mean that. Perhaps you mean the Guardian article? But we've already seen that there's nothing in that source to support "opposes gender self-identification" -- i.e., nothing apart from your own interpretation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I meant the Guarduan source I added here which states what she says she opposes, though, is the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters – that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex. The argument that you and Crossroads have been making about that - that in spite of the plain meaning of her words, when she writes about gender self-identification in Material Girls she somehow is referring to something other than institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters - is entirely unsupported by anything besides your own fantasy. What matters for WP is what the subject has written, what has been written about her, and what those words mean, in plain English - not whether the words "opposes gender self-identification" can be found as a text string. Newimpartial (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah, so you want to use your preferred term to summarise a source, rather than using the words that are actually found in that source. And you still don't offer a reason for not using the formulation provided by the source you have added. This isn't going to end well for you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Hie thee, accuser! If you read the article and Talk history, you will see that gender self-identification is actually not my preferred term - before the most recent round of media coverage, I was arguing for views on transgender people as the most appropriate term - as I don't think the changing room issue, for example, is adequately summarized in relation to "self-identification" - and in terms of the recently sourced terms used, I think exclusion of transgender people does a better job of setting out what is controversial about Stock's views. So no, I am not using any such preferred term. For me, this language is a much less-"preferred" option, and a compromise.
But to deal with your argument as stated: we are using multiple sources in this article, one of the most important of Material Girls, so to argue that we should exclude one of Stock's own "preferred terms" from the lead because it doesn't appear in a particular piece of journalism seems more than a little bit bizarre. At the time I added that LEADCITE, the argument being made by those on your side of the debate was that opposes and its cognates could not be used because Stock wasn't necessarily opposed to anything Transgender-related. So I obtained a source that documented that Stock does, indeed, oppose treating humans on the basis of self-ID, and the opposition immediately shifted to but that isn't what self-ID meeeeeeeans! without the slightest bit of supporting evidence. A load of codswalllop, tbh. Newimpartial (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
By the way, Nomosketasticity, in a recent edit summary you said, "opposition to gender self-identification" could easily be read to mean that she opposes the idea that someone can adopt their own gender identity - is there any evidence this has ever happened, outside of this Talk page? Gender self-identification - the article - rather rules out this possible (?) interpretation. Newimpartial (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:CIRCULAR: Wikipedia is not an eligible source and does not help us here. I'm still waiting to see a source where "opposes gender self-identification" is used (whether by Stock or in the voice of the source). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
You are imposing an unnecessary requirement. Summary of reliable sources is a primary function of Wikipedia. The sourcing documenting her opposition to gender self-identification is solid. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity, are you actually suggesting that "opposition to (the formulation above, which amounts to gender self-identification)" plus "objection to gender self-identification" (from Stock herself, in subsequent writing) does not equal "opposition to gender self-identification", as though the conclusion were somehow OR? If so, how exactly does that, rather scholastic, objection run? Are there angels on the head of that pin? Newimpartial (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
If there is a source from Stock herself where she actually says "I oppose gender self-identification", could you please produce it? I've been asking -- and if we have one, then it resolves this entire thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
She endorses "objections to gender self-identification" explicitly in Material Girls, as I believe you know. But she doesn't write "I oppose" in as many words - it isn't that kind of a book. She is an analytical philosopher, after all, so even in popular writing the appeals to personal perspective and emotion have to be disguised. Newimpartial (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I've used Google books now -- I've searched for the word "objections", and I don't find any passages that help us. I really wouldn't make anything of "objections" vs. "opposition". If there's a passage from the book you could quote to move us forward here, it might help. I am not generally an obstructionist editor -- I'm willing to cooperate, on the basis of sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Also, I am starting to find the WP:CRYBLP arguments disruptive. How a formulation could be a BLP vio in the lead, but not in the body, or how a possible misunderstanding that is pre-empted by a wikilink and that only is only "possible" according to a Talk page argument presented without evidence - how any of that could be a BLP violation - well, it is hard to take that seriously, much less sincerely. I suppose that's what noticeboards are for... Newimpartial (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment - reviewing this section, I noted with interest the statement by Matthew Morris (if that is your real name), Stock's stance is that it is perfectly possible to view "self-identification" in terms of gender identity as a valid - and positive - concept, without accepting that it automatically trumps any kind of categorisation or other consideration based upon biological sex. This is the only intervention I've seen that might offer support to Nomoskedasticity's concern expressed in the next subsection. However, my searches through the text of Material Girls today confirm my recollection that Stock does not use "self-identification" in terms of gender identity to refer to a valid or positive concept. Rather, the discussion of the psychology of what the literature calls gender dysphoria is couched in terms of "gender identity theory" and related concepts. So the idea that "self-identification" is ambiguous in the sense suggested is not supported by the text of Material Girls, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

summary of the difficulty

Here's my take on where we are. The discussion has not produced sources that enable us to write "opposes gender self-identification". Some editors appear to believe that it's okay to write "opposition to gender self-identification", because it seems to them that "the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters – that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex" can be summarised by the term "gender self-identification". My genuine concern is that "gender self-identification" can easily be read in a simpler way: the adoption of the gender identity one prefers. The conflation here is simply not good enough, and there's no good reason to make it, when all we have to do is stick more closely to the source. (Or, perhaps, go with "views on gender self-identity".) I'm genuinely puzzled by the attempt to conflate these two formulations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

