Misplaced Pages

Talk:Lesbian erasure

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pyxis Solitary (talk | contribs) at 11:28, 23 January 2020 (→NPOV Edit 1/19/20). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:28, 23 January 2020 by Pyxis Solitary (talk | contribs) (→NPOV Edit 1/19/20)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lesbian erasure article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFeminism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWomen's History Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject iconWiki Loves Pride
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, ].Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride
A fact from Lesbian erasure appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 July 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
  • Did you know... that some LGBTQ activists have opposed the use of the term "lesbian erasure", because it has sometimes been used in opposition to transgender rights?
A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2019/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lesbian erasure.
Misplaced Pages

In relation to transgender men

Some of the sentences/incidents in the "In relation to transgender women" section deal with the idea that lesbians are erased by trans men transitioning. I am initially inclined to think it would therefore make sense to tweak the section title from "...transgender women" to "...transgender people". Agree/disagree? -sche (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Section is currently mostly about trans women. I don't think a tiny piece there about trans men means we should change the title. If the section is expanded to include more about trans men, with sources explicitly tying the matter to lesbian erasure, then I'll feel differently...depending on how much more is added. We might also want an "In relation to transgender men" subsection in addition to the "In relation to transgender women" subsection. But I don't support the section being unduly expanded, especially if it mainly becomes a section about feminist views on transgender topics, when we already have a Misplaced Pages article on that and a TERF article.
On a side note: I really think that the "In 2019, a group of women wearing T-shirts" paragraph should be removed. I only really recently noticed it due to it having been moved to the transgender women section and expanded. Including incident material like that is how articles like this can get out of hand. This 2019 incident doesn't seem to have gotten as much attention as "Get the L Out" and doesn't really add anything to the article. Yes, there's the legal action aspect, but we don't know how that will go. We can always re-add it if the legal action makes an impact. But I'll wait to see what Pyxis Solitary has to state on including that material since Pyxis Solitary added it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, looking at this more closely, I notice that besides the incidents which were specifically about trans men, almost all of the section is about "trans people" generally, with only a tiny part of the section being about trans women: The first sentence is about "transgender issues" and a group not being inclusive of "trans people"; the second sentence is specifically about trans boys; and only the third sentence is about trans women. In the next paragraph, the first sentence refers only to "trans exclusionary" people, and the next sentence talks broadly about "transgender rights" and then specifically about trans men. The three sentences after that are about the group being condemned as generically "transphobic or 'anti-trans'", and about the group having materials saying "transactivism erases lesbians", which again fails to be specific to trans women. The National Bar paragraph speaks broadly of a "campaigning stance in the gender-identity dispute" and "transgender employees". The MacDonald paragraph includes one sentence which scopes itself through a parenthetical, editorial addition as being about trans women, while the rest speaks generically of "transphobia" and "people identifying as transgender". The final paragraph has one sentence about "the term lesbian erasure being anti-transgender", one about "trans people, or trans issues", and only two about "trans women". -sche (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
We're looking at the section differently; I state this because regardless of what wording is being used to convey material in the section, the sources are mainly about trans women. The Scotsman source used for the Claire Heuchan quote, for example, states, "At its heart is the focus on trans rights by LGBT organisations, and resultant philosophical and biological questions around what defines a woman, and its impact on sexual orientation and therefore lesbianism. Is lesbianism a sexual attraction only to female bodies or is it attraction to feminine identity? Can it involve trans women who still have male bodies?" In the Misplaced Pages article, the text doesn't focus on trans women by name because the section is already titled "In relation to transgender women" and the "when being for lesbians is interpreted as being against people identifying as transgender" is a main argument with regard to lesbians and trans women instead of lesbians and trans men. Trans men aren't the focus in these debates nearly as much as trans women are and they are seen more so in a sympathetic light because of the argument that transgender activism makes butch lesbians feel that they should be men. The first source in the section states, "At the heart of the increasingly toxic debate is whether trans rights are compatible with those of other women, particularly in terms of access to single-sex spaces, such as rape crisis centers or women's refuges. On one side, trans campaigners say that transgender women are women and deserve equal access. On the other, some feminists and lesbians disagree, making the distinction between natal and trans women." The second source in that section states, "Organisations like RainbowYouth and InsideOut, as well as the Pride Parade, must stop endorsing medical experimentation, child abuse, sexist stereotyping, and the destruction of female-only and lesbian spaces." But the source also focuses on "the number of women and girls in Wellington being referred to endocrinologists for medical gender transition increased twelvefold." So that is about trans men/transmasculine people. The "Get the L Out" material is focused on lesbians with regard to trans women. The Sarah Ditum New Statesman piece is also focused on that. And the text in the Misplaced Pages article on that is clear by "quoted the protesters and their material: 'The group...carried banners proclaiming 'lesbian not queer', 'lesbian = female homosexual' and 'transactivism erases lesbians'." Regarding the 2019 National Theatre bar in London text, I think it's safe to state that "T-shirts printed with a definition for lesbian ('lesbian | lezbiən | noun | a woman who loves other women')" is about trans women. The Terry MacDonald quote focuses on lesbians with regard to trans women. I've already addressed the Claire Heuchan quote that follows. And the last paragraph in the section is focused on lesbians with regard to trans women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I updated the text in the article with a better summary of the dispute, using the aforementioned The Scotsman commentary, before the text further delves into the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the TERFs are especially bigoted towards trans women, and less focused on trans men (which is not to say that the TERF movement doesn't also harm trans men). It's kind of a mirror image of how white American racists scaremonger about black men more than black women.
Still, since the passage does talk about trans men, even if it's not the primary focus, I agree with -sche: there's no reason not to change the subheading to "transgender people".WanderingWanda (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
As some sources make clear, this isn't just about "TERFs" vs. trans women (or trans men). Some sources (like one I cited above) state "feminists and lesbians." There are lesbian women who are not "TERFs" who also have issues with trans women identifying as lesbians and/or with people assigned female at birth identifying as boys or men. Lesbians especially have an issue with being deemed transphobic for not wanting to date/have sex with transgender women. But then again, as noted by this New Statesman source and this Daily Nous source, "TERF" may also be used to refer to lesbians who simply are not sexually attracted to trans women or in a broader context than that. I don't think it's a good idea to use "TERF" on article talk pages; this is because of how broadly the term is used, and, yes, because it is debated as a slur and can cause offense when it's best to try to keep controversial talk pages like this one calm.
