Jump to content

Talk:Rosie Duffield

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

+


Political writer

[edit]

Okay it's in RS that she wrote political satire and was a political writer yet there is no mention of where any of this was published. So where did these RSs obtain this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.161.202 (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source, from her. She wrote something for a TV pilot. Jontel (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Position on transgender rights" section

[edit]

Section in article discusses numerous accusations of mostly transphobia against the MP, reactions to it from others, and a description of what actions by Duffield precipitated the responses. Clarifications and statements by Duffield herself are related to these specific accusations, so I do believe that the transphobia accusations are the most central to the section. The original title of section "Transgender matters" was vague and in my opinion sounded more like a political pressure organisation than a subheading. Duffield's actual "Position on transgender rights" is arguably unexplored in this section due to the section simply narrating specific newsworthy and sourced conflicts that have happened, so for now I do believe "Accusations of transphobia" is more accurate. However, is this section worthy of a more overarching description of Duffield's known transgender-related political activities? Personally I do believe her activity constitutes anti-transgender activism and would like to see her public positions described in the article, namely her position within the anti-gender movement and gender-critical feminism, but I understand specific sources and neutrality in the biography would need to be justified. alixyz (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer ‘‘Position on transgender rights’ to "Accusations of transphobia". This is more neutral, which is important for a WP:BLP. Regarding your belief that her activity ‘constitutes anti-transgender activism’ – if this was the case, then it should have been reported in RSs, and if it hasn’t, then we can’t include it in our article. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody explain the edit war?

[edit]

I see the same chunk being put in and out of the article without discussion and it is looking like an edit war. As far as I can tell, the chunk in question was originally added by @Sweet6970: in this diff but it is mostly IPs putting it in and taking it out. What is going on here? The content here seems pretty marginal to me. It is a (fragment of?) a quotation from Starmer that doesn't really say much apart from making him sound a bit odd. Please can somebody explain why it is so relevant? Please can @96.75.168.181: explain why they think it is a BLP violation and out of context? Is it because we are only using part of the quote? If so, what is the rest of it and should we consider using a longer form for more context? What is the BLP angle here? Why does anybody care enough about one pretty inane quote to edit war about it? If it is to avoid Starmer sounding silly then, so long as he really did say it, and we are not truncating it in a way that alters his point, then I think that's on him. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@77.22.43.96:, @96.75.168.181:, @73.215.41.44: and any other IPs involved. Please stop edit warring and explain what the problem is so we can try to work out a solution. If you carry on like this then the page is going to get protected and we will never even know what the problem was. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a violation of any kind, and there's no reason why this should be removed --77.22.43.96 (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant because Keir Starmer has previously criticised Rosie Duffield for saying that only women have a cervix, and has not supported Rosie Duffield when she was harassed for her gender-critical views. He has now admitted that, as far as biological women are concerned, she was correct to say that only women have a cervix. This is significant for Duffield’s position in the Labour Party. I cannot see any remotely possible BLP violation here. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also very sceptical of the BLP claim. It's not obvious what it is based on. If anybody can explain it, I'll listen, maybe even be persuaded, but we have to disregard it in the meantime. Is the quote complete? It sounds a bit like the preamble to him saying something else but maybe that is just the way that Starmer speaks? I don't really care very much about including the quote either way, so long as it is not truncated inappropriately. I think it adds little, but maybe that little is worthwhile. It doesn't detract anything that I can see. I have no desire to remove it myself. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielRigal: It’s a BLP violation because it takes Starmer’s words out of context in order to imply that he has changed his mind to embrace a position many people consider to be bigotry when even the portion of his remarks given in the source provided indicate he has done nothing of the sort. 96.75.168.181 (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing the ping for @DanielRigal:. 96.75.168.181 (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually we're just quoting what he said. - 77.22.43.96 (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand that when you’re accused of taking someone’s words out of context, and your response is simply that he said those words, that’s not a defense, right? Since that’s all you have to say and you’ve said over and over and over again, it’s clear that for you specifically, other IP, there is no defense for your repeated attempts to smear a living person. And since you decided to leave me a message insisting that I stop “adding content” when I’ve been arguing for REMOVING content, it’s clear you’re either acting in bad faith or don’t know what you’re doing. 96.75.168.181 (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The details in the source are:

On Tuesday, the Labour leader revealed his changed stance in an interview on Good Morning Britain. "Biologically, she of course is right" he said, despite the Labour MP's stance - and other views - drawing heavy criticism from her party for a number of years. and, later on: In his first comments on gender since the publication of the Cass review, Starmer said that “biologically”, Duffield was “of course right” to say that only women had a cervix. “She’s a much respected member of the parliamentary Labour Party and I want to have a discussion with her and anybody else about how we go forward in a positive way,” Starmer said in the GMB interview. He added: “There’s a distinction between sex and gender. The Labour Party has championed women’s rights for a very long time.” In September 2021, Starmer said that Duffield’s comments were “something that shouldn’t be said” and “not right”. Asked whether he would apologise to Duffield, the Labour leader said: “I don’t want this to go back into this toxic place where everybody is divided”.

I don’t think that, in an encyclopaedic article, where comments have to be summarised, there is anything else which needs to be added, but I am open to suggestions.
Sweet6970 (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant because Starmer's Marr interview taking a negative stance is quoted. This later material is a quote from him being challenged about it years later and softening his stance. Void if removed (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the quote then it doesn't at all sound like his comments are at all being taken out of context. — Czello (music) 07:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is literally nothing at all other than the fact that the IP who keeps removing it does not like the content.-77.22.155.99 (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support your revert, which reinstates the version which has consensus on this Talk page. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 — Czello (music) 13:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Party membership

[edit]

I'm a bit confused about her membership status of the Labour party. Has she left it or not? In her resignation letter there are two key elements. Early on she writes "...this letter is my notice that I wish to resign the Labour Party whip with immediate effect...". Towards the end she writes "... I hope to be able to return to the party in the future...". I know that resigning the whip is not the same as actually cancelling your membership of Labour party, so those two phrases don't seem to match up. I'm not an expert, but I also know that the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) has a certain function, so maybe that's she's what she means (as the Labour party itself is seen by many as a movement). So on the face of it, we can't tell from the letter whether she is still a member of the party or not. On the other hand, I just watched a clip from a BBC interview with Duffield where she says "... I never thought in a million years I would leave this party...". Is that definitive? Has anyone come accross any written further statements by Duffield regarding her membership? Seaweed (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She hasn't responded to a direct question about this on X. So far as I can tell, the final sentence of her resignation letter ("..I hope to be able to return to the party in the future..") is being taken by people as a definite statement of her resignation from the party itself, notwithstanding the inconsistency that you have noted. Harfarhs (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rosie_Duffield&oldid=1255957685"