"Opposition to legal gender being solely determined on the basis of self-identification" or something like that, perhaps? Tewdar (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity, you asked above for Stock indicating her objections to gender self-identification in her own words, in Material Girls. I find all copies of that book online now to be paywalled - which they were not when I read it - so I cannot find an appropriate citation at the moment. But in her piece in The Economist, Stock indicates her objection to what the Labour and Conservative leaders were proposing in 2018: They want to change the law to allow gender self-identification via an administrative process of self-certification as the only criterion for legally changing the sex recorded on one’s birth certificate. However, I’ll now suggest that such a move is not cost-free. In particular, certain harms to original members of the category “woman” should be weighed against any gains (Emphasis added). In other words she objects to or opposes this form of gender self-identification, which is the same thing that Gender self-identification - and the sources on which that article is based - say that "gender self-identification" means. Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Stock's conception of "gender self-identification" is more comprehensive than the concept described in the Gender self-identification article. It doesn't just mean the idea that a person's legal gender should be determined by how they self-identify. Also, statements such as "not cost-free", "costs should be weighted against gains" cannot reasonably be used to suggest she "opposes" gender self-identification. The book has plenty of quotes that do suggest this much more plausibly, however. Tewdar (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Stock's position is certainly more comprehensive in some respects - for one thing, as documented above, Stock objects to trans women in women-only spaces even when they meet both legal and medical criteria for transition. She also objects to the use of gender self-identification on the part of municipal and civil society organisations even when this is not tied to "legal gender" documentation. The jurisdiction in which I live - Ontario, Canada - does not have "gender self-identification" as part of the legal identity regime, but Stock would undoubtedly still object to the rights and freedoms that trans and nonbinary people here have, with respect to her issues of concern. But none of these aspects really undermine the reality that she opposes gender self-identification or that this position is controversial and has generated criticism. And the fact that she writes a piece that lists a series of "harms" but no supports for gender self-ID can't meaningfully suggest that she does anything besides oppose or object to it. Yes, she writes using the conventions of analytical philosophy, but any other interpretation of her writing would be entirely sophistical. Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
What I'm saying is, you can give a much more accurate summary of her views by simply citing or quoting from the book. This article gets crappier by the hour, and one (of the many) reasons for that is that people are not accurately summarizing the cited sources. Tewdar (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't entirely disagree. But then the answer is to WP:FIXIT. Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I almost entirely disagree. Quoting from her book is not helpful here. Much of the contention predates the publication of the book and is based on earlier, allegedly anti-trans comments and actions, including public opposition to gender self-id. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
How can we WP:FIXIT when there's a WP:1RR in operation that makes WP:EDITING the WP:ARTICLE a bit like playing this?! Tewdar (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't see 1RR as a problem here, frankly. Substantially new edits don't count as reverts, so the revert limit doesn't apply, and the consensus-required provision only applies to material that has been reverted. So actual, new edits are in fact encouraged, in a way. Newimpartial (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@Tewdar: propose the full edit here first. Establish a consensus for how to word the contentious section, in the article talk page. Once there's consensus on the phrasing, then make the edit to the article. It's basically WP:BRD without the BR part. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th: "Propose the full edit here first..." - yeah, I did. Nobody noticed as far as I can tell. Tewdar (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm still trying to get my head around the full discussion here. However I would object to the "the institutionalisation of the..." long-form quote. In the context of the Guardian interview, that is the interviewer's summary of what Stock says she is opposing. I would argue that using that would be a BLP violation, because it is uncritically whitewashing what Stock has been criticised for, and the scope of what she has published. I would defer back to the open letter in response to her OBE, which states that her notoriety is because of her trans-exclusionary public and academic discourse on sex and gender, especially for opposition to [amendments to*] the UK Gender Recognition Act and the importance of self-identification to establish gender identity, and for advocating that trans women should be excluded from places like women’s locker rooms or shelters. Her views, at least in the eyes of her peers, extend beyond the realm of just gender self-identification. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: I realise I'm probably re-opening Pandora's box here, but I think we should take another look at the discussion in Transgender Identity. Neither the long form institutionalisation quote, nor the summary gender identity accurately summarise what Stock has been saying on the transgender topic. Instead of trying to pick A or B here, we need to find the third choice that more accurately represents the situation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

We have been over that already, both there and in this discussion above. The sources that are secondary to the dispute characterize it as about self-ID. The people engaging in the dispute are not the sources to use for an NPOV article. Crossroads -talk- 00:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Does Stock believe or support gender self-identification or not? If yas have a source to answer that question? Then, the rest should be no problem. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Practically the entire book she wrote, Material Girls, is about gender self-identification and the Gender Recognition Act (GRA), which she references by name repeatedly, and about how it is bad and harmful to women and feminism. Here's some examples.
"Most UK universities now have policies that explicitly allocate ‘single sex’ facilities – bathrooms, changing rooms, showers and residences – on the basis of ‘self-identification’ or ‘self-ID’. The Cardiff University policy says, ‘You have a legal right under the Equality Act 2010 to access facilities – such as changing rooms and toilets – according to the gender with which you identify.’69 Leeds University policy says: ‘Trans people can use single-sex facilities (such as toilets and changing rooms) according to their self-identified gender.’70 And in 2019 it was reported that posters had gone up in public toilets in the University of the West of England asking, ‘Do you feel like someone is using the wrong bathroom?’ Any respondents in the affirmative were instructed not to ‘challenge’ the person, but instead to ‘respect their identity’ and to ‘carry on with your day’.71 Meanwhile, most of the providers of rape crisis centres and domestic violence shelters make no distinction between trans women and women, either as clients or as employees."
"These rapid, seismic policy changes are bound to have detrimental consequences for female safety as they become further entrenched. Since gender identity is not something anyone can see directly, and is supposedly potentially detached from behaviour, dress and physiognomy, practically speaking this means that any male at all can enter a space and claim, if challenged, that it aligns with his gender identity. As conveyed by the UWE poster, females are expected not to challenge but just to ‘carry on’ with their own business. This obviously puts them at additional risk of assault."
Later on after a long section going over individual cases of criminals who have been trans, she writes:
"These relevant facts seem to be ignored by organisations, including local government organisations, rushing to instigate self-identification as the official means of entry into women-only spaces on their premises. They also seem to be ignored by the often well-off and well-educated people arguing that organisations are right to do so. Less well-off women and women in prison – who of course intersect – are not the only groups of women recently abandoned by the mainstream feminist establishment in their enthusiastic embrace of the conclusions of gender identity theory."
She's pretty clear on self-ID and the GRA being "detrimental" and leads to women being "abandoned" by those groups who support it. That is all just directly from the text. SilverserenC 05:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
This is all in reference to specific contexts, though. There is certainly no harm done by being extra-careful to note what specifically is meant by the phrase. Crossroads -talk- 05:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
If anything in Material Girls is going to be quoted in these discussions, we also need to know what page the quoted material is from. A free copy of the book may not be available on the web, but those who own the book, or can borrow it from a library, can then compare the quotes with what she wrote in it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, @Pyxis Solitary:, the book does not contain page numbers in any form. You can also confirm that from the Google Books preview. I have a PDF copy of the book and there are no page numbers anywhere. The Table of Contents, while listing the chapters, gives no page numbers for them either. It seems it was made without page numbers at all. One could create page numbers for it by saying that page 1 is the first page of Chapter 1 and determining things from there. Not sure if that is something we're allowed to do though. SilverserenC 19:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Free previews of books on Google and Amazon often do not include their page numbers.
How can you believe that the physical version of a book — that also provides a Table of Contents with chapter numbers and chapter titles — does not also include page numbers in the book to turn to? Buy the book or borrow it from a library ... and then tell us that it doesn't have any page numbers. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
And do full PDF copies generally not have page numbers? Does the Table of Contents in full copies generally not list page numbers as a part of that page itself when discussing chapters? I've never seen that be the case for other copies of books that I have. If you have any evidence to the contrary, then please present it. SilverserenC 02:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
"If you have any evidence to the contrary, then please present it." The burden of proof is upon you, since you are the one that stated "the book does not contain page numbers in any form". PDF copies of books posted on the Internet are usually pirated copies of those books, unauthorized by either the publisher or the author to be made available to the public as a free PDF version.
This is a book published in May 2021 — not May 2001.
–> 432 pages.
No comment by a reader anywhere that the book does not contain page numbers.
You need to prove with absolute certainty that the physical version of Material Girls does not contain any page numbers. Walk the talk. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources on self-id