But anyway, with this edit, I added an "In relation to butch lesbians and transgender men" section. Renaming the section "In relation to transgender women and men" and having the trans men content there would make the subsection overly long. So I gave it its own section. I was going to title it "In relation to transgender men", but as I added more material, and seeing that it also discusses lesbians who once identified as trans men, and a little bit of commentary from a butch lesbian, I decided on the latter title. Like I noted in my edit summary, I would have very much preferred to mostly expand this article with scholarly sources, but most of the material on this topic at this point in time is sourced to the media (as in it's mostly the media reporting on it). As mentioned in a previous discussion, it would also be good to expand other parts of the article. But most of the sources on this topic do concern rifts in the LGBT community. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
If America's "newspaper of record" the New York Times is comfortable letting one of their commentators use the word "TERF", I'm comfortable using it on article talk pages. (If anyone else disagrees with my stance on this, let's not clutter up an article talk page with a "TERF war". 😛 Instead, feel free to reach out on my talk page, which is open to anyone who approaches me in earnest, open, and cordial way.) WanderingWanda (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
"But I'll wait to see what Pyxis Solitary has to state on including that material since Pyxis Solitary added it." Actually, I did not (21 October). I may edit content and I may add sources, but that doesn't mean I am the editor that originally added the material. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 23:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
As for the incident at the National Theatre: it's an example of what the subject of the article is about. There's a lot of hearsay regarding what precisely happened; the women and NT management are at odds about the cause of the uproar, but the legal case will sort the 1-2-3 about it. In any event, the focus has been on the t-shirts imprinted with the definition for lesbian. I think the NT ruckus should remain. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 00:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I should have checked the edit history. You added the piece about the legal action, but obviously not the rest. As for the National Theatre bar incident, Crossroads removed the material, and I obviously agree with the removal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

What the hell?

This is not an article about transgender women or men. 1,572 words dedicated to "in relation to ...." 1 and 2? Really? The purpose of this article has been coopted. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, the second of those sections is exactly where the 21st century debate on lesbian erasure is actually at, so I would like to thank Flyer22 Reborn for that contribution. That is part of the purpose of the article; we are not limited to 20th-century issues, here, since "lesbian erasure" describes this newer issue as well. Newimpartial (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The sections are very quote heavy. Could they be summarised better? AIRcorn (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Like I stated in the section immediately above this one, "I would have very much preferred to mostly expand this article with scholarly sources, but most of the material on this topic at this point in time is sourced to the media (as in it's mostly the media reporting on it)." and "Most of the sources on this topic do concern rifts in the LGBT community." So what do we have at this point in time? Most of the material is covered by the media. And most of that material is about trans women and trans men, but especially trans women. I know Newimpartial's stated above that "the second of those sections is exactly where the 21st century debate on lesbian erasure is actually at", but the overwhelming majority of the material I came across concerns trans women (which is no surprise, given what I stated in the section immediately above this one and in the previous discussion about trans women and butches, and given what is in the "Further reading" section) and the overwhelmingly majority of that is from the 21st century. But I was got not going to keep piling on to the trans woman section. All we need for both sections are the key aspects. As for summarizing, I have no issue with that as long as things are summarized appropriately and what the authors are saying is not downplayed (for example, leaving out their main points or pieces one or others might find offensive), which is the risk with summarizing quotes on a controversial topic like this. Some material (like the "twelve editors and publishers of eight lesbian publications stated" piece) should be quoted because it's a widely reported statement or the quote conveys what the author is stating better than we can. Sometimes there are limited ways to state the same thing and close paraphrasing is permitted. I did summarize some material. As also mentioned before, it would be good to expand other parts of the article. And I did expand the content on material about language and lesbian spaces, after moving it under the "In the LGBT community" section, where it fits better. And I intend to incorporate some material from some of the few scholarly sources on this topic when I have the time to read all of them. I mentioned before that I'm familiar with the 2016 "The Disappearing L: Erasure of Lesbian Spaces and Culture" source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
While tweaking things with this edit, I summarized a bit more (the less controversial pieces in this case). I am likely to attempt summarizing more. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand. It is not an easy thing to do. AIRcorn (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Checking blind spots

The second of the quotations removed by Crossroads here was pretty clearly an IDONTLIKEIT removal of material relevant to the article, and the rationale given (that "most people" aren't rethinking sexual orientation in light of gender identity) was irrelevant to the context of the quote itself as well as the WP article. Let's try to be more careful. Newimpartial (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this comment? -sche had already restored it. I won't fight about it now, but if anyone finds a better (likely academic) source to replace it, I support replacement. I could just as easily say your support of it is just WP:ILIKEIT. As for being "careful", I will WP:BOLDly make whatever changes I think improve the article. It was brought back. That's the process. Maybe you'd like to be specific as to what blind spots you are referring to? -Crossroads- (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Your pattern of edits shows a bias for inclusion of medical/biology material against demography and social studies, and a (possibly related) bias against the inclusion of gender identity concepts and commentary where the latter conflicts with your own understanding of sex/gender and sexuality. Those would be the "blind spots" I am referring to, which have frequently led you to underestimate the relevance of sources with which you disagree while including sources less relevant sources with which you agree. IAR is not a justification for self-indulgence. Newimpartial (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, my turn. I perceive that your pattern of edits shows a bias for inclusion of anything and everything that expounds your preferred cultural and political viewpoints, even though it is usually sourced to a primary source or opinion piece, and these opinions have not been found noteworthy by any secondary sources nor are they really based on anything other than anecdotes. As for demography and the social sciences, you're wrong about me; I am all for those. But as Misplaced Pages directs, I go by what all secondary sources in general say. I'm not the one using WP:IAR. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
If by "all secondary sources in general" you mean "specialized and non-specialized with equal weight", then I don't agree that your approach is "what wikipedia directs". And you will find that I am actually quite stringent about commentary and analysis in that, per policy, it must be sourced to experts in the relevant field and not celebrities, journalists or academcs talking out of random orifices. But I am a stickler for the provision that when recognized experts speak, their analysis counts as RS whether formally published under editorial oversight or self-published. And none of this concerns whether or not the source confirms my biases. Newimpartial (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
By "all secondary sources" I do mean those from the relevant fields of expertise, and "in general" means the consensus of those sources. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
So will you help us scrub Misplaced Pages of all the times Andrew Sullivan is cited outside of his field of expertise, or where he disagrees with the consensus in the relevant field? Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

NPOV Edit 1/19/20

Small changes to improve section about transgender women and remove bias towards TERF ideology:

1) Changed "trans women who identify as lesbians" to simply "trans lesbians" throughout the section << "Cis lesbians" is used throughout, and the appropriate counterpart is "trans lesbians." The "who identify as" language falsely implies that trans lesbians are not actually lesbians. 2) Changed "discord between cis lesbians and..." to "discord between some cis lesbians and..." << Most major lesbian groups are either actively inclusive towards, or neutral towards trans women. The "discord" generally only applies to lesbians who are TERFs or conservatives, not the lesbian community as a whole. 3) Changed "lesbians" to "cis lesbians," when directly contrasted to "trans lesbians" or "trans women who identify as lesbians." Trans lesbians are a subset of the whole, not a separate group. 4) REMOVED "including those who have not gotten sex reassignment surgery" from paragraph starting with "Applying the terms 'transphobic,'..." << The mention of trans surgeries is not relevant, adds nothing to the section, and only serves to sensationalize. 5) Replace "addressed as" to "asserted to be" << "addressed as" is similar to "noted as" in that it frames the assertion as factual and undisputed. This is very much not the case here. 6) Changed "noted" to "stated." << Stated is neutral, "noted" is not 7) REMOVED "that's reserved for the women. Somehow, it always is" phrase << this part of the quote has no relevance, restates assertion from earlier in the sentence, and is just general TERF hyperbole 8) Changed "some lgbt activists" to "many prominent lgbt activists" << Nearly all major lesbian publications (besides AfterEllen) have taken a stand against transphobia in the lesbian community. Large lesbian political organizations (such as the National Center for Lesbian Rights) have done the same. Instead of saying "most major lesbian groups" in the article, I'm willing to compromise with "many."