Sources, already used in the article, that mention Stock's criticism of, or opposition to, gender self-id:

  • Stock in The Economist: "They want to change the law to allow gender self-identification via an administrative process of self-certification as the only criterion for legally changing the sex recorded on one’s birth certificate. However, I’ll now suggest that such a move is not cost-free."[1]
  • Stock "met with controversy after criticising the government’s reform of the Gender Recognition Act (2004). The amendment would ‘de-medicalise’ the legal process for changing gender. This would increase emphasis upon self-identification rather than requiring a medical diagnosis or certificate. Stock believes that this could leave natal females vulnerable"[2]
  • "has been critical of trans self-identification as part of her work on feminist philosophy"[3]
  • "argued that self-ID “threatens a secure understanding of the concept ‘lesbian'”, rooting her rhetoric in a belief of immutable biological sex."[4]
  • Stock: "If we are moving to self-ID, it seems to me that we have fundamentally taken away that whole rationale, because there is no longer any real worry about privacy because if somebody has not had medical intervention. Sex is pretty obvious. If gender dysphoria is no longer a requirement on getting this certificate, there is no therapeutic aspect. That is one worry I have. Another set of worries I have are about the practical interactions with the Equality Act, but fundamentally it will have lost its rationale."[5]
  • "best-known in recent years for her trans-exclusionary public and academic discourse on sex and gender, especially for opposition to [reforming] the UK Gender Recognition Act and the importance of self-identification to establish gender identity, and for advocating that trans women should be excluded from places like women’s locker rooms or shelters."[6]

Please feel free to add any already-present sources here, or start a section for newly found sourcing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

New source in light of her resignation today.
  • "She has also argued that self-ID “threatens a secure understanding of the concept ‘lesbian'”, rooting her rhetoric in a belief of immutable biological sex."[7]
This source also mentions that the student protest was about her trans-exclusionary views, and not just those about self-ID and has a few other sentences surrounding that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Concerning whether Stock was only controversial for her views on self-ID, The Guardian today[2] said this:

But hundreds of academics criticised the decision, signing an open letter that criticised Stock’s comments on transgender and gender non-conforming people.

The letter claimed her “harmful rhetoric” about transgender and gender non-conforming people reinforced “the patriarchal status quo”.

That lends some credence to the earlier versions of the article that used Views on transgender people (in lede and in section heading) to describe what the controversy is about, though of course these phrases concern the philosophers' letter in particular. Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
PinkNews and that letter from philosophers are sources that are themselves highly partisan in the dispute. They are not secondary observers. The Guardian, when describing the dispute in its own voice in that article, describes it as about "her views on gender identification and transgender rights", which is much closer to the text that we have long had. Describing it as about "transgender people" is POV as already addressed at Talk:Kathleen Stock#Transgender identity. Crossroads -talk- 23:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Crossroads, your opinion that this PinkNews piece can be dismissed as highly partisan in the dispute seems to be, well, just your opinion. Care to back that up with anything, or should we take this to RSN?
Also, you seem to be misinterpreting the situation: if the sourcing for views on transgender people changes, then it might well be time to update that previous discussion (which reached no clear consensus) with something more up to date. Tewdar, with whom I disagree about almost anything that can be expressed in the English language, seems to have had some good ideas on this score, which you dismissed in your recent reversion (to an article version that lacks consensus, as noted elsewhere). Newimpartial (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I've re-read the discussion under Transgender Identity, however I disagree with your reading of it. There was only one editor who agreed with your POV complaint Crossroads, and as Newimpartial has just said, there was no clear consensus established. While I have no doubt that your position remains unchanged on this, revisiting the discussion based on newer sources and a wider audience of editors is warranted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/06/changing-the-concept-of-woman-will-cause-unintended-harms
  2. ^ http://thebadgeronline.com/2018/09/conversation-kathleen-stock-transgender-identity/
  3. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/oct/30/uk-universities-struggle-to-deal-with-toxic-trans-rights-row
  4. ^ https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/10/14/universities-union-backs-trans-rights-in-row-over-anti-trans-professor-kathleen-stock/
  5. ^ https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1393/html/
  6. ^ https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/01/06/kathleen-stock-obe-transphobia-open-letter/
  7. ^ https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/10/28/kathleen-stock-quits-sussex-university-trans/

Reality check

Here's the key question: do we want readers to understand what Stock actually opposes and why it is controversial? If so, it won't work (especially in the lead) to say (merely) that she opposes "gender self-identification" -- unless we simultaneously explain what that term means. To repeat what I said at AE: we create articles for readers who don't already know stuff; the fact that you or I might know "the definition" is irrelevant. I'm quite happy to work towards a formulation (preferably a concise one) that conveys accurately what she and others mean by that term. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