Suggestions, DID NOT INCLUDE WITH THIS EDIT since these would be more significant changes: There are currently quite a few opinion pieces from heterosexual TERFs (Janice Turner, Sarah Ditum, Gina Davidson) cited in this section - these do not really belong in this article. The pseudonymous opinion piece from "Terry MacDonald" is similarly inappropriate. Finally, as has been repeatedly established on this site, Feminist Current is not a reliable source, and should not be cited as such. Removing at least some of these would go a long way towards lessening the undue weight given to the TERF position throughout the section (and article as a whole).108.31.146.220 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I oppose these changes. It is quite evident that this is an attempt at WP:ADVOCACY and from a desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and not from following what the sources say. The IP does not understand WP:NPOV correctly. WP:NPOV states (emphasis added): in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources...Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. Regarding reliable sources, WP:RS states, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Also, Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Misplaced Pages article.
  • Regarding the term TERF, this discussion concluded that the term generally required in-text attribution with regard to WP:BLP subjects, and BLP applies to any Misplaced Pages page. So your reference to certain people above as TERFs constitutes multiple BLP violations, and by that same principle, this edit summary is a personal attack.
  • Page protection is implemented to end edit warring and is not an endorsement of your changes. Per WP:NOCON, you will need to get consensus for your changes in order for them to actually stick. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If the IP fails to discuss the dispute in a manner that is both civil and assumes good faith of other contributors, I will revert the protected page accordingly. El_C 03:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
As I previously stated, most of the biased language which I changed was not taken from the sources: it was directly added by way of biased editing. And sure, here are some citations regarding the TERFs I listed: *Sarah Ditum - https://www.thedailybeast.com/cover-ups-and-concern-trolls-actually-its-about-ethics-in-suicide-journalism https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/03/05/journalist-insists-she-isnt-anti-trans-believes-trans-women-should-not-have-access-to-women-only-services/ *Janice Turner - https://www.dailydot.com/irl/columnist-transphobic-tweet-trans-model-charity/ This is a talk page, and the individuals I mentioned are very well-known for their transphobia: you are not arguing in good faith by attempting to police every single reference to a TERF as a "BLP violation." Also, I named nobody in particular in the edit summary in question: but yes, a nonzero number of prior editors on this page have a history of transphobia on this site. I absolutely stand by that comment. I'll continue not to name names, as it really isn't worth the effort it would take to dredge up all their relevant prior comments. Your reliance on accusing me of BLP violations is not a strong argument for reverting the article - it has no relevance to the edits I actually made, only the edit summary and my suggestions for further improvement to the page.As for your commentary on NPOV, it isn't that I don't understand: I simply disagree with you. The reason I'd like certain sources to be removed is not because they do not conform to my point of view: the reasons are that 1) opinion pieces by heterosexual TERFs have little to no relevance to an article section about cis lesbians & trans women 2) a pseudonymous opinion piece is not a reliable source in any sense, and 3) the TERF viewpoint is not nearly prevalent enough to justify the amount of weight it gets in this article. Again, let me remind you that I did not remove any sources in the edit I actually made.108.31.146.220 (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Regarding the IP's edits, use of "some" is WP:Weasel wording and unnecessary. Of course we don't mean "all." Transphobic and bigot is negative terminology, but I'm not opposed to using similar instead. I prefer to use "cisgender" instead of "cis" (since I prefer to use the spelled out form). The "including those who have not gotten sex reassignment surgery" piece was there and should be retained because the sources stress cisgender lesbians declining to date or have sex with trans women who still have penises or are otherwise male-bodied. Like Gina Davidson of The Scotsman is quoted stating in the section, "Is lesbianism a sexual attraction only to female bodies or is it attraction to feminine identity. Can it involve trans women who still have male bodies?" Obviously, not every trans woman has undergone sex reassignment therapy. I felt it better to state "including those who have not gotten sex reassignment surgery" instead of "including those who have penises." Per WP:SAID, I'm fine with "stated" in place of "noted," and I was going to change the text to that the next time I edited the article. Regarding adding "trans-exclusive feminist" in place of "feminist theorist Claire Heuchan", we shouldn't do that per this aforementioned RfC. I see no valid reason to cut the "that's reserved for the women. Somehow, it always is" part of a Heuchan quote. Using "Many prominent" is POV. And the IP stating "nearly all major lesbian publications" is something best supported by a source. And "nearly all major American lesbian publications" is not the same thing as "nearly all major lesbian publications." That stated, the first source for that paragraph does state "eight of the most prominent lesbian publications in the U.S., Canada, Australia and the U.K. ."
That any of the authors are heterosexual does not mean that their opinion cannot be included. The topic is lesbian erasure. These authors have spoken on the topic of lesbian erasure. Heterosexual authors have spoken on the topic of lesbianism, and we don't exclude those sources from the Lesbian article because the authors are heterosexual (or bisexual, for the matter). Opinions from heterosexual trans men in the Lesbian erasure article obviously aren't off-topic either, although one can argue that they are more directly connected...considering that they are believed by some people to contribute to lesbian erasure. And the Gina Davidson source isn't used for whatever opinion she has anyway. It's used to report on specific matters. And WP:BIASED aside, I don't see that she's being biased in that source.