In the last 24 hours (mostly reading uninvolved admin comments at AE), I have come to the conclusion that this isn't the problem at all. People say there is a lack of clarity that Stock "opposes self-identification", but what they mean is that, without qualifiers, the statement means to them that Stock may oppose gender self-identification everywhere and in all forms. Crossroads' article, Gender self-identification, actually does a good job of delineating the main terrain the term is used to refer to, but these admin (like you, Nomo) don't want to depend on the wikilink.
So it seems to me the solution for the lead is similar to that in the body, namely to specify the contexts in which Stock's objections to self-identification have become controversial. The challenge is that these are not, in fact, limited to legal reforms incorporating self-id - her argument about the need to exclude trans men from women's only spaces is not at all limited to legal issues. But if the lead could cover some of the low-hanging fruit that have made Stock's positions controversial, that would go a long way to providing clarity for our readers (which the current, misleadingly cited "quotation" certainly does not, IMO). Newimpartial (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
these admin (like you, Nomo) don't want to depend on the wikilink -- yep, this is true, I think it's not appropriate to rely on the wikilink. Our article should be self-sufficient; we have to anticipate that some readers won't click on the link, so they should get a BLP-compliant understanding from the article (and in particular the lead). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I am fine with including an explanation of the term. Are there any other jargon-y terms we should explain further? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Resolution?

Has this content dispute, been resolved? GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

No. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Views being misrepresented

Kathleen Stock's views on single-sex/gender spaces are being misrepresented. Here, an IP claiming "Minor changes" removed the clause "who have male genitalia". Because of the newly-instituted 1RR restriction, and since I had already reverted something else, I had to tag it with a "failed verification" tag, with the reason "was recently changed by IP - source specifies a subgroup of trans women, this is a falsehood by omission". Silver seren has now reverted the tag, claiming it "was clearly trying to force transphobic views into the article."

How so? No, accurately representing a BLP's views is required, not "transphobic". Here is what the source says: Dr Kathleen Stock, a reader in philosophy at the University of Sussex, told The Argus women-only areas should not allow transgender people who still have male genitalia. [Quoting Stock:] "However, many trans women are still males with male genitalia, many are sexually attracted to females, and they should not be in places where females undress or sleep in a completely unrestricted way." Stating that she wished to exclude simply "trans women" is misinformation and false. This is a BLP violation.

Per the notice at the top of this page, any edits challenged must not be reinstated without talk page consensus. This is the recently added "consensus required" restriction. There is clearly not a consensus for the IP's edit, yet it seems people are WP:TAGTEAMing for it.

Above all, this IP edit that started this mess should be reverted. Crossroads -talk- 21:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Good, another IP reverted it. Anyone reinstating the non-consensus BLP-violating version will be reported to WP:AE, per the "consensus required" restriction. Crossroads -talk- 21:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Huh, an IP reverted it and you noted that here within 2 minutes of that being done. An IP on a rotating address and that, rather than just making the change and not leaving an Edit summary as most IP editors without a Wikipedia background would do, they specifically noted not only the edit summary from the prior IP, but also specifically noted the IP name. Interesting. SilverserenC 22:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Silverseren you're wrong if you think I'm Crossroads. Now you made that change referred to without reading the source. And your stance that the article being accurate is *clearly trying to force transphobic views into the article* is a POV push. 2001:8003:C821:E801:D41A:CF27:CA56:D5C9 (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So you're casting WP:ASPERSIONS then. As if I would be so stupid to post all about this and also make an edit I had just been talking about as an IP, while also somehow editing this very talk page twice in that same minute (21:41, 24 October 2021). Any passing CheckUser is welcome to verify that me and the IP are on different continents.
Also, there have been quite a few IP edits today, and with edit summaries. Crossroads -talk- 22:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Makes me wonder more if this is being brought up somewhere else on the internet, due to the short timing of everything. Especially with said IP then responding here so quickly and clearly being an experienced editor. That sort of brigading has been common in this topic area, hence why discretionary sanctions were made in the first place. Either way, I don't care particularly much. Stock has been reported in numerous reliable sources saying in general "“trans women are still males with male genitalia”" without any qualifiers, so her stance on the matter has been made clear. But that's fine with the qualifier being in there, since Stock hasn't specifically stated yet that she thinks all trans women should be disallowed. SilverserenC 22:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Do we have a source for Stock's exclusion of trans women from women's spaces to be limited on the basis of genitalia? I don't think we do. Newimpartial (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes we do - it's the source I cited in opening this section. Obviously, the burden of proof that she believes otherwise is on those saying that. Crossroads -talk- 23:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
But the same source also says of Stock, A university lecturer has called for transgender women to be excluded from women’s changing rooms and any other places where they undress, as its lead sentence, without any "genitalia" qualification. So I am not convinced that it can be used to support the "genitalia only" statement against the more general exclusion statement (which is how you seem to be using it your debating points here), since it actually supports both. Perhaps you are selecting the one you prefer? Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
For those alleging "misinterpretation" of Stock's views (supposedly qualified by "male genitalia" I offer this quotation from her own words, published in The Economist:

The category of self-declared trans women includes many with post-pubescent male strength, no surgical alteration of genitalia, and a sexual orientation towards females. And, even currently, gender reassignment can legally change sex category on birth certificates. This leaves the future of “same-sex” spaces unclear. Note that this is emphatically not a worry that self-declared trans women are particularly dangerous or more prone to sexual violence. It’s rather that we have no evidence that self-declared trans women deviate from male statistical norms in relevant ways. There’s also a separate worry that violent males who do not consider themselves trans will eventually take advantage of increasing confusion about social norms about such spaces. Sex offenders already go to great lengths to access vulnerable females; there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t use this situation to their advantage. The construction of social spaces is necessarily coarse-grained. Once sex-based protections are gone, we can’t easily keep out only the dangerous people

(emphasis added).