As for the IP's disruptive behavior and claims, such as calling me "a certain TERF editor" and stating above that "it was directly added by way of biased editing", it's a double-edged sword for me. If I add pro-transgender material, I'm accused of lending undue weight to transgender views and trying to appease transgender editors. If I add material about cisgender lesbians (not all of whom can be accurately called TERFs...unless using the term more broadly than it was originally intended) feeling under attack, we get the IP arguing what they are arguing above. Knowing this (that I would receive criticism from either side when I add material) would be the case is why I add both viewpoints when I significantly expand the article. It is not true at all that "the 'discord' generally only applies to lesbians who are TERFs or conservatives." Discord between cisgender lesbians and trans women, just like discord between lesbians and bisexual women, has been documented for many years now. I've seen this (both in real life and in the literature) before the term TERF took hold, and certainly not only in relation to feminist or conservative-identified lesbians. Like Slate notes, it's just that radical feminists add gasoline to the fire with regard to the transgender topic. As has been discussed before, there are trans women who insist that it's transphobic/bigoted if a cisgender lesbian or cisgender heterosexual man does not want to date or have sex with a trans woman. Veronica Ivy (formerly Rachel McKinnon) is one of those people. And many cisgender lesbians (and cisgender heterosexual men), not just radical feminists or conservatives, object to this belief. So do many trans women (although they aren't as loud as the "you're transphobic for not wanting me as a romantic/sexual partner" crowd). That is why Ivy's tweets on this matter are now protected (though Ivy or others might claim that it's to avoid harassment over those views). Anyway, regardless of the IP's skewed viewpoints, the IP is apparently very familiar with editors here. I'll have a CU look into this. I have my suspicion as to who the IP is, but I won't note it here (at least not yet). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
By all means, a sock investigation could prove useful. Please ping me upon filing it. El_C 05:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Apart from all else, I'm not a sock for whomever you think I am: I don't have an official account, as I just don't have the time to routinely edit as much as most. I'm familiar enough with some editors here, from being on the site long enough and from the small amount of editing I've already done. As to the content of your response:
  • I suggest changing "Many prominent LGBT activists" to "Many prominent LGBT organizations" to reflect the above
  • Regarding discord in the community: of course there will always be a degree of intra-community tension among the letters of the LGBT, but as described in the slate article you linked, the scale of tension is more along the lines of simple ignorance and "cultural" misunderstandings between the groups. That's a far cry from the discord described throughout the wiki article, which almost exclusively details the discord between TERFs (both heterosexual and lesbian) and trans women: of ALL the quoted individuals in the section who have issues with trans lesbians, I challenge you to name a single one who hasn't also spread anti-trans rhetoric on separate topics. Sure, there may be "concerned lesbians" (whole other topic of debate) who are neither TERFs nor conservatives, but they are not the ones quoted in the article.
  • RE: Rachel McKinnon's twitter, I highly doubt that's the only reason she protected her tweets - she's said a lot of things and has a lot of enemies who flooded her mentions, and all we can do is speculate as to what the reason is why she locked it.
  • As to the contested phrases: "having a penis" does not equate to "male-bodied." And in any case, the surgery line is unnecessary as the same idea is stated later in the paragraph. Heuchan's phrase is just not relevant to an article on lesbian erasure, and does not significantly impact her quote. However, the surgery line is the worse of the two, and removing that one while retaining the second could be a compromise.
  • Regarding the Davidson article: she does displays a bias even in this article, to say nothing of the stuff she's published since - she uses TERF weasel words like "gender critical," gives the false impression that there are many more TERF lesbians than trans-inclusive lesbians (and entirely omits mention of large trans-inclusive lesbian movements like LwiththeT while giving quite a lot of coverage to the much smaller GettheLOut TERF group), and skews incidents like the London National Theatre one - she purports that the group in question was kicked out for their orientation instead of their transphobic placards and behavior https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/12/11/national-theatre-gender-critical-lesbians-legal-action-julia-long-posie-parker/ Oh, and she parrots the "TERF is a slur" BS. 108.31.146.220 (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe you aren't a sock. But I'll move away from that for now.
To address your accusations against me, I have a suspicion that you define "TERF" and "transphobic" very broadly -- the way a number of young people define those terms these days -- if you think that edits like this one is one a "TERF" would make. It's the same material I was thanked for adding via WP:Echo and in the #What the hell? section above. And regarding this? In addition to the "Shannon Keating of BuzzFeed argued that 'though lesbians are by no means under attack by gains in trans acceptance'" piece I added, what "TERF" is going to add the Abigail Curlew commentary, or the Author Morgan Lev Edward Holleb commentary? You'd be hard-pressed to even find one who uses the term "cisgender" when editing transgender topics. I'm also the one who expanded the 2018 open letter commentary to state "rather we are enriched by trans friends and lovers, parents, children, colleagues and siblings." Since you are so familiar with editors here, you should know that I was already put on trial as transphobic/a "TERF", and I was found not guilty. That at Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics and Talk:TERF, I have talked about and pointed to arguments from radical feminists or cisgender lesbians who disagree with transgender women on things, or noted that the biology of sexual orientation (and/or study of it) is indeed about sexual attraction to sex characteristics and not gender identity (which is not a physical entity), does not make me transphobic or a "TERF." Neither does noting that many cisgender lesbians feel like their sexual orientation is under attack because they can't force themselves to find male sex characteristics (primary or secondary) sexually attractive, and a trans woman referring to those characteristics as female does not change what those characteristics look like (without sex reassignment therapy) or are called in the scientific literature. That I, like the rest of the Misplaced Pages community generally does, uphold standard terminology in our biology, anatomy and sexual topic articles does not make me transphobic/a "TERF." Neither does listening to all sides. But, hey, like I've mentioned before, a number of editors assume certain things about me based on what I edit or add; these things include: "Flyer is a lesbian," "Flyer is bisexual," "Flyer is heterosexual," "Flyer is asexual," "Flyer is a LGBT POV-pusher," "Flyer is heterosexist," "Flyer likes that sexual act," "Flyer supports that mental view." All of that has been thrown my way for years, given the topics I edit. I've also been accused of lesbophobia.
There was no malice or sketchiness on my part by adding "trans women who identify as lesbians." Sources like the Gina Davidson source are literally focused on lesbian identity, and it's not cisgender lesbians who are disputed as lesbians. Before you came along, I did consider changing "trans women who identify as lesbians" to "transgender lesbians." This is because I am always reanalyzing additions I make and thinking over what is perhaps better wording. And, yes, on topics like this one, that includes what is less offensive wording or non-offensive. This is a sensitive subject, and I am very much aware of that. I accept changing "trans women who identify as lesbians" to "transgender lesbians."
I still do not agree to add "some."
"Many prominent LGBT activists" is personal POV since the source doesn't state "many." I am fine with stating "eight of the most prominent lesbian publications in the U.S., Canada, Australia and the U.K." Yes, it's from the source verbatim, but this maybe falls under WP:LIMITED.
You stated, "There IS undue weight on the TERF position within the section." I disagree. Most of the section is about sexual attraction. And the topic of cisgender lesbians not being sexually attracted to trans women is not simply or primarily a TERF POV. As this study I pointed to before is clear about, most cisgender people, including cisgender lesbians, decline to date trans women or other trans people (but trans women especially). But, yes, the author (Karen Blair) concluded that "exclusion was likely the result of factors ranging from explicit transprejudice, such as viewing trans persons as unfit, mentally ill, or subhuman, to a lack of understanding or knowledge about what it means to be a transgender man or woman." Regarding discord in the LGBT community, it's not about simple ignorance and "cultural misunderstandings between the groups" when there are trans women referring to cisgender lesbians as transphobic, bigots or similar for not accepting them as sexual partners. That's not simply about "discord between TERFs (both heterosexual and lesbian) and trans women." And suggesting that heterosexual authors shouldn't be used? It's like stating that an author or reporter has to be of a certain ethnicity or religion to report on other ethnicities or religions. And aren't you assuming that these authors are heterosexual? Janice Turner having married a man doesn't mean she's heterosexual. And there are no doubt cisgender heterosexual authors who have spoken out against the argument that trans women erase lesbians. Janice Turner is not quoted in the article anyway. And what "anti-trans rhetoric on separate topics" has Gina Davidson or African-American lesbian performance artist and writer Pippa Fleming spread?