Note that here, Stock is expressing concerns about people who have undergone gender reassignment as still being subject to "male statistical norms" and therefore being "dangerous people" who ought to be excluded by "sex-based protections". This isn't limited to those with male genitalia. Newimpartial (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
"Especially with said IP then responding here so quickly and clearly being an experienced editor." In case you haven't noticed by now, many IP editors are well-versed in editing Wikipedia, and many have been doing so for years since Wikipedia does not require that accounts be created in order to edit articles. It's not a conspiracy. Furthermore, it's easy for Admins Checkusers to investigate the IP addresses of registered and non-registered Users, and compare edits made by them. As for "said IP...responding here so quickly": I learned long ago that those who have an interest in a particular article will lurk the article and its talk page. Kathleen Stock has been a target since 2018, so it's no surprise that there are many people within and outside the UK, on the port and starboard, keeping an eye on her Wikipedia biography. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC) ; edited 09:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC) [meant to say C not A]
No admin can see any more information about someone's IP than you, only a checkuser can, and they are expressly forbidden from connecting IP addresses to user's accounts for reasons of privacy. — Bilorv (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bilorv: your edit just now, referring to Stock's "opposition to gender self-identification", needs reconsidering. Have you had a look at this section? At a minimum, we'll need a source for that formulation -- and since I've provided a source given a more nuanced formulation I really think we can't have "opposition to gender self-identification" in the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Nomoskedasticity: thanks for bringing this to my attention, I didn't read that far back (only up to and including "Irish Times editorial"). I take it that my edit makes my opinion clear. I don't see why you would support "She has opposed transgender self-identification" (in the body, undisputed) but not "opposition to gender self-identification". However, any number of rephrasings would make the sentence useful, rather than a "hook" devoid of facts that may as well read "Stock is, controversially, either supportive of pineapple on pizza, or opposed to, or has an opinion somewhere inbetween". — Bilorv (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
But I didn't say I support it in the body. I don't. I was working with edits to the lead. In any event: we can't have a specific statement that isn't clearly supported by reliable sources. A more generic hook is an appropriate placeholder until we get to agreement on what the more specific formulation might be. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Bilorv, I've edited the lead in a way that takes account of your point (making clear what her view is, rather than simply referring to "her views") while also sticking more closely to the source and avoiding the possibility of misrepresentation via the summary phrase that doesn't appear in the source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Reverted. Given the wikilink to gender self-identification in the stable version,the possibility of misrepresentation does not seem to be a real or likely "possibility". Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity has re-inserted. I don't think it's quite right because the words inside quotes appear to be The Guardian's paraphrase, putting them inside quotes can cause the wrong impression that's exactly what Kathleen Stock said. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
There is also now an ongoing AE case about said edit. Prior to that filing, I had asked the responsible Admin what the correct procedure is when disputes arise relative to the "consensus required" provisions. I hope it isn't a trip to AE each time. Newimpartial (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's literally not a quote from her whatsoever. Framing it as such should in itself be a BLP violation. SilverserenC 22:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
You can't make this shit up. I'm reinserting the original wording that I removed a few days ago, because it's better than a long and jargon-heavy quote implicitly attributed to Stock, but not a quote by Stock at all. It's not a good summary, either, and we're not a press release platform so we don't give highly controversial figures free reign to describe their own views, but say what reliable sources assess the figure's views as. See, for instance, the alt-right figures who are not uncritically quoted in the leads of their bios as being "classical liberals". (To go into more detail, I know the quote is actually The Guardian but they're paraphrasing Stock, with the modifier "What she says she opposes ..." making it clear it is not the newspaper's own voice.) — Bilorv (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
"Views on gender self-id" works for me. We can try to improve on it, but at least the current version won't amount to a BLP violation, from anyone's perspective. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey @Bilorv: I wonder if anyone else will see the doublethink in your posts. Here in this section, you say "we're not a press release platform", where you are all wrought up about the notion that the quote from the Guardian is rooted in how Stock expresses her opposition ("it's not the newspaper's own voice" -- but rather Stock's!). But at AE your concern (no doubt sincerely held?) is that we're putting words in Stock's mouth by using that quotation -- a BLP violation!! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Nomoskedasticity: the two aren't mutually exclusive and both can be true. The quote that Bilorv just replaced read Her opposition to "the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters, that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex" has become a contentious issue. with an inline citation to an interview with Stock in The Guardian. In the context of the article on Stock and how we used it, the obvious reading is that Stock said the section within quotation marks. However if you read the source, it is clear that Stock didn't say that. The interviewer said it as a paraphrase of what Stock told her. In the interview the section reads What [Stock] says she opposes, though, is the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters – that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex. Emphasis mine.
To use it as we previously did, in the way that we used it, would be a BLP violation. We were saying that Stock said exactly that quotation. However Stock didn't say exactly that quotation. Stock said something different that the interviewer paraphrased into that form. We don't know exactly what Stock said, because the interview doesn't include that and we don't have the raw transcript of the interview. All we know is that it was a paraphrase.
Now because it is a paraphrase of Stock's words, it is also not the newspaper's own voice. The article isn't reporting on the facts of what Stock is being criticised for. It is a paraphrase of what Stock says she is being criticised for. Those are two very different things. That is why Bilorv also made the comment about Wikipedia not being "a press release platform". To use that quotation as we did is as you said at AE "unduly self-serving" because it is a paraphrase of Stock's words. It is not the words of The Guardian, at best it is the words of the interviewer. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
To be perhaps more precise about this, Nomo's previous version read, Her opposition to "the institutionalisation of the idea that gender identity is all that matters, that how you identify automatically confers all the entitlements of that sex", without in-text attribution to The Guardian. There are two ways a reader could understand this, and neither is acceptable per WP:V and NPOV policies. The first and most obvious reading, as has been pointed out ad nauseum by now, is that this might be something Stock said. This is unsupported by The Guardian source and therefore a policy vio. The other is that this is how The Guardian characterizes her position - which Nomo's version then juxtaposes with her critics. This is also unsupported - the pseudo-quote is framed by The Guardian as what Stock says she opposes, which is enough to distance the passage from being in The Guardian's own voice as a characterization of Stock'd position. The passage does not, however, carry The Guardian's editorial authority; it is The Guardian's paraphrase of Stock's POV on the issue. It would certainly be inappropriate to present this idea in wikivoice, as I pointed out before Nomo inserted this material (and the quotation marks certainly did not improve anything). So for those following at home, Nomo clearly violated the "consensus required" restriction, although the ill-informed uninvolved admin at AE seem convinced by the CRYBLP defense. There isn't consensus for "views on self-identification" either, of course, but Bilorv was essentially engaged in a self-revert (reverting to text that they had changed in the first place) so I think that gets them off the hook. :) Newimpartial (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
In light of the two new sources from today, post resignation, as well as the quotation in this section above from The Economist, and the research paper by Zanghellini I do wonder if perhaps we should revert to the language used on 7 October, "Views on transgender people" instead of "Views on gender self-identification". As the criticism of Stock's views is certainly wider than just what she has said on self-ID. The paper by Zanghellini in particular criticises not only her words on self-ID, but also what she has said on conversion therapy and trans-exclusionary practices. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I will be posting a new set of sources below shortly, but as I said before, the Zanghellini source is by someone taking a clear side in the dispute, rather than being secondary to the dispute. That Economist article is no good for the same reason, though it is by someone from the opposite side (Stock herself). What counts as "conversion therapy" and as "trans-exclusionary" are themselves part of the dispute over the place of gender self-ID. Crossroads -talk- 00:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
This seems like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument. A research paper is inherently WP:SECONDARY, and secondary sources are not necessarily independent or uninvolved. That you don't like the source is immaterial to its reliability. Nor is your argument that "taking a clear side" is valid, given that The Times and The Telegraph have clearly also taken a side in favour of Stock. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Better references for the Open Letter against her OBE