Regarding McKinnon's Tweets, I was specifically referring to the one where she states "genital preferences" are transphobic, as if a cisgender gay man (for example) can control the fact that he is sexually aroused by penises and not by vaginas and that the penis needs to be attached to other male sex characteristics in order for him to become sexually aroused. That stated, she did apologize for stating that pansexuality is the only moral sexual orientation.
As for your argument that "having a penis" does not equate to "male-bodied", I am aware that some trans women refer to their penises as female. But, again, the scientific literature does not. And if you mean that a trans woman can have a penis while the other parts of her are visibly female, I get that. But "male-bodied" is not used in the article. Gina Davidson stating "Can it involve trans women who still have male bodies?" is in the article because it's part of the debate. There are lesbian-identified trans women who have not undergone any hormone therapy or surgery. And expecting a cisgender lesbian to be sexually attracted to the person in that case is part of the debate. Either "including those who have not gotten sex reassignment surgery" should be readded or "including those who have penises" should be added in its place. But I think that the previous is better. It's relevant per the sources. And so is the Heuchan quote about cisgender lesbians being referred to as "vaginophile", "vagina fetishist", "transmisogynist", and "penis demonizer" for declining to date or have sex with trans women. This is happening. She isn't making it up. But that doesn't cover the "including those who have not gotten sex reassignment surgery" aspect as clearly. And I don't think you'd prefer I include commentary from transsexual-identified woman Miranda Yardley on these aspects. (Note: I stated "transsexual-identified" because, as we know, many transgender people these days object to the term transsexual while Yardley proudly refers to herself as transsexual.) If you mean that Heuchan stating that "women have spent the last few thousand years being conditioned and coerced into having sex that involves a penis" in the next paragraph covers it, it's still not being clear that cisgender lesbians are called derogatory names for not being interested in trans women who have a penis. Furthermore, it's best not to make it seem that all trans women have a penis, and use of the "including those" piece acknowledges that trans women with a penis are not the only factor. If by "Heuchan's phrase is just not relevant to an article on lesbian erasure", you mean the "that's reserved for the women. Somehow, it always is" piece, I can agree that we don't lose much by leaving it out. But I don't agree that it's "just not relevant" to this article.
We disagree on the Davidson article. That article explores the topic in a neutral fashion and the Davidson commentary in the article relays the matter neutrally and succinctly. Your personal opinions about Davidson are irrelvant. And as seen in the TERF article, "TERF as a slur" is seriously debated. It's not just those who are called TERFs, or just conservatives, arguing that it's a slur or at least derogatory. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Alright, believe what you want, the admin will do whatever check they need to do (if they haven't already) and the results will clearly speak for themselves.
  • Regarding the edits that we've discussed, it does seem like we're getting fairly close to resolving this. To recap: we've agreed on replacing "trans women who identify as lesbians" with "trans lesbians," reverting "trans-exclusive feminist theorist" back to "feminist theorist," replacing "other negative terminology" with "other similar terminology," and replacing "cis" with "cisgender."
  • I'll also agree to "Eight of the most prominent lesbian publications in the U.S., Canada, Australia and the U.K." in place of "Many prominent LGBT activists" or "Some LGBT activists"
  • The Heuchan phrase I deleted was the "that's reserved for the women" one, not the other one you mentioned.
  • Sexual orientation is not solely based upon attraction to physical characteristics. The fallacy you make here is to assume that gender identity exists in a vacuum: it doesn't. Once publicly expressed, it determines (when it comes to gender) how one goes through the world, how one associates with others and how others associate with them, how one is treated in society, the oppression one experiences in society, and how one presents. Even without any physical transition, trans women are far more similar to cis women than cis men (and vice versa for trans men). Being attracted to (and/or dating) women or to men can very often incorporate these societal factors.
  • That said, most trans people DO physically transition with HRT (and sometimes surgery), giving them the same secondary (and primary, with surgery) sex characteristics as others of their gender.
You're correct on what we've agreed on changing, yes (except I prefer to spell out "transgender", especially on first occurrence, and this includes first use of "transgender lesbians"). But keep in mind disagreement from others, such as Crossroads and Pyxis Solitary.
Regarding your argument that "sexual orientation is not solely based upon attraction to physical characteristics", this isn't the place to debate the topic of sexual orientation, but I specifically stated "the biology of sexual orientation (and/or study of it) is indeed about sexual attraction to sex characteristics and not gender identity (which is not a physical entity)." That is true. I focused on the biology of sexual orientation, not the fact that sexual orientation may be defined as "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes." One cannot see another's gender identity, regardless of whether or not that person's gender identity is stated. A person's gender identity cannot be seen or measured. Scientists aren't out there measuring attraction to gender identities when it comes to the actual sexual orientations that are studied by scientists. And I state "actual" because pansexuality, for example, usually is not mentioned in the scientific literature and it is commonly subsumed under bisexuality by academic sources. What cisgender lesbians mean when they argue that expecting them to find a male body sexually attractive because the person who has that body identifies as female/a woman is a form of conversion therapy is that if it were that easy to find the male body sexually attractive, they wouldn't be lesbians and conversion therapy would be considered legitimate. Of course, gender identification isn't used as a tool for conversion therapy, but, with the history of the practice, it wouldn't have been out of the realm of possibilities if the "doctors" had thought of it. And, in that case, if one were to state that lesbians should be able to tell whose stated gender identity is valid, how could they? A person's gender identity is internal. Cisgender lesbians who actually have been subjected to conversion therapy are clear that they were expected to find the male body sexually attractive and could not. Whether one wants to call a trans woman's body before hormone therapy or surgery male or female, it is indistinguishable from the body of a cisgender male.
You stated, "Once publicly expressed, it determines (when it comes to gender) how one goes through the world, how one associates with others and how others associate with them, how one is treated in society, the oppression one experiences in society, and how one presents." But, except for "how one goes through the world," that's not the case with trans women who do not want to pass. But that is different in the case of trans women who do not want to/make no attempt to pass, which affects how they go through the world and how others see and interact with them. And so many trans women note that it's difficult to obtain what you just described the kind of experience they want because they can't pass. And, as is known by those very familiar with transgender issues, passing for trans women is a lot harder than it is for trans men.