Hi, I noticed that the 2 references to the letter in protest of her OBE (41,46) in the Honours section, are not sources about the letter itself, but articles that just briefly mention it while discussing something else. They don't say anything more than what's already included in the wiki page. Why not link to an article about the letter or the letter itself?

I don't know what sources are considered proper around here, I'll suggest a couple: one from Daily Nous here; one from shethepeople here; or the letter itself here.

Sorry if I wasted anyone's time, I didn't find that the references given cleared much. --109.52.196.230 (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to link the actual letter, and I've added it to the article. Thanks for the idea. We often focus on the secondary sources first, as they're needed to establish the importance/relevance of primary documents. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I know we had a link to the actual letter at one point in the lead, but it was lost/removed at some time over the last month. I agree that it's important to link it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible "consensus required" vio in lead

I liked the version we had for a couple of hours there. Anyone else? Tewdar (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I made you a new section. Did you intend to explain your revert somewhere else? Tewdar (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Consensus required restriction - Crossroads, this revert to the stripped down "views on gender self-identification" text does not have consensus, as I have indicated here when I said, There isn't consensus for "views on self-identification" either, of course and as other editors have also noted. Crossroads, will you self-revert your violation of the consensus-required restriction? Newimpartial (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

When was the last time we had "views on" in the lead? If it was before the CRR started, I'd count it as a revert but not a CRR vio. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC) striking at 00:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I grow less confident in my CRR interpretation by the second. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
What do you believe is the "consensus" version? Why would I revert to a version that had just been written as though it was consensus?
"Views on" dates back to October 9th [3] and lasted until October 25th when the present dispute began. I agree with Bilorv that that was the status quo. It has vastly more claim to consensus than any other version. It had WP:SILENTCONSENSUS since it had not been disputed for an extended period of time. That a couple of editors perhaps silently didn't like it, but acquiesced to it, is not relevant here; they could not have WP:FILIBUSTERed it anyway. It was the stable status quo. Crossroads -talk- 23:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Crossroads, as I understand it, the consensus required restriction does not have an exception for what version you think counts as stable. views on self-identification was disputed by myself and other editors on this Talk page continually from before October 9 to present - the fact that I had other editors largely refrained from reverting it does not imply acquiescence, and you cannot apply SILENTCONSENSUS to an issue that was explicitly interrogated here at Talk again and again over the period you felt it was acquiring its patina of silent consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial, please provide a diff of the version you consider to have consensus then.
You claim it was disputed again and again on the talk page. In which discussions? And I don't merely "think" it was stable, I demonstrated that it was stable.
I feel that you are attempting to engage in WP:GAMING to get me to revert to your preferred version, though it clearly also does not have consensus. Crossroads -talk- 00:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I am still trying to wrap my head around "consensus required" myself, but certainly a phrase that was disputed in this section and in this section does not have consensus for inclusion.
Just to be clear, you can self-revert and then propose a new version afterwards, though my 1RR error proved that it is hard to do so without inadvertently reverting some text by accident. "Consensus required" applies to reverts not to new edits, so it shouldn't stop you from doing anything productive. Anyway, I am not gaming anything; I want to see this article move forwards rather than staying stuck where it has been. A conundrum of "consensus required" is that there is no guarantee of a past version that had consensus (the last version of this article that was actually stable and undisputed was the pre-October version, but that version itself no longer has consensus in key respects and is also wildly out of date). The solution to this conundrum, as I see it, is to propose new text, but that won't work of people apply a philosophy of revert-warring to the article.
And at risk of repeating myself, it doesn't matter how stable a version is (how well those objecting to it refrain from edit-warring over it) when it is disputed explicitly at Talk - SILENTCONESUSUS does not apply, and the "stable" version is not a consensus version in that circumstance. Frankly, I wish we could agree on what WP principles say and then try to apply them to specific editing situations; it is exhausting to interact with people who derive their interpretation of policy directly from the imperative to "win" the dispute at hand. Newimpartial (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
If you're actually concerned about having the version be one that has consensus, then simply reverting myself isn't the answer, since that version definitely has no claim to consensus or stability. And why are you singling me out when all I did was restore Bilorv's version? If my edit violates consensus required, then so does his. They are the exact same text. Crossroads -talk- 01:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
In case you missed it, Crossroads, what I suggested above is that the "right to self-revert" trumps even the consensus required provision, which is why Bilorv's reset revert was ok and also why your self-revert would also be ok. It was also quite explicitly my rationale for my own self-revert, since I was referring to a version which I myself, along with several others, believed not to be compliant with policy. At least this helps verify that I want everyone to operate by the same set of rules... Newimpartial (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Except the version Bilorv was writing over was not his own but had been altered significantly since then. It was not a self-revert but getting rid of someone else's text. He was right, but let's be clear here. Crossroads -talk- 01:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Bilorv restored the altered text to the version immediately preceding their earlier edit. Technically a rollback, I suppose, but I think it counts as a self-revert in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The version from the 9th didn't last until the 25th. There were multiple additions/removals/changes to the sentence between those dates. It's trivially true that the words "views on" were present during that period, but it doesn't help anyone's case. Tewdar's version that you undid also includes "views on". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
"Views on gender identification" and "views on gender self-identification" are only trivially different. They are very different from Tewdar and Newimpartial's version which embellishes significantly. You also have not supplied any diffs of changes between the 9th and 25th. Like Newimpartial, you are welcome to present a version that you think is the one that had consensus. Crossroads -talk- 01:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I am not claiming any version has consensus. I am disappointed to see that revision history detective work is a part of this process. But, as we work on a new lead, I would afford little/no status quo bias to a version that was substantively altered 3 days later. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