As for "even without any physical transition, trans women are far more similar to cis women than cis men (and vice versa for trans men)", that is debated and not just by radical feminists and conservatives. When it comes to brain studies, for example, it's the brains of trans women who are sexually attracted to men that have been found to be similar to those of cisgender women, not the brains of trans women who are sexually attracted to women. But both groups of trans women have their own brain phenotypes. The brains of cisgender gay men have also been found to be similar to cisgender heterosexual women's, and the brains of cisgender lesbians have been found to be similar to the brains of cisgender heterosexual men, which has made some scientists wonder if they are seeing homosexuality in the brain with regard to trans women who are sexually attracted to men and trans men who are sexually attracted to women. I used the term "cisgender" just now, but that term wasn't used for this research back then. To many transgender activists, this "homosexuality in the brain" viewpoint comes across as, or simply is, transphobic, but it's the scientists' job to keep politics out of their research unless specifically or additionally studying that aspect. But, yes, that cisgender women and transgender women have more in common than trans women and cisgender men do has been argued by authors. To what extent (and when applied to what group of trans women) is more so debated.
As for transgender people physically transitioning with hormone therapy, that is often not enough for a cisgender person to want to date and/or have sex with a transgender person. Like I stated before, to many people, genitals do matter when it comes to their sexual orientation. This has been well-documented among cisgender gay men. I am aware of what the Karen Blair study I cited states since I mentioned its conclusion to you, but there are things it didn't consider, which is why it's been somewhat criticized in the media (yes, by the sources you would expect to criticize it). You speak of "a blanket dating exclusion of trans people of the desired gender(s) constitut transphobia just as much as a blanket dating exclusion of any other marginalized group within the desired gender(s) constitutes bigotry related to the relevant axis of marginalization." But to reiterate what I stated in the previous discussion I just linked to in this paragraph, it should be fine for a cisgender person to not want to date/have sex with a transgender person. That is what people are arguing. No one should feel obligated to date/have sex with any type of person. Human sexuality is complex. People find different aspects sexually attractive. That obviously includes genitals as well. And the vagina and a trans woman's neovagina are different. People can't control who they are sexually attracted to or what features (and on whom) they are sexually attracted to. People can't force themselves to be sexually attracted to certain people. Whether or not one thinks that the attraction is biological and/or socialized, it's their attraction. As you likely know, some men are specifically sexually attracted to transgender women, and they are shamed for it, including by transgender women who feel that they are being fetishized. But these men can't control the fact that they are specifically sexually attracted to transgender women, which research (such as this 2016 "The Role of the Illusion in the Construction of Erotic Desire: Narratives from Heterosexual Men Who Have Occasional Sex with Transgender Women" source, from Culture, Health & Sexuality) acknowledges is somewhat due to specific features that distinguish transgender women from cisgender women (except for transgender women who pass and have gotten bottom surgery). It is what it is.
Also (and I've stated this elsewhere on Misplaced Pages), sexual attraction with regard to sexual orientation, being sexually attracted to certain sex characteristics, is not the same thing as (or even very similar to) racial preferences with regard to dating...such as a white person not being sexually attracted to a black person. One is substantially (or completely, going by enough researchers) culturally influenced (often because of societal views on skin color), while the other has a lot more to do with innate attraction (as scientists generally believe). Yes, there are some social aspects as to why many cisgender people do not find transgender people sexually attractive. But a cisgender gay man not being sexually attracted to a transgender man who has not undergone sex reassignment therapy and does not pass as a male/man is not about societal influence. We have more than enough scientific research to tell us that this is the case. That stated, even when it comes to racial or ethnicity preferences with regard to dating, there are studies indicating that people are generally attracted to people who look like them. Call that racist or whatever, but it is what it is.
Glad that you won't defend those statements by McKinnon.
With regard to the "History teaches us that predatory men will abuse trans rights" source, is Davidson not speaking of cases like the Jessica Yaniv case? I haven't yet read the whole source, but Davidson writes, "The argument is not that transwomen are a risk, but that predatory men will use any tool available to them." Many or most in the transgender community doubt that Yaniv is truly transgender; they believe that Yaniv is a man using the transgender movement. Yes, one can state that a case such as Yaniv's is rare. But that doesn't stop the possibility of it happening. Obviously. Regardless of whether one considers the quoted authors transphobic, it is valid to include their commentary on lesbian erasure. Whether certain views about cisgender lesbians not wanting to date or have sex with trans women is transphobic or not is part of the debate. We aren't going to cut these women's views or remove reporting on cisgender lesbians' experiences. These are real issues they are reporting on, and the material is not restricted to "TERF logic", and this sexual attraction debate is not WP:Fringe.
As for Heuchan stating that cisgender lesbians are called "vaginophile", "vagina fetishist", "transmisogynist", and "penis demonizer" for declining to date or have sex with trans women, and commenting on cisgender lesbians otherwise being shamed for their sexuality, it doesn't seem accurate to state that it's exaggerated online. I've seen a lot of it with my own two eyes. And this Heuchan source used in the article is focused on the online discourse. Whether it's exaggerated online or not, however, is something left for sources to document. We can always revisit that when sources specifically analyze that. As for you noting that "there is a difference between pointing out systemic transphobia and how that very often seeps into dating (this is the argument that's actually used most of the time), versus demanding that any individual dates someone", I agree and (as mentioned before) included the Abigail Curlew commentary on that matter. As for "there's also a huge difference between someone simply having a 'genital preference,' versus loudly and repeatedly declaring that they'd never date a trans woman", having a "genital preference" and not wanting to date a trans woman is the same for many cisgender lesbians. They are arguing that they have the right to feel that way and shouldn't be shamed for it. They are arguing that it's not just a feeling.
In any case, I think we should cease the WP:Not a forum aspect of our comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Except the sources don't actually use the biased language used in the previous version - and the edits I made were mostly independent of sourced quotations (I mostly edited out the inaccurate, transphobic wording and biases a certain TERF editor previously introduced to the article)" - 19 January 2020‎ summary by 108.31.146.220.
    The twisted, biased language of the 19 January 2020 edit is not supported by sources:
    "Trans-exclusive feminist theorist Claire Heuchan...." This is name-calling POV.
    "Many prominent LGBT activists...." This is POV. The Reuters source states "some feminists and lesbians disagree, making the distinction between natal and trans women."
    "A spokesperson for Get the L Out said they were concerned about the rights of trans lesbians being supported over the rights of cisgender lesbians to choose their sexual partners." Again, POV. What the BBC source published is: "A Get The L Out spokeswoman said...The GBT community today, by supporting the rights of males who "identify as lesbians" (also called "transwomen") over the rights of lesbians to choose their sexual partners (on the basis of their sex, not how they "identify") is in fact enforcing heterosexuality on lesbians."
    Changing "trans women who identify as lesbians" to "trans lesbian" is POV language by 108.31.146.220.
    Changing "rights of trans women who identify as lesbians" to "rights of trans lesbians" is POV language.
    Between the "biases a certain TERF editor" summary and the substitution of text with POV wording and language, it seems to me that editor 108.31.146.220 is an activist editor targeting articles he does not approve of because he WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

El C, I'm seeing 3 to 1 consensus against the IP's changes. Can you remove the protection now? Or revert them? Note that WP:FULL states, Editors convinced...that protection has rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision, may identify a stable version prior to the edit war and request reversion to that version. This, again, has locked down a version in favor of the only edit warrior. It also states, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as...defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. Right now it refers to someone as a "trans-exclusive feminist", which must be attributed in reference to a WP:BLP per this discussion. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Nope, not so fast, Crossroads. There is no "3 to 1 consensus" against changes. Flyer22 & I are currently having a discussion about which individual changes within the edit to keep. Her comment was not an absolute "oppose." -sche has also chimed in with another detailed view on how the article should be edited. Full reversion would be entirely counterproductive, and contrary to what's currently being hammered out. It's funny how you accuse me of being "the only edit warrior," when you were as involved in it as I - while being much less involved in actually negotiating changes afterwards.108.31.146.220 (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
IP, you were the only edit warrior because you were the only one edit warring - repeatedly changing the page back to how you wanted it. I reverted one time only. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done. El_C 19:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (e/c) Looking at the changes under discussion: 1) The addition of "some" to "Discord between some cisgender lesbians and transgender women" is more accurate, since it is not all cisgender lesbians (or trans women); we already make regular use qualifiers like this elsewhere in the article and in other articles. 2) "Trans women who identify as lesbians" is more verbose than "trans lesbians", but also perhaps clearer on first mention. I would be fine with dropping it on subsequent mentions. 3+4) The addition of "cisgender" to the sentence about "the rights of trans lesbians being supported over the rights of cisgender lesbians" is necessary for accuracy and clarity; likewise the addition of "cis" or "cisgender" to "lesbians who do not consider trans women..."; in sentences like these which are specifically and repeatedly discussing trans and cis lesbians, it's needlessly confusing and..POV to insist editorially that one of those groups be referred to by the unqualified term. However, the addition of it to the parenthetical MacDonald quote seems unnecessary and possibly inaccurate (would e.g. the trans woman the quote mentions at the end not have similar objections to calling trans lesbians transphobic?). 5) Regarding whether to refer to transhobic as "negative" terminology: meh, it certainly seems like just referring to "...similar terminology" avoids making a value judgement of the terms in wikivoice. How do sources (not jut those presently cited, but in general) refer to the terminology? 6) Whether "...including those who have not gotten sex reassignment surgery..." should be included or dropped seems like a question that would be answered by sources; if they frequently mention that, it seems fine for our article to mention it. No? 7) The change from "noted" to "stated" should be reinstated per WP:CLAIM; I'll just "so-fix-it" that whenever protection expires. 8) I wouldn't drop "– that's reserved for the women" from the Heuchan quote as the IP did, as it seems like part of her point/view, and it's worth including that part if we've decided her view is due. 9) The addition of "some" to "the sexual attraction debate matters so much to lesbians" would be an improvement if the statement were being made in wikivoice, but since it's accurately presented as only the view of one (1) straight woman about lesbians, meh; probably that straight woman does think all lesbians are a monolith. 10) Whether to say "Some LGBT activists", "Many prominent LGBT activists", or the wording mention above ("eight of the most prominent lesbian publications in the U.S., Canada, Australia and the U.K.") is meh, since we're (appropriately, at least in the first and third cases, whether or not in the second case) qualifying that it's not all of them (as we should also be doing in the aforementioned cases like 3+4 above); the initial wording of "some LGBT activists" seems fine and concise. 11) The addition of "cis" to the "trans women are pressuring" sentence seems unnecessary as Lyell's view, which the sentence is summarizing, seems to be that the claim of trans women pressuring lesbians is scaremongering, not that only the claim of pressuring cis lesbians is scaremongering. 12) It would be beneficial to break some of these changes up and discuss them individually so discussions of them don't become walls of text like this... -sche (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Per above, I still don't agree to the WP:Weasel wording "some." It's completely unnecessary and only serves to urge someone to add the annoying Template:Who tag. The text is speaking on what discord there is between cisgender lesbians and transgender women. It's not implying that the discord is there between all cisgender lesbians and transgender women. Similarly, when speaking on the discord between lesbians and bisexual women, sources don't state "some." It goes without saying that the sources don't mean that all lesbians and bisexual women just don't get along. As has been stated in discussions about qualifiers like "some" and "many" before, not using these qualifiers doesn't mean we mean "all." Our readers have enough common sense to understand that we don't mean "all", especially when material such as "In a 2018 open letter opposing this use, twelve editors and publishers of eight lesbian publications stated, 'We do not think supporting trans women erases our lesbian identities; rather we are enriched by trans friends and lovers, parents, children, colleagues and siblings.' " is included. Furthermore, I have yet to see any source state that this particular debate about cisgender lesbians' sexual orientation -- who they should and shouldn't be sexually attracted to -- only matters to some cisgender lesbians. And if we are going to adhere to the WP:Claim section of WP:Words to watch, we should also adhere to the WP:Weasel wording section of WP:Words to watch. I don't like use of "some" for "Some LGBT activists have opposed use of the term lesbian erasure", which might earn a Template:Which tag, either. But since the term "LGBT" is used, it's obviously not the case that this applies to all people who fall under the "L." And we can change the text to note "eight of the most prominent lesbian publications in the U.S., Canada, Australia and the U.K." or similar. I've stated that I'm okay with changing "trans women who identify as lesbians" to "transgender lesbians", but I'm not sure how Crossroads feels about that. And we can see above that Pyxis Solitary disagrees with the suggested change. I have no issue with consistent use of "cisgender." I noted above that transphobic and bigot is negative terminology. It obviously is. No one is using these terms in a positive way. And the literature overwhelmingly treats transphobia and bigotry (and the terms transphobic and bigot) as negative things. And so the sources are using them in that way as well. But I noted that I could compromise by using "or similar terminology" instead. I noted above why "including those who have not gotten sex reassignment surgery" should be retained; I stand by that. I agreed to go with "stated" instead of "noted" and was clear that I was going to make that change before the IP showed up. But it's not just some claim. "TERF" is being used broadly like that. Agreed about the Heuchan. Again, I don't think we should be assuming the authors' sexual orientations. If Ditum has stated that she's heterosexual, that's different, but it still wouldn't mean that her sexual orientation is relevant with regard to the content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm okay with changing "trans women who identify as lesbians" to "transgender lesbians" This would be a good change, yes. This sentence is especially egregious: trans women who identify as lesbians being supported over the rights of lesbians. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I largely agree with Flyer22 Reborn's reply, both the points of agreement and the criticisms, but I have some further comments. (1) The suggested compromise "eight of the most prominent lesbian publications in the U.S., Canada, Australia and the U.K." comes across as WP:Puffery and POV, and 'many LGBT activists' is POV and OR. "Some LGBT activists" is best. (2) Changing "trans women who identify as lesbians" to "transgender lesbians" is not needed. The former is clearer. (3) The phrase "trans women who identify as lesbians being supported over the rights of lesbians" is attributed to Get the L Out, and the wording had already been toned down from the source, where the spokesperson refers to trans women as "males". But, "cisgender" could be added. (4) It is not needed to add "cisgender" to "lesbians who do not consider trans women..." because the sources don't say "cisgender". (5) Changing "noted" to "stated" is good. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I would be fine with directly quoting Get the L Out's hate speech where they call trans women "males". That would be preferable to the sentence as it is now. If not the sentence should refer to cis lesbians and trans lesbians in the same way. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to underline, I think the key issue here is the language used in wikivoice versus what is quoted. Just because a source uses certain language (and in the case of the BBC source, they attribute the language to the activists, using scare quotes even), doesn't mean WP can use the same language without violating POV. So either quoting "Get the L Out" or paraphrasing in ordinary language (i.e., "trans lesbians") would be best, but not the WEASELly compromise that was in the status quo ante text. Newimpartial (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Crossroads, for (like Pyxis Solitary did above) noting that the "identify as" wording for that part came from the source, and for noting that I toned down the language others would find offensive. I don't see how stating (even with quotes) "the rights of males who 'identify as lesbians' (also called 'transwomen') being supported over the rights of lesbians" instead of "the rights of trans women who identify as lesbians being supported over the rights of lesbians" is preferable (even though, yes, "cisgender" is absent from the wording I used). And since it is Get the L Out, attributing "transgender lesbians" to them very much contrasts their viewpoint. It's not something they state or would ever state without using scare quotes or otherwise making it clear that they disagree that trans women can be lesbians. They wouldn't use the word cisgender either, but I think it's preferable to use that word than to attribute "transgender lesbians" to them, or quote them by stating "males who 'identify as lesbians' (also called 'transwomen')." So, like you noted, that text can instead state "trans women who identify as lesbians being supported over the rights of cisgender lesbians."