That's not an alteration of that text, but where the 600 philosophers' letter was added. Crossroads -talk- 01:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The sentence changed from "She has gained public attention for her views on gender identification" to "She has gained public attention for her views on gender identification, and her views have been described as unscholarly "transphobic fear mongering" in a letter signed by 600 philosophers." If you view that as an edit that doesn't affect stability, we could rapidly come to some compromise language here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
FFS, Crossroads, this version and this one were different from the one you claimed to have consensus, and so were this one and several previous ones. Do I have to offer diffs now for the colour of the sky? Newimpartial (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Only that first diff has to do with the text in question here, and it was reverted less than an hour later by Nomoskedasticity. You then began to edit-war and were reverted. Crossroads -talk- 02:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
FFS, again; I am trying to AGF here, but did you actually read the versions I linked to as diffs? They were all from between the 9th and 25th, and they all had different versions of the lead without views on ... self-identification. If you need to know exactly when they were added, how long they lasted and who reverted them, you can do that on your own time but they clearly show that the phrase in question did not have consensus between the 9th and 25th as you have previously, incorrectly asserted. Newimpartial (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I didn't notice that the 3rd diff, from the 12th and about other text, also showed this text reading slightly differently, but that all was reverted right after by yet another editor. I had previously forgotten about the edit war on the 16th by you, of which your first two diffs are part, but in any case, my point stands that the version I and Bilorv reverted to has vastly greater claim to stability and the status-quo than does the version you are trying to get me to revert to. Crossroads -talk- 16:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
But I don't see anything in the (scant) guidance about "consensus required" that asks editors to compare which of two versions has a "better claim" to stability or the status quo. If it doesn't have consensus, you don't revert to it - the restriction reads to me as a bright line. The language you reverted to didn't have consensus on the 25th and didn't have consensus when you reverted - so you violated the restriction by reverting. This seems simple to me. Newimpartial (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I have been disputing the "gender self-identification" language since it was first proposed on 8th October. It has repeatedly and consistently been challenged by both Newimpartial and myself since then. Claiming it is the stable version, and has consensus is not valid. Instead of focusing on this repeated pointless WP:BATTLEGROUND, we should be working on a new version that does have consensus. I said at AE about a lack of constructive feedback, and this is another prime example. Instead of focusing on the content, the focus has been on which prior version to revert to. We should just drop that argument entirely, and work on the new content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I did start this section right below about reaching a new consensus. Bogus claims about a brand-new version somehow having consensus were the issue. This whole waste of time has shown that the consensus required restriction is worthless and just creates new meta-disputes. Crossroads -talk- 23:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Admin HighInBC levied the Consensus Required restriction at 7:36 24 October. At the time, the article looked like this, and the sentence read "Her views on gender self-identification have become a contentious issue." I understand consensus to be required for changes from this. Crossroads -talk- 01:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's how "consensus required" restrictions work - they can't retroactively grant consensus to text that was contested at the time the restriction was placed. Do we have to take this question to AE, too? Newimpartial (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
      • As I explained above, it had been stable there for a long time. Crossroads -talk- 02:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Reading WP:CRP, I concur with Newimpartial, I do not think consensus required works that way. Though short in nature, and only an essay it is pretty clear that it apples to any challenged by reversion edits, without date restriction. That said, I can't seem to find any policy that it links back to on WP:ACDS, WP:DE or WP:EW which it says it is an explainer for, nor does it appear on other obvious places like WP:RESTRICT, WP:CON, or WP:GS. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Crossroads, you meant "had been there a long time, while people objected on Talk and proposed alternative text by editing the article." FTFY. Newimpartial (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Why didn't you just change "Her views on gender identity and transgender rights, which include the belief that not all trans women should have access to women-only spaces, and her opposition to the idea that a person's legal sex should be entirely determined by how they self-identify, have become a contentious issue" ----> "Her views on gender identity and transgender rights have become a contentious issue", instead of starting yet another crappy interminable debate? Clearly it is not just her views on gender self-identification that are contentious. Tewdar (talk) 08:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Selected works

I propose removing journal articles from this section and renaming it to "Books" - no clear criterion for picking some articles and not others. She (at least currently) has a Google Scholar profile, which we can link to instead. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd divide it into sections, "Journal articles", "Books" and any other types of media Stock is known for writing, but these sections in general are pretty standard. It doesn't matter that there's no clear criteria: they're just examples. Pick a couple of each type of media, a bit of a range in dates across the times Stock has been active, a good variance of topic among the things she writes about. Maybe bias towards open access links. However, we probably don't need as many as 10 selected works. The last one of these sections I wrote myself was when creating Aaron Bastani a month ago, and I've never had negative feedback to doing so, or really seen any controversy over such sections existing. — Bilorv (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
You generally go with whichever ones are most cited for the journal articles and give about 3-5 examples. Not sure what is generally done for books and things, especially since most of her chapters in books are just republishings of her earlier journal articles, outside of her one published book. SilverserenC 16:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
As Bilorv said, "these sections in general are pretty standard. It doesn't matter that there's no clear criteria: they're just examples." You can have a section similar to the one in, for example, the Sara Ahmed, Nancy K. Miller, Andrea Smith, or Monique Wittig biographies. No camel's back has been broken because of them. Don't forget: Wikipedia articles are created for the general public -- not the cognoscenti. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Still a professor or not

Before it gets out of hand, gentlemen. Work out your differences 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that, GoodDay. I was looking to start a section here but you beat me to it. Our article states - based on the sourcing - that the article's subject is a former professor at Sussex. Unless she becomes a professor somewhere else, I believe that means she is best described as a "former professor".
Also, GoodDay, gentlemen is a gendered - and in this case, misgendering - term. I believe you were grasping for "gentlefolk" or more simply, "gentles". Newimpartial (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
She might be a "former professor at Sussex". But that doesn't mean she's a "former professor". Academics don't lose that title, once it has been attained. And I wouldn't want to imagine that you believe her entire BLP is to be framed in relation to her employment by Sussex. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I believe your minor premise (that WP typically refers to former professors simply as "professors") is not supported by evidence. Wikipedia acknowledges lots of former professors. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, from primary evidence in the area (see page 9), in the UK context professor is a job title, and it's not granted for life. Upon retirement or leaving a role, an institution can grant emeritus professor status if they wish to remain associated with the individual but that has not been done in this case. With respect to secondary sources used to describe Stock, there is no consistency. Some still refer to her as professor, some as ex-professor, and some as former professor. It seems as though it's largely stylistic? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • She is a former *Professor of Philosophy* (with initial capitals) at the University of Sussex. Tewdar (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Then that is how the short description should read, IMO, if we could only agree. Newimpartial (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
      • It probably removes the ambiguity, what with different usages of "professor" in UK and US... Tewdar (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) We can't agree on that -- because it doesn't strike me as appropriate to frame her entire BLP around her employment by one university. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
        • "A British academic philosopher", perhaps? Tewdar (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I'm also mainly familiar with 'professor' in a US context. Are you saying that UK professors have that title for life, regardless of employment status? Is there anything, even unrelated to Stock, that evidences the claim? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I'd like to direct attention to my point above with respect to this question. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
        • In Nomo's version, it seems that being a UK professor is like an OBE: hard to lose once you have it. But Sideswip9th has cast doubt on whether that framing reflects current UK practice. Of course, presumably Stock will eventually announce new employment and this discussion will be deprecated. Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Would "professor-emerita" be acceptable, or is that original research. I've no personal preference, other then wanting the intro to be stable. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It would not as that's a very specific thing granted under certain circumstances. See my comment above. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
At the moment that would be OR, since many institutions have formalities around the status of emeriti/ae, and I don't think anyone has done the relevant legwork concerning Sussex. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
"Professor emerita" is a special title over here, and definitely not applicable. Tewdar (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Some of y'all are trying way too hard to get "former" into the first sentence -- likely imagining that this word taints her by implying that she has lost something desirable. Get a grip, please. This is very easily resolved: she is surely a "British philosopher" (if you can't handle the idea that she is still in fact a "professor"). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"A British academic philosopher", perhaps? Tewdar (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Then we don't need to mention her former employer at all. Tewdar (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Nomoskedasticity: don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS about one or more editor's emotional states. Stick to arguing for/against content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
She is certainly a British philosopher - a British analytical philosopher, even. My concern was, and is, that including "professor" was/is misleading at present. So do we have any objections to "British analytical philosopher and writer" in the shortdesc? (Tewdar, I prefer he more specific "analytical" to the vaguer "avademic" in this instance, as it conveys more information to the reader.) Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
By the way, Nomo, isn't this a bit BATTLEGROUNDey? Phrases like trying way too hard, imagining that this word taints her and Get a grip, please violate TPG norms and make absurd assumptions unsupported by my edits or comments. Let's stick to the topic, not the contributors. Newimpartial (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Ooh -- perhaps best to file another request at AE... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Louder, please? Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Related to the discussion, I'd make this change myself except I'm not yet at the extended confirmed limit. In the current lead, the sentence From 2003 to 2021, she was a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex. is somewhat misleading. She wasn't a professor for that entire period, though I'm having trouble sourcing exactly when she was promoted to professor. Although slightly suspect, the best I can come up with is that at least prior to publishing this book in 2007 she was a reader, not professor. Not sure how to rephrase though. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to improve this. The wording is now a bit weaselly, but at least it's not straight up incorrect. Thanks for pointing out the issue. Colin M (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
How about combining it in some way with the final sentence of the lead? The two are interrelated and it isn't synth to say she held a role until her resignation at X date. Something like She was a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex until her resignation on 28 October 2021. or Until 28 October 2021, she was a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex. Position wise, either in the second sentence or at the end of the lead, using the same cite (14) for the resignation date. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it's important to keep the resignation after we talk about the controversy, since the two are linked. (I'm tempted even to add something like "as a result of the controversy" to the last sentence, but it's tricky to get the wording right.) We could move the mention of her professor position to that last sentence, but since it's such a central part of the way she's described in RS, I prefer to introduce it in the first para. Colin M (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Her resignation from the University, creates the impression that the students are in charge of the University, from my PoV. But, I guess that's another kettle of fish. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Author or writer in shortdesc

Tewdar, I do not understand your motivation for this edit, and the edit summary does not help. Nobody is disputing that Stock is an author. My point in proposing the change is that she is also a writer in a more general sense - as a controversialist or what might in other contexts be called a "public intellectual". "Author", to me, does not at all convey this thread of Stock's career, and changing the term from the subset to the fuller set of writing activities seemed like an elegant way to do so. Do you have a better idea? Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Birth date

I'll let ya'll figure out the intro stuff. But, does anybody have a clue (or source) as to when Stock was born? GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I just removed "November 1972" from the article after the brief discussion at #WP:DOB. I was not able to easily find any secondary sources that mentioned even the birth year. More dedicated searchers might succeed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers any reason why the LoC date of 1972-11-18 should not be a source? https://lccn.loc.gov/n2007021111 --Fano (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Fano, please see WP:DOB, specifically "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." WP:BLPPRIMARY reinforces the point. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I was curious enough to do some digging in the archives of WP:RSN and found a few related discussions on this topic:
I don't really see a clear consensus across these discussions. It seems like it may be okay if the source cited by the authority file for that piece of data is itself a reliable source (in this case, they seem to be citing New waves in aesthetics, a book she edited). But I think it would be much safer if someone could verify the information directly from the book. Colin M (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Colin M, verry helpfull links, highly apreciated! (Even if I do not agree with the argument against using LOC just because in very rare cases there might be an error. Particular seeig what other shit sorces like IMDB and find a grave sometimes are used without problems in other articles (and Wikidata). But not important enought for me to get involved in this.) --Fano (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kathleen_Stock/Archive_2&oldid=1058549515"