As for the first and only other "trans women who identify as lesbians" text, I understand what Crossroads means about it being clearer. Many laypeople are confused about sexual orientation with regard to transgender people. In the lead of the Trans man article, we currently state "most trans men identify as heterosexual (meaning they are sexually attracted to women)." The parenthetical wasn't there until an editor suggested it be added so that the text is clearer for readers. I didn't think it was needed and I still question its inclusion, but I conceded.
And going back to use of "some," I do think it's best to use "some" for the first sentence of the "In relation to butch lesbians and transgender men" section. Why that is should be obvious. I'm not always against use of "some"; I only object when it's unnecessary or plays down a matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The "identify as" wording came directly from the hate group, not from the author of the article. Neither the direct quote from Get the L out nor the "trans women who identify as lesbians" wording is good to use in wikivoice, as Newimpartial mentioned. And as is clear in the article, Get the L out is not being directly quoted - their "concerns" are just being described. Their "concerns" relate to trans lesbians and cis lesbians - but we don't have to replicate any part of the derogatory and false terminology they use when talking about trans lesbians (calling them "male," claiming trans lesbians are a separate group from lesbians as a whole, etc).
And again, "trans women who identify as lesbians" contrasted with "cisgender lesbians" carries the direct implication that trans lesbians are not as legitimate as cis lesbians, or aren't lesbians at all. This implication is false, and this is clearly established by Misplaced Pages's own definitions:
  • A trans woman is "a woman who was assigned male at birth"
  • A lesbian is "a homosexual woman."
  • Homosexuality is "romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender."
  • Following directly from the above, trans lesbians are women who are exclusively romantically and/or sexually attracted to other women.
  • Therefore, trans lesbians are lesbians.
So despite Pyxis's predictable claim, "trans lesbians" is not POV whatsoever. As an aside, it's pretty ironic that she of all people would call me an "activist editor."
As to clarity in the first sentence, the section title in big letters "In relation to transgender women" provides all clarity necessary. Due to this, "trans lesbians" can be used in the first sentence without any misunderstandings.
As for "some," "some" is listed at the very beginning at the section about trans men. There is no reason it should be there when it's not also in the transgender women section. Unless you want to try to argue that the lesbian community as a whole has a lot more "discord" with trans women than with trans men, there really should be a "some" in the first sentence of each section. But again, if all other changes are worked out, then solely for the sake of compromise I won't contest the lack of "some" in the trans women section. It should really be there, both for the sake of consistency and accuracy, but there doesn't seem to be much point in arguing back and forth about it much more.108.31.146.220 (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I toned down the language others would find offensive. What extremist anti-trans groups have to say about trans women is offensive to anyone with a heart. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not about affirming that trans women can be lesbians just as much as cis women. It's about what is clear to readers and conveying attributed POVs. As -sche noted above, ""Trans women who identify as lesbians" is more verbose than "trans lesbians", but also perhaps clearer on first mention". It is clearer. Some readers are not going to be immersed in LGBT discourse like those of us editing this article; they may not know right off what "trans lesbians" means. As for the later occurrence, it makes no sense to say "A spokesperson for Get the L Out said they were concerned about the rights of trans lesbians being supported over..." when they would never refer to "trans lesbians".
I see no need to debate this further. Everyone has explained their position and there is clearly no consensus for almost all of these changes. If this keeps going, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT will start to apply. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not about affirming that trans women can be lesbians just as much as cis women.
Sure it's about that. If the article calls cis lesbians "cis lesbians" and trans lesbians "trans women who identify as lesbians" many readers will, regardless of intent, view that as a dogwhistle and an attempt to paint trans lesbians as not-really-lesbians. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Homosexuality is "romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender." Activist wordage by activist editors on Misplaced Pages does not change the definition of homosexuality. Sex and gender are not one and the same. Excluding cases of intersex embryos, sex is what a human baby is born as -- gender is the social and cultural role imposed on the sex. The definition of "homosexuality" is same-sex attraction, same-sex desire.
Oxford Dictionary - homosexuality: "The quality or characteristic of being sexually attracted solely to people of one's own sex."
Cambridge Dictionary - homosexuality: "the quality or fact of being sexually attracted to people of the same sex as you".
Merriam-Webster Dictionary - homosexuality: "sexual attraction or the tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex : the quality or state of being homosexual".
Vocabulary.com - homosexuality: "a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex".
New England Journal of Medicine - Homosexuality: "same-sex behavior", "same-sex partners", "same-sex lover". Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

And when, Pyxis, was the last time you won an argument generated consensus on WP by citing dictionary definitions, as opposed to RS in the actual field you are discussing? And you do know that "gender critical" ideology, which seems to me the direction you're going in, is a FRINGE POV in this context? Newimpartial (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't do queer theory, and it's queer practitioners and their enablers that are the ones desperately trying to change common sense. Homosexuality is merely the noun for homosexual, and a homosexual is sexually and romantically attracted to their same sex. This is not gender identity b.s., this is science. You can say you're a human green monkey, but there are no human green monkeys except for the one you invented. Fringe POV ... that predictable cliché from you has become old and stale. Besides, what you think is irrelevant. What goes into an article is not. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Categories: