→Editorialisation: new section |
LokiTheLiar (talk | contribs) →Suissa and Sullivan: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} |
{{Skip to talk}} |
||
{{Talk header|age= 30|bot= lowercase sigmabot III|units= days|minthreadsleft= 3}} |
|||
{{talk header|search=no}} |
|||
{{Article history |
|||
{{JRowling}} |
|||
{{UK English}} |
|||
{{ArticleHistory |
|||
|action1=GAN |
|action1=GAN |
||
|action1date=11:06, 3 June 2006 |
|action1date=11:06, 3 June 2006 |
||
Line 26: | Line 24: | ||
|action4oldid=176585208 |
|action4oldid=176585208 |
||
|action5 = FAR |
|||
|action5date = 2022-04-15 |
|||
|action5link = Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 |
|||
|action5result = kept |
|||
|action5oldid = 1082873609 |
|||
|currentstatus=FA |
|||
|maindate=April 11, 2008 |
|maindate=April 11, 2008 |
||
|maindate2=June 26, 2022 |
|||
|topic=Langlit |
|topic=Langlit |
||
|otd1date=2017-07-31|otd1oldid=792890911 |
|||
|currentstatus=FA |
|||
|otd2date=2021-07-31|otd2oldid=1036292258 |
|||
|otd3date=2022-07-31|otd3oldid=1101432981 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{section sizes}} |
|||
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Writers|class=FA}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|class=FA|blp=yes|living=yes|listas=Rowling, J. K.|1= |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Biography |
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-priority=Mid |a&e-work-group=yes }} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Children's literature|importance=Top}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=Top}} |
||
{{WikiProject Women |
{{WikiProject Women}} |
||
{{WikiProject Novels|importance=high|fantasy-task-force=yes|fantasy-importance=high|harry-potter-task-force=yes|harry-potter-importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Women|class=FA}} |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Women in Business|importance=high}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Gloucestershire|importance=Top}} |
||
}} |
|||
{{WP1.0 |v0.5=pass |class=FA |category=Arts |WPCD=people}} |
|||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}} |
|||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|blp|brief}} |
|||
{{Talk:J. K. Rowling/FAQ}} |
|||
{{Press|author=Stephen Foley |date=2009-02-03 |url=http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1625816.html|title=Is Wikipedia cracking up?|org=[[Irish Independent]] |section=February 2009 |
|||
|author2 = Hava Mendelle |
|||
|title2 = JK Rowling puts Wikipedia’s neutrality to the test |
|||
|date2 = April 22, 2024 |
|||
|org2 = [[The Spectator Australia]] |
|||
|url2 = https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/04/jk-rowling-puts-wikipedias-neutrality-to-the-test/ |
|||
|lang2 = |
|||
|quote2 = |
|||
|archiveurl2 = |
|||
|archivedate2 = <!-- do not wikilink --> |
|||
|accessdate2 = April 22, 2024 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Backwards copy |
|||
| title = JK Rowling Net Worth |
|||
| year = 2023 |
|||
| author = Fehintola Ambali |
|||
| display-authors = |
|||
| url = https://gatekeepersnews.com/2023/04/16/jk-rowling-net-worth/ |
|||
| org = gatekeepersnews.com |
|||
| monthday = 16 April |
|||
| id = 1139578915 <!-- |
|||
| title2 = |
|||
| year2 = |
|||
| author2 = |
|||
| display-authors2 = |
|||
| url2 = |
|||
| org2 = |
|||
| monthday2 = |
|||
| id2 = --> |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{OnThisDay|date1=2017-07-31|oldid1=792890911}} |
|||
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Oberlin_College/GSFS_101_(Fall_2017) | assignments = [[User:Mgs1234|Mgs1234]] }} |
|||
{{press|small=yes|author=[[Stephen Foley]] |date=2009-02-03 |url=http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1625816.html|title=Is Wikipedia cracking up?|org=[[Irish Independent]] |section=February 2009}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 19 |
||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(20d) |
||
|archive = Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
__TOC__ |
|||
{{Archive box|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=30}} |
|||
== "Transgender people" section should be re-titled as "Transphobia" == |
|||
== Similar controversies == |
|||
Why are we white-washing her transphobic views? Representing overt transphobia as simply her "views on transphobic people" is reductive. It makes her views sound way more benign than they really are, violating NPOV in the process. [[Special:Contributions/98.116.173.242|98.116.173.242]] ([[User talk:98.116.173.242|talk]]) 02:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I recently edited this article to remove the line {{tq|Similar controversies have arisen with regards to her liking tweets which some considered to be transphobic}}. This line was initially supported by a PinkNews source, which I removed per [[WP:RSP]], and by articles from Vox and LGBTQ Nation, both of which can be considered reliable sources. However, neither article would appear to effectively support that sentence. The Vox source was in fact previously used to support this sentence {{tq|Media outlets stated that Rowling had expressed controversial views on transgender issues prior to this incident, with some describing her as [[transphobia|transphobic]]}} which I removed in this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=next&oldid=960424554] as it appeared to be a generalisation, not supported as per [[WP:3REFS]]. Retrospectively, this source does not adequately support the remaining sentence, as it principally covers the Forstater case, with the rest of the article being social media speculation, making it [[WP:UNDUE]] as a source for the sentence. The LGBTQ Nation source relies entirely on speculation regarding social media. I do not believe that there is enough reliable coverage to support the sentence, per [[WP:3REFS]] and that to include it based on the sources given would be [[WP:UNDUE]] for a [[WP:BLP]]. <s>I would therefore propose to revert to the edit here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=961062502].</s> [[User:Autumnking2012|AutumnKing]] ([[User talk:Autumnking2012|talk]]) 19:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: No, it shouldn't. Because it labels her, and leaves no room in a section like that for any supportive or neutral views of transgender people, and this is a [[WP:BLP]] which must maintain a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. There is no ban on representing her transphobia in a section entitled Views on Transgender people, and well-sourced content on her transphobic views are welcome in that section. The heading is fine as it stands. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 02:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Reinforcing this - [[WP:BLP]] has a very specific and strident set of guidelines about how we can refer to a person and, in order for us to just say "Rowling is a transphobe," we would need the vast preponderance of reliable sources, including, in her case, academic sources to say "Rowling is a transphobe." Otherwise we simply cannot. That's why you'll see the fiddly and fussy discussions over minutia above. There's a pretty widespread sentiment right now that the article, as it stands, is not neutral or accurate regarding how Rowling has expressed her political views surrounding the rights of trans people. And a lot of effort is going into trying to correct that within the bounds of what we can do on Wikipedia. For more, though, we must use other venues than Wikipedia. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:No it shouldn't, for reasons already explained. {{pb}} But since Rowling's comments have been made in the context of changes to laws, a more apt section heading would be something like Transgender rights. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:98.116.173.242: This is an idea riddled with bias and cannot be accepted. I agree with @[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]], this page is very left-leaning and biased. I think it needs radical changes, personally. [[User:Scientelensia|Scientelensia]] ([[User talk:Scientelensia|talk]]) 14:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I think you should probably go back and re-read what I said. Because my concern is that it is not neutral in that it under-plays the extent to which Rowling is transphobic but that we should make sure that changes happen within the appropriate boundaries of [[WP:BLP]]. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Reboot: Draft 6 (near final) == |
|||
:Thanks for discussing. It won't be hard to find additional Rowling's opinions on transgender issues, and I'll happily add them over the next couple of days. Minimising coverage of negative opinions of transgender issues and activism seems to be a particular interest of yours, but coverage of such opinions does seem to be on the increase. Note that social media such as Twitter can be used as a [[WP:TWITTER|reliable source]]. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 22:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC) --- Huh. [https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269382518362509313 Timely] [https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269389298664701952 tweets] [https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269394077176541189 tonight]. She and Gl*nner seem to do this ''a lot''! [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 22:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::: First five drafts can be reviewed at [[#Proposed text for "Transgender people" section]]; previous discussions and source dumps in [[Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 16]]. |
|||
::{{re|Bastun}} References to news coverage of the tweets and subsequent commentary will be better than linking to [[WP:PRIMARY]] tweets and snippets. Should wait before expanding on the recent controversy, though the previous Forstater controversy needs some better expansion itself. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 04:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
=== Draft 6 === |
|||
:::Oh, absolutely. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 08:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
'''NOTE!!!!''' {{highlight|I have reversed the order (draft vs. historical) compared to earlier versions because it's easier to edit with the draft first.}} [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Draft 6: 459 words |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Historical: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1202117364#Transgender_people 429 words] |
|||
|- |
|||
|| {{Main|Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights}} |
|||
:::: Clearly current events have overtaken things here, hence my strike through. From a Wikipedia perspective, Rowling's latest comments, and the subsequent coverage they have generated, should prove helpful to editors. I would suggest that editors refrain from throwing aspersions at other Wiki editors, as has been done on this talk page. My aim, as I would hope is the aim of most editing here, is to edit Wikipedia and particularly BLP's fairly, keeping balance and context in mind, and attempting to avoid personal bias/agendas. Passing judgement on others supposed motivations is neither helpful, in the spirit of collaboration or general politeness. [[User:Autumnking2012|AutumnKing]] ([[User talk:Autumnking2012|talk]]) 20:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Overview --> |
|||
:::::I stand by my comment. Your contributions speak for themselves and appear to be aimed at minimising, specifically, coverage of negative opinions of transgender issues. That is contrary to Wikipedia's policy of [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]]. You could of course prove me wrong by supporting the inclusion of coverage "the subsequent coverage they have generated", which you say above that you support. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 20:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Rowling espouses [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical]] views.{{sfn|Whited|2024|loc= p. 7. "But in June 2020, Rowling's manifesto led some people to label her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), a term first used in 2008 that has more recently evolved as 'gender critical'."}}{{sfn|Steinfeld|2020|loc= pp. 34–35. "Just ask JK Rowling and other women who have been labelled as Terfs"}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|loc= pp. 367–368. "This sparked a heated discussion within the Twitter community, one side buttressing Rowling's statements, and the other espousing her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF)"}} Since 2017,{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=160–161}} she has written frequently about [[Transgender rights movement|transgender rights]], mostly in the context of proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws that would make it easier to [[transgender|transition]] without a medical diagnosis.<ref name= Milne2020>{{cite web|first1= Amber |last1=Milne|first2 = Rachel| last2 =Savage | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn-idUSKBN23I3AI | title=Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? | publisher=[[Reuters]] | date=11 June 2020 | access-date=6 April 2021 }}</ref><ref name= Brooks2020>{{Cite news|last=Brooks|first=Libby|date=11 June 2020|title=Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? |url= http://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate|access-date=14 January 2022 |work= [[The Guardian]] }}</ref><ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie |last2= Andrew |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019|url= https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref>{{efn| |
|||
The laws and proposed changes are the UK [[Gender Recognition Act 2004]] and the Scotland [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill|Gender Recognition Reform Bill]]; related also are the UK [[Equality Act 2010]]{{sfn|Pedersen|2022|loc=Abstract}}{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}}{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} and the Scotland Gender Representation on Public Boards Act of 2018.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Watson |first1=Jeremy |title=JK Rowling donates £70k for legal challenge on defining a woman |date=18 February 2024 |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |work=[[The Times]] |access-date=5 May 2024|archive-url=https://archive.today/20240217200104/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |archive-date=17 February 2024 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref> |
|||
Twitter is far from reliable unless it comes from proven sources making use of Twitter like for example a journalist. When your information comes from multiple tweeters its incorrect. Hate to see wikipedia fall to tabloid standards over unproven allegations and virtue signaling. Hpdh4 11:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4|HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4]] ([[User talk:HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
}} She opposes gender self-recognition{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}<ref name=BacksProtest>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling backs protest over Scottish gender bill |date= 6 October 2022|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63162533 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref>{{efn| |
|||
Per [[WP:NOTEVERYTHING]], especially [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and [[WP:NOTSOAPBOX]], and keeping in mind the reasoning at [[WP:RECENTISM]], we should not include every single flash-in-the-pan piece of commentary. As of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=961670482 right now], regarding her June tweets, we have what the tweets were about, their criticism, and, for [[WP:NPOV]], the [[WP:BLP]] subject's response, all covered by [[WP:Secondary]] sources. This is more than enough coverage of this extremely recent incident. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Rowling wrote in 2020: "The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law."<ref name=RowlingReasons/> |
|||
:Agreed, we should not include every flash in the pan response. I added some criticism of Rowling's most recent anti-trans tweets yesterday, made by several notable people not directly associated with her, which were subsequently removed, and on balance, that's probably the correct decision. Keeping in mind [[WP:NOTPAPER]], [[WP:BALANCE]], [[WP:TENYEARRULE]], however, the criticism of her tweets by Daniel Radcliffe which was reported today most certainly is proper to include. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 23:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Why? Because he's Harry Potter? What about Evanna Lynch's response? Should we include it too? <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color: #00b;">Serendi</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><span style="color: #b00;">pod</span></sup>]]<span style="color: #00b;">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</span></b> 23:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::No, because he's responding via the Trevor Project after years of collaboration with them, making it pretty much their official comment, even if his name is on the open letter. Why is GLAAD okay but The Trevor Project not? [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 04:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::We don't need ''two'' advocacy groups' detailed comments. Remember, this is a flash in the pan source-wise. It should be kept brief. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 04:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::So why does her reply belong here? Just state the outline of the controversy and link to [[Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights]]. Why is her reply significant enough for the main article, but [[The Trevor Project]]'s is not? Especially if the latter got more media attention? [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 04:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Because: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=961675123&oldid=961674042] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politics_of_J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=961741476] <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 04:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::That explains quite well why we shouldn't include stuff like [[Mara Wilson]]'s brilliant reply, and also why we probably shouldn't include Rowling's reply (to your notice). But not why we shouldn't have The Trevor Project. I mean, GLAAD's response is quite clearly not news, and therefore is included. Same for the Trevor Project. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 04:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
}} and suggests that children and [[cisgender]] women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.{{sfn|Duggan|2021|p=161}} In April 2024, responding to [[Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021|Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act]], she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".<ref name=Brooks2024>{{cite news |last1=Brooks |first1=Libby |title=JK Rowling’s posts on X will not be recorded as non-crime hate incident |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/03/jk-rowling-comments-scotland-non-crime-hate-incident |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=3 April 2024 |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> |
|||
:::::::That explains nothing. :-) No valid reason for excluding Radcliffe's response on behalf of the Trevor Project has been presented. Given the inextricable links between Radcliffe and Rowling, excluding any mention of his response - especially given [https://www.google.com/search?q=radcliffe+trevor+project+rowling&rlz=1C1CHBD_enIE708IE708&sxsrf=ALeKk03wDHlJaO4kqXaiPqowmpIEQC4DwQ:1591819834719&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjEv63-hvjpAhVyWxUIHedHBUIQ_AUoAXoECAsQAw&biw=1920&bih=937 the coverage it has received] - would actually seem perverse. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 20:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I added a mention of Radcliffe's comments before seeing this conversation. Sorry, I would've discussed the issue first if I had known it was controversial. Radcliffe's and Redmayne's comments are included in more than enough RS to show they are notable. I believe it also belongs according to [[WP:NOTNEWS]] as well since this seems to be more than a routine reporting and are not overemphasized in the article. [[User:Rab V|Rab V]] ([[User talk:Rab V|talk]]) 20:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} Thinking about this more, and looking at the coverage now, if editors want to mention commentary from Radcliffe via The Trevor Project, then I suppose that makes sense. Still, I think the June 2020 material that is critical of Rowling should be kept short enough to be a single paragraph that is not unusually long, per [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and [[WP:RECENTISM]]. I also don't think we necessarily need to mention Eddie Redmayne and Evanna Lynch's responses, as they are individuals who say basically the same things as GLAAD and The Trevor Project. But my main issue is watching out for excessive length or detail. Rab V, your version of it was summarized well. But let's see what others say on including the mention of the Lynch and Redmayne comments. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 20:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks. Agree about how long it should be. I'd also say the current version is too long when discussing her blog post per [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and seems to be written with a bit of a slant. Right now it's seeming like Redmayne's comments are getting a lot of traction in RS but not Lynch so I think a brief mention of Redmayne may be due though it is similar to other comments. [[User:Rab V|Rab V]] ([[User talk:Rab V|talk]]) 21:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::My main concern is also keeping things brief. I would probably cut things down to two paragraphs, one about Rowling's views and one about the backlash. That is roughly how [https://apnews.com/6d99e691c88a5631cc8c2aa2b39ff3c1 this AP article] organizes things, focusing largely on Rowling's views in the first half then the backlash in the second. Regarding the criticism from ''Harry Potter'' actors: I think it's worth including, as long as it's kept as brief as possible. [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html Radcliffe]'s, [https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/06/evanna-lynch-jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets Lynch's], [https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/emma-watson-trans-people-are-who-they-say-they-are-j-k-rowling-gender-comments Watson's], and [https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-52975994 Redmayne]'s criticism have all gotten headline coverage. [[User:WanderingWanda|WanderingWanda]] ([[User talk:WanderingWanda|talk]]) 03:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I prefer the current ordering, which is the same as the Reuters piece. |
|||
:::Regarding Rab V's tweaks to the summary I wrote of the [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI Reuters piece]: |
|||
:::1. The bit about {{tq|some of which [criticism] had been in the form of abusive language and threats of violence}} should be mentioned. Reuters, as a news service, is a superior source to various entertainment magazines, and they saw fit to mention this. It gives context to what she goes on to say about having suffered violence, and is part of the background complexity of the situation. |
|||
:::2. It was claimed that {{tq|She expressed concern that some young women were being persuaded to escape womanhood via gender transition, noting her own struggles as a teenager.}} was {{tq|confusing and not in source}}. I don't feel too strongly about including this sentence, even though Reuters emphasizes this point, but I need to address the claim it was not in the source. Here is the supporting text: {{tq|Rowling, 54, explained in detail her research and beliefs on trans issues, and the concerns she has about how women’s rights and some young people’s lives were being impacted by some forms of trans activism....“I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition,” she wrote. “The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge.” She said that as a teenager she had struggled with severe Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and that she now believes that had she found community and sympathy online, she could have been persuaded to turn herself into the boy her father said he would have preferred.}} I'm not sure where the confusion lay, but adjustments can be made of course. |
|||
:::3. She <s>never stated</s> <u>didn't just say</u> {{tq|that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces [was] dangerous}}. Note the Reuters source carefully: {{tq|she did not want girls and women to be less safe, and she gave some examples of where she thought demands by trans people were dangerous to women. “When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to '''any and all men who wish to come inside.'''”}} (Emphasis added.) She is clearly stating that the issue goes beyond trans women - that certain criteria for access allow persons ''who are not trans women and do not '''actually''' identify as women'' to gain access ''for other reasons'' ("any and all"). We can't attribute to her a position different from the one actually held. |
|||
:::4. On {{tq|She stated that many women consider terms like "people who menstruate" to be demeaning, comparing them to degrading slurs that have been used against women.}}, the {{tq|comparing them to degrading slurs that have been used against women.}} portion was cut off. I think this should stay because so much of the recent commentary revolves around the "people who menstruate" phrase, which we already quote, we should mention why specifically she objected to it beyond vaguely calling it "demeaning". <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 07:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC) <small>correcting <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 15:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|||
<!-- History --> |
|||
::::Agree with keeping this brief, to two to three paragraphs. Expanding as necessary when there is another such controversy (the current controversy did not exist when this talk page section was started). Re Crossroads' comments, (3), her quote not only misgenders trans women but absolutely '''does''' imply that allowing trans women are dangerous. Re (4), I do know for a fact that those remarks insulted and demeaned [https://www.nme.com/news/film/harry-potter-author-jk-rowling-criticised-for-anti-trans-tweets-2683294 post-menopausal women and women and those who have had hysterectomies]. That should also be covered. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 08:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Controversy over Rowling's gender-critical messaging accelerated in 2019 when she defended [[Maya Forstater]].{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6-8}} When Forstater's employment contract with the London branch of the [[Center for Global Development]] was not renewed after she expressed gender-critical views,{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}} Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".<ref name=Stack2019/>{{efn|A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]].<ref name=Faulkner2021>{{cite news |first= Doug |last= Faulkner |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579 |title= Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= 10 June 2021 |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref><ref name=Siddique2021>{{cite news |first= Haroon |last= Siddique |date= 10 June 2021 |title= Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules|url= https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref>{{sfn|Pape|2022|p=230}} In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (''[[Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe]]'') ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.<ref>{{cite news |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules|date=6 July 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |publisher=[[BBC News]] |access-date=6 July 2022}}</ref>}} According to ''Harry Potter'' scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal".{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=6}} In June 2020,{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=6}} Rowling mocked the phrase "[[people who menstruate]]",<ref name=Gross2020>{{Cite news|last=Gross|first=Jenny|date=7 June 2020|title=Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-date=7 June 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=6 January 2022 }}</ref> and tweeted that [[women's rights]] and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=14–15}}{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}} |
|||
<!-- Reaction --> |
|||
::::I see the Radcliffe/Trevor Project material was removed again. Consensus now seems to favour inclusion. I propose including a sentence about the criticism from Radcliffe, Watson and other HP stars, including reference to the Trevor Project. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 10:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Rowling's views have impacted her reputation. As her views on the [[legal status of transgender people]] came under scrutiny,{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} she received insults and threats{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|p=69}}{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=9}} and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community.{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|p=368}} While her remarks provoked condemnation,{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}}{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230, 238}} sales of ''Harry Potter'' books grew during the [[COVID-19]] lockdown.{{sfn|Pape|2022|p=238}}<ref> {{cite news |first=Mark |last= Sweney |title= Harry Potter books prove UK lockdown hit despite JK Rowling trans rights row |work= [[The Guardian]] |date= 21 July 2020 |url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/21/jk-rowling-book-sales-unaffected-by-transgender-views-row |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> Fans turned away from her work and boycotted events, and publishers hesitated to accept her work.{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=8}} Criticism came from the ''Harry Potter'' fansites [[MuggleNet]] and [[The Leaky Cauldron (website)|The Leaky Cauldron]],{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}} and [[LGBT]] charities [[Mermaids (charity)|Mermaids]],<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref> [[Stonewall (charity)|Stonewall]],<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars | title=The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK's gender wars | work=[[New Statesman]]|first=Gaby |last=Hinsliff|date=3 November 2021 | access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref> and [[Human Rights Campaign]].<ref name= Milne2020/> [[GLAAD]] called Rowling's comments "cruel" and "inaccurate".<ref name=AP7June2020>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling's tweets on transgender people spark outrage |date= 7 June 2020 |url= https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-jk-rowling-us-news-media-7338b2b262090c00f04deafe2e6689c2 |publisher= [[Associated Press]] |access-date= 4 May 2024}}</ref> Leading actors of the [[Wizarding World]] spoke out against her stance;<ref name=Waterson2020>{{Cite news|last= Waterson |first= Jim|title= Children's news website apologises to JK Rowling over trans tweet row|url= https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day|date= 23 July 2020 |access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]] |quote= Rowling's comments on gender were condemned by LGBT charities and the leading stars of her Harry Potter film franchise.}}</ref><ref name=Lang2020>{{cite magazine |last=Lang |first=Brent |title= Eddie Redmayne criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets |date= 10 June 2020 |url= https://variety.com/2020/film/news/eddie-redmayne-jk-rowling-anti-trans-tweets-harry-potter-fantastic-beasts-1234630226/ |magazine= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date=28 March 2022 |quote= Eddie Redmayne, star of the ''Fantastic Beasts'' franchise, is speaking out against J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets, as the controversy surrounding the author and her beliefs continues to swirl.}}</ref> [[Daniel Radcliffe]], [[Emma Watson]], [[Rupert Grint]], [[Eddie Redmayne]] and others declared support for the transgender community.{{sfn|Borah|2024|p=375}}{{efn| [[Helena Bonham Carter]],<ref name=Evans2022> {{cite news |first= Greg |last= Evans |url= https://deadline.com/2022/11/helena-bonham-carter-johnny-depp-j-k-rowling-1235182523/ |title= Helena Bonham Carter says Johnny Depp 'completely vindicated' in defamation trial, and J.K. Rowling 'hounded' for transgender stance |work= [[Deadline Hollywood]] |access-date= 18 December 2022}}</ref> [[Robbie Coltrane]],<ref>{{cite news |last= Yasharoff |first= Hannah |title= How the 'Harry Potter' reunion addresses author J.K. Rowling's anti-trans controversy |date= 30 December 2021|url= https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2021/12/30/harry-potter-return-hogwarts-20th-reunion-emma-watson-jk-rowling-controversy/9042955002/ |work= [[USA Today]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> and [[Ralph Fiennes]] supported Rowling.<ref name= Hibberd2021>{{cite news |first= James |last= Hibberd |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/ralph-fiennes-defends-j-k-rowling-amid-trans-controversy-says-backlash-is-disturbing-4151944/ |title= Ralph Fiennes defends J.K. rowling amid trans controversy, says backlash is 'disturbing' |date= 17 March 2021 |access-date=26 March 2022 |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]]}}</ref>}} After [[Kerry Kennedy]] expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the [[Ripple of Hope Award]] given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.<ref name=RFKAward>{{cite news |last=Flood|first=Alison |url= https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/28/jk-rowling-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-award-trans-views|title=JK Rowling returns human rights award to group that denounces her trans views |work=[[The Guardian]]|date=28 August 2020|access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref> |
|||
:::::If there is ever another such controversy, I don't support adding another paragraph, per NOTNEWS. Since the topic is politically charged and entertainment sources cover every little thing celebrities say (both Rowling and each person reacting), we get a bunch of different flashes in the pan that say nothing new substantive. I'd say this section should max out at three reasonably sized paragraphs, one of which is about her response(s), rather than adding another paragraph in August and another in January and so on. If new incidents occur, we can make it less about specific incidents and more about comments that sources have made about the overall pattern of statements. Regarding point #3, she does do that, but it also is about men as I explained. Regarding #4, you can't know that for a fact as that is an opinion. That opinion is not of any note - it's just some random person on Twitter who never even said they were a post-menopausal woman or a woman with a hysterectomy. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 15:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Denial --> |
|||
::::::Yeah, re-working the section next time there's a controversy works too. As long as it's not "there can never be more than we have now", obviously. Looking at other biographies, when you stop being notable for your former field and are now mainly known for your new area of interest, that latter topic will be covered in increasing depth. That's only proper, per [[WP:DUE]]. Re 4, I can't know what for a fact? NME covered one tweet out of dozens or more that replied in exactly the same fashion to Rowling's tirade - many, ''many'' cancer survivors, menopausal women, etc., responded. It's not hard to find those tweets. I suspect you're aware of them, though, and your removal of that response was disingenuous. Reuters is not the gold standard as sources go, and NME is a perfectly valid source, by the way. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 17:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Rowling rejects these characterisations and denies being transphobic.<ref name=RowlingReasons>{{cite web|title=J.K. Rowling writes about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues |url=https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |publisher=JK Rowling |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=10 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200610182056/https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |archive-date=10 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name= Dismisses>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling dismisses backlash over trans comments: 'I don't care about my legacy' |date= 22 February 2023|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64729304 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – that left trans people feeling betrayed{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}} – Rowling said her views on women's rights arose from her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and [[sexual assault]].{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=160–161)}}<ref name=Shirbon2020>{{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.<ref name= Shirbon2020/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gonzalez |first1=Sandra |title=J.K. Rowling explains her gender identity views in essay amid backlash |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/10/entertainment/jk-rowling/index.html |access-date=16 September 2023 |publisher=[[CNN]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Garrand |first1=Danielle |title=J.K. Rowling defends herself after accusations of making 'anti-trans' comments on Twitter |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/j-k-rowling-defends-anti-trans-comments-twitter/ |access-date=16 September 2023 |publisher=[[CBS News]] |date=11 June 2020}}</ref> Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6, 8–9}} |
|||
:::::::Responding to the comments Crossrads made about my edits: They are mainly done since the paragraph was overlong considering NOTNEWS. (1) The phrase from the source "At times, the criticism has taken the form of abusive language and threats of violence" is incredibly vauge. What is abusive language, when was it used, who is saying it, was this why she wrote the essay? Later in the source it goes on to describe her being compared to Voldemort as abuse. Also Reuters is not a superior source necessarily, we have to decide which parts of this story are featured prominently across RS in general to figure out what is appropriate to share and what isn't [[WP:DUE]]. (2) The source talks about her worry about how trans activism imapcts her life and whether she might've transitioned. It doesn't explicitly state young people now are transitioning now who shouldn't. The phrase "escaping womanhood" is an unusual and confusing wording for transition to male and calling people who transition to male "women" goes against wikipedia policy. (3) 'A man who believes or feels he is a woman' is a charged way to refer to a trans woman. I don't think the article or the preponderance of RS support that she isn't talking about fears around trans women. (4) Sentence was overlong for NOTNEWS, not sure the removed material signigicantly to readers' understanding of Rowling's position. [[User:Rab V|Rab V]] ([[User talk:Rab V|talk]]) 18:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
|| {{Main|Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights}} |
|||
{{od}}X-posted from [[Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling]] and directed at Crossroads: "Let's see what develops" apparently means just cutting out the material. This article is specifically about Rowling's politics, but you're just cutting the addition, because 'notnews'? It's ''literally'' news. [https://www.google.com/search?q=rowling+transphobe&rlz=1C1CHBD_enIE708IE708&sxsrf=ALeKk00XhZDJYN9FRTw_SvnqoSfS9KXcGQ:1592092343291&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjV3siU_v_pAhXuTxUIHSJ9BPwQ_AUoAXoECAwQAw&biw=1920&bih=888 1.6 million ghits right now]. [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] is '''not''' a reason for excision or excluding very relevant, referenced material content. You need to seriously address your POV issues. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 23:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws,<ref name= Milne2020>{{cite web|first1= Amber |last1=Milne|first2 = Rachel| last2 =Savage | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn-idUSKBN23I3AI | title=Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? | publisher=[[Reuters]] | date=11 June 2020 | access-date=6 April 2021 }}</ref><ref name= Brooks2020>{{Cite news|last=Brooks|first=Libby|date=11 June 2020|title=Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? |url= http://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate|access-date=14 January 2022 |work= [[The Guardian]] }}</ref>{{efn|The UK laws and proposed changes are the [[Gender Recognition Act 2004]], the [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill]] and the related [[Equality Act 2010]].{{sfn|Pedersen|2022|loc=Abstract}}{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}}{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} }} and her views on [[sexual identity|sex]] and [[gender identity|gender]], have provoked controversy.{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} Her statements have divided [[Feminist views on transgender topics|feminists]];<ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie | last2= Andrew|title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019 |access-date= 29 March 2022 | url= https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html}}</ref><ref name=BBC2020JKRResponds>{{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times | title=Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in 'anti-intellectual times'|first=Alona |last=Ferber | work=[[New Statesman]] | date=22 September 2020 | access-date=26 March 2021}}</ref> fuelled<!-- This article uses British spelling --> debates on [[freedom of speech]],{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230}}<ref>{{cite web|title=BBC nominates J.K.Rowling's controversial essay of trans rights for award|url=https://www.dw.com/en/bbc-nominates-jk-rowlings-controversial-essay-on-trans-rights-for-award/a-56014673|website=[[DW News]]|date=22 December 2020|access-date=22 December 2020}}</ref> [[academic freedom]]{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} and [[cancel culture]];{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}} and prompted declarations of [[Transgender rights movement|support for transgender people]] from the literary,<ref>UK, US, Canada, Ireland: {{cite news |last= Flood |first= Alison |date=9 October 2020|title= Stephen King, Margaret Atwood and Roxane Gay champion trans rights in open letter|url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/oct/09/stephen-king-margaret-atwood-roxane-gay-champion-trans-rights-open-letter-jk-rowling |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> arts<ref>{{cite magazine|last= Rowley |first= Glenn |title= Artists fire back at J.K. Rowling's anti-trans remarks, share messages in support of the community|url= https://www.billboard.com/culture/pride/artists-fire-back-jk-rowling-anti-trans-remarks-9400386/|magazine= [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 7 April 2022}}</ref> and culture sectors.<ref>Culture sector: |
|||
:Your reply there was to a days-old comment. I stopped objecting to an addition about Radcliffe and the Trevor Project. Other editors, though, also have a say. You need to actually read [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. Once you do, you'll see that "It's literally news" is a very poor argument for inclusion. Don't forget [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]'s twin, [[WP:ILIKEIT]]. And you are hereby warned to stop attacking me. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." - [[WP:NPA]]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 04:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* [[Universal Destinations & Experiences]], [[Warner Bros.]] and [[Scholastic Corporation]]: {{cite news |last1= Siegel |first1= Tatiana |last2= Abramovitch |first2= Seth |date= 10 June 2020 |title= Universal Parks responds to J.K. Rowling tweets: 'Our core values include diversity, inclusion and respect' |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]] |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/universal-parks-responds-jk-rowling-tweets-core-values-include-diversity-inclusion-respect-1297845/ |access-date= 3 April 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment]] president: {{cite news |last= Skrebels |first= Joe |title= WB Interactive president responds to ongoing debate over supporting JK Rowling |date=1 October 2020 |url= https://www.ign.com/articles/wb-interactive-president-responds-to-ongoing-debate-over-supporting-jk-rowling |publisher= [[IGN]] |access-date= 2 April 2022|ref=none}}</ref> |
|||
When [[Maya Forstater]]'s employment contract with the London branch of the [[Center for Global Development]] was not renewed after she tweeted [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical views]],{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}}<ref name=Stack2019>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|title=J.K. Rowling criticized after tweeting support for anti-transgender researcher|last=Stack|first=Liam|date=19 December 2019|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=13 June 2020| url-access=registration|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200613012737/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|archive-date=13 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that [[transgender]] people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".<ref name=Stack2019/>{{efn|A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]].<ref name=Faulkner2021>{{cite news |first= Doug |last= Faulkner |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579 |title= Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= 10 June 2021 |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref><ref name=Siddique2021>{{cite news |first= Haroon |last= Siddique |date= 10 June 2021 |title= Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules|url= https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref> In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (''[[Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe]]'') ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.<ref>{{cite news |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules|date=6 July 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |publisher=[[BBC News]] |access-date=6 July 2022}}</ref>}} In another controversial tweet in June 2020,<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref> Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "[[people who menstruate]]",<ref name=Gross2020>{{Cite news|last=Gross|first=Jenny|date=7 June 2020|title=Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-date=7 June 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=6 January 2022 }}</ref> and tweeted that [[women's rights]] and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15}}<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|title=J.K. Rowling gets backlash over anti-trans tweets|last=Moreau|first=Jordan|magazine=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|date=6 June 2020|access-date=13 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607005447/https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|archive-date=7 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> |
|||
::Can I ask, what's your obsession with Reuters? It's no more or less reliable than any other reliable source, such as ''Variety'', ''Entertainment Weekly'', or ''The Guardian''. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 15:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::See [[WP:RSP]]. Obviously, outlets that are mainstream journalism are more reliable than entertainment magazines. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 16:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
[[LGBT]] charities and leading actors of the [[Wizarding World]] franchise condemned Rowling's comments;<ref name=Waterson2020>{{Cite news|last= Waterson |first= Jim|title= Children's news website apologises to JK Rowling over trans tweet row|url= https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day|date= 23 July 2020 |access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]] |quote= Rowling's comments on gender were condemned by LGBT charities and the leading stars of her Harry Potter film franchise.}}</ref><ref name=Lang2020>{{cite magazine |last=Lang |first=Brent |title= Eddie Redmayne criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets |date= 10 June 2020 |url= https://variety.com/2020/film/news/eddie-redmayne-jk-rowling-anti-trans-tweets-harry-potter-fantastic-beasts-1234630226/ |magazine= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date=28 March 2022 |quote= Eddie Redmayne, star of the ''Fantastic Beasts'' franchise, is speaking out against J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets, as the controversy surrounding the author and her beliefs continues to swirl.}}</ref>{{efn| [[Daniel Radcliffe]], [[Emma Watson]], [[Rupert Grint]],<ref name= Hibberd2021/> [[Eddie Redmayne]]<ref name=Lang2020/> and others expressed support for the transgender community in reaction to Rowling's comments;<ref>{{cite magazine |first= Maureen |last= Lenker|title= Every Harry Potter actor who's spoken out against J.K. Rowling's controversial trans comments |date= 10 June 2020 |access-date= 1 April 2022 |magazine= [[Entertainment Weekly]]|url=https://ew.com/movies/every-harry-potter-actor-whos-spoken-out-against-j-k-rowlings-controversial-transgender-comments/ }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |first= Maggie |last= Baska|title= Stephen Fry defends 'friendship' with JK Rowling: 'I'm sorry that people are upset' |date= 20 May 2021 |url= https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/05/20/stephen-fry-jk-rowling-friend-harry-potter-jordan-b-peterson-podcast-trans/ |publisher= [[PinkNews]] |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> [[Helena Bonham Carter]],<ref name=Evans2022> {{cite news |first= Greg |last= Evans |url= https://deadline.com/2022/11/helena-bonham-carter-johnny-depp-j-k-rowling-1235182523/ |title= Helena Bonham Carter says Johnny Depp 'completely vindicated' in defamation trial, and J.K. Rowling 'hounded' for transgender stance |work= [[Deadline Hollywood]] |access-date= 18 December 2022}}</ref> [[Robbie Coltrane]],<ref>{{cite news |last= Yasharoff |first= Hannah |title= How the 'Harry Potter' reunion addresses author J.K. Rowling's anti-trans controversy |date= 30 December 2021|url= https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2021/12/30/harry-potter-return-hogwarts-20th-reunion-emma-watson-jk-rowling-controversy/9042955002/ |work= [[USA Today]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> and [[Ralph Fiennes]] supported Rowling.<ref name= Hibberd2021>{{cite news |first= James |last= Hibberd |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/ralph-fiennes-defends-j-k-rowling-amid-trans-controversy-says-backlash-is-disturbing-4151944/ |title= Ralph Fiennes defends J.K. rowling amid trans controversy, says backlash is 'disturbing' |date= 17 March 2021 |access-date=26 March 2022 |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]]}}</ref>}} [[GLAAD]] called them "cruel" and "inaccurate".<ref name= Yasharoff2020> {{cite news |last= Yasharoff |first=Hannah|url= https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/06/07/j-k-rowling-harry-potter-author-slammed-transphobic-comments/3169833001/ |title= J.K. Rowling reveals she's a sexual assault survivor; Emma Watson reacts to trans comments |work= [[USA Today]] |date= 10 June 2020 |access-date= 27 March 2022}}</ref> Rowling responded with an essay on her website<ref name=RowlingReasons>{{cite web|title=J.K. Rowling writes about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues |url=https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |publisher=JK Rowling |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=10 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200610182056/https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |archive-date=10 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> in which she revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and [[sexual assault]].<ref name=Shirbon2020>{{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she believed that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.<ref name= Shirbon2020/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gonzalez |first1=Sandra |title=J.K. Rowling explains her gender identity views in essay amid backlash |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/10/entertainment/jk-rowling/index.html |access-date=16 September 2023 |work=[[CNN]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Garrand |first1=Danielle |title= J.K. Rowling defends herself after accusations of making "anti-trans" comments on Twitter |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/j-k-rowling-defends-anti-trans-comments-twitter/ |access-date=16 September 2023 |work=[[CBS News]] |date=11 June 2020}}</ref> Writing of her own experiences with [[sexism]] and [[misogyny]],<ref>{{cite news |first= Sian |last= Cain |date= 11 June 2020 |title= JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault |url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/10/jk-rowling-says-survivor-of-domestic-abuse-sexual-assault |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to [[Gender transitioning|transition]] if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class".<ref name=DAlessandro2020>{{cite news |last=D'Alessandro |first=Anthony |title=J.K. Rowling defends trans statements in lengthy essay, reveals she's a sexual assault survivor & says 'trans people need and deserve protection' |url=https://deadline.com/2020/06/j-k-rowling-defends-trans-statements-essay-1202955524/ |access-date=5 January 2022 |work=[[Deadline Hollywood]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref> |
|||
::::I'm very aware of [[WP:RSP]]. It quite often makes subtle distinctions for specific outlets, but y'know what? It's perfectly valid to use sources other than Reuters, especially when they're listed on [[WP:RSP]] as reliable. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 16:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{Reply to|Abbyjjjj96}} the reasoning behind giving weight to Radcliffe's response is overlayed here. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 06:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Rowling's continual statements – beginning in 2017{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}}<ref name= Jacobs2023>{{cite news |last= Jacobs |first= Julia |title= Hogwarts legacy can't cast aside debate over J. K. Rowling |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/09/arts/hogwarts-legacy-jk-rowling.html |date= 9 February 2023 |work = [[The New York Times]] |access-date= 14 July 2023}}</ref><ref name= Spangler2023>{{cite news |last= Spangler|first= Todd |title= J.K. Rowling addresses backlash to her anti-trans comments in new podcast: 'I never set out to upset anyone' |url= https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/jk-rowling-anti-trans-comments-podcast-witch-trials-1235522301/ |date= 14 February 2023|work= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date= 14 July 2023}}</ref> – have been called transphobic by critics<ref name= Breznican2023>{{cite news |last= Breznican |first= Anthony |title= J.K. Rowling will oversee a new streaming ''Harry Potter'' series |url= https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/04/jk-rowling-harry-potter-series|date= 12 April 2023 |work= [[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]] |access-date= 14 July 2023}}</ref><ref name=Rosenblatt2020>{{Cite web|last = Rosenblatt| first =Kalhan |title=J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto' |url= https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351|date= 10 June 2020 |access-date=19 January 2022|publisher=[[NBC News]] }}</ref> and she has been referred to as a [[TERF (acronym)|TERF]].<ref name= Rosenblatt2020/>{{sfn|Steinfeld|2020|pp=34–35}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–368}} She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.<ref name=RowlingReasons/><ref name= Breznican2023/><ref name= Spangler2023/> Criticism of Rowling's views has come from the ''Harry Potter'' fansites [[MuggleNet]] and [[The Leaky Cauldron (website)|The Leaky Cauldron]];<ref name=FanSites>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/03/harry-potter-fan-sites-distance-themselves-from-jk-rowling-over-transgender-rights|title=Harry Potter fan sites distance themselves from JK Rowling over transgender rights|publisher=[[Reuters]]|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=3 July 2020|access-date=3 July 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200703011204/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/03/harry-potter-fan-sites-distance-themselves-from-jk-rowling-over-transgender-rights|archive-date=3 July 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> and the charities [[Mermaids (charity)|Mermaids]],<ref name=Petter2020/> [[Stonewall (charity)|Stonewall]],<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars | title=The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK's gender wars | work=[[New Statesman]]|first=Gaby |last=Hinsliff|date=3 November 2021 | access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref> and [[Human Rights Campaign]].<ref>{{cite news |first= Elise |last= Brisco |title=Dave Chappelle says he's 'Team TERF,' defends J.K. Rowling in new Netflix comedy special|url= https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/10/05/dave-chappelle-terf-defends-j-k-rowling-netflix-special/6002017001/ |work= [[USA Today]] |date= 8 October 2021|access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> After [[Kerry Kennedy]] expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the [[Ripple of Hope Award]] given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.<ref name=RFKAward>{{cite news |last=Flood|first=Alison |url= https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/28/jk-rowling-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-award-trans-views|title=JK Rowling returns human rights award to group that denounces her trans views |work=[[The Guardian]]|date=28 August 2020|access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref> |
|||
:Rowling's lack of enthusiasm for the English language bending in until-recently-strange ways, and making it clear that having lived as a woman in the entire biological sense has shaped who she is and what she does, while also repeatedly making it very clear she's supportive of trans rights and was way ahead of the curve on that – this is not "transphobic". Even some trans activists are saying it is not and that labeling her that way will hurt their own cause. It's just extremist noise and is not encyclopedic material. Every time someone somewhere gets mad at some tweet, we do not need to write about it in the encyclopedia. This is not EmpheralMessagesAndEmotionsPedia.<p>Activism organizations and publication may be reliable sources for certain things, but they are absolutely not for their activistic messages and labeling; that is pure [[WP:PSTS|primar-source]] material, by definition. That ''Variety'' published everything I just summarized, yet still put "transphobic" in their headline, unqualified, as if this were a world-wide consensus instead of a minority and extreme and self-defeatist opinion, simply means that the magazine needs a better editor. Entertainment magazines (which is most of the sources for this stuff) are not reliable sources for socio-political matters, anyway; they're reliable for things like whether so-and-so celebrity got divorced from thus-and-such other celebrity, and for what whatshername was seen wearing at her movie premiere last week, and how unhappy whatshisname says he is with his album being a flop because the pandemic killed his promo tour. As for the spousal-abuse thing, there has been a little bit of press about this, but it's more using her as an example, not making an example of her, as it were. The incident is not central to Rowling as a public figure, as an encyclopedia subject; rather, people are using her celebrity to draw attention to the overall social problem of domestic violence. It's not our job to dwell on the old private-life matters of bio subjects (especially living ones), even if some other publishers are doing so. If we mention this at all, it should be in-context, in the material about her marriage and divorce; not in some "controversies" section that is getting more and more like a drama-mongering trivia section.<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 07:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)</p> |
|||
As Rowling's views on the [[legal status of transgender people]] came under scrutiny,{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} she received insults and death threats{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|p=69}}{{sfn|Qiao|2022|p=1323}} and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community.{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|p=368}} Some performers and feminists have supported her.{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|p=368}}<ref> Supporting Rowling: |
|||
:: Rowling claimed trans people are trying to erase the concept of biological sex, which is false and a TERf dogwhistle. She claimed trans women are a threat to cis (or as she said in another TERf dogwhistle, natal) women, which is super transphobic. She claimed most trans men are just confused girls, which is both wrong and transphobic. She claimed trans people are trying to "convert" gay men into trans women, which is again wrong and transphobic. When I read the essay I counted at least 8 falsehoods and 19 direct quotations of TERf rhetoric, and similar breakdowns by medical and psychological professionals found even more. If Rowling decided to stop working on her book to write this 3600 word transphobic manifesto, I believe it's only just that we include a single sentence about how she was criticised for that. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 07:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* [[Ayaan Hirsi Ali]]: {{cite news |first=Katie |last=Law |date= 15 October 2020|title= JK Rowling and the bitter battle of the book world |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/books/trans-battle-book-world-jk-rowling-a4571221.html |work= [[Evening Standard]] |access-date=27 March 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Allison Bailey]]: {{cite news |url= https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/maya-forstater-transgender-twitter-jk-rowling-b1838151.html |title= Maya Forstater: who is woman in employment tribunal over transgender comments? |first= Sam |last= Hancock |date= 27 April 2021 |work= [[The Independent]] |access-date= 27 March 2022|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210427131430/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/maya-forstater-transgender-twitter-jk-rowling-b1838151.html |archive-date= 27 April 2021 |quote= criminal defence barrister Allison Bailey – known for launching legal action against LGBT+ rights charity Stonewall over its attempt to have her investigated for setting up the anti-trans rights group LGB Alliance – has also been a vocal supporter of Ms Forstater.|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Julie Bindel]]: {{cite news |last1=Thorpe |first1=Vanessa |title=JK Rowling: from magic to the heart of a Twitter storm |url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=14 June 2020 |quote=Arrayed on Rowling's side are some of the veteran voices of feminism, including the radical Julie Bindel, who spoke out in support this weekend |access-date=6 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200704200412/https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm |archive-date=4 July 2020 |url-status=live|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Dave Chappelle]]: {{Cite news |first= Maya |last=Yang|date=7 October 2021|title='I'm team Terf': Dave Chappelle under fire over pro-JK Rowling trans stance|url=https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2021/oct/07/dave-chappelle-transgender-netflix-special-backlash|access-date=27 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]]|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Dana International]]: {{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Eddie Izzard]]: {{cite news |title='I don't think JK Rowling is transphobic,' says gender-fluid comedian Eddie Izzard |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dont-think-jk-rowling-transphobic-says-gender-fluid-comedian/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dont-think-jk-rowling-transphobic-says-gender-fluid-comedian/ |archive-date=10 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |access-date=27 November 2021 |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|date=1 January 2021|ref=none}}{{cbignore}} |
|||
* [[Kathleen Stock]], [[Alison Moyet]]: {{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".<ref name= Flockhart2020>{{cite news |last= Flockhart |first= Gary |date= 28 September 2020 |access-date= 2 April 2022 |work = [[The Scotsman]] |title= JK Rowling receives support from Ian McEwan and Frances Barber amid 'transphobia' row|url= https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/jk-rowling-receives-support-from-ian-mcewan-and-frances-barber-amid-transphobia-row-2986268|ref=none}}</ref> |
|||
|} |
|||
:::Speaking of falsehoods... [[User:Abbyjjjj96|Abbyjjjj96]] ([[User talk:Abbyjjjj96|talk]]) 19:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot|Sources}} |
|||
== Jacobs / Sun paragraph == |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
{{notelist-talk}} |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
=== Discussion of draft 6 === |
|||
The paragraph about the ''Sun'' publishing, and being reprimanded for publishing, her husband saying her slapped her ... is currently in the "Views"→"Transgender issues" section, but does not ever mention or relate itself to transgender issues. So, it seems like it should be moved. Perhaps the sentence which says "Biographers have suggested that Rowling suffered domestic abuse during her marriage," which was recently expanded with "which was later confirmed by Rowling herself", should be further expanded with "...and by her first husband" + whatever additional details are actually DUE ''here'' (and we might want to discuss whether someone who is not the article subject reprimandng a paper for publishing something by someone else who is not the article subject is DUE ''here'' as opposed to in the article on e.g. the newspaper which was reprimanded). [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 20:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
My intent was to work in everything mentioned under Draft 5, recognizing that the first sentence may still be a sticking point. My apologies if I missed anything (it's been quite a chore to keep up with this talk page :). {{pb}} Going forward, could people please remember that we are now at a state which is approaching final and would like others to weigh in, so please try to keep your feedback chronological, brief, and within a separate fourth-level heading when starting a new issue. All that said, I think great progress has been made, in a collegial and collaborative environment!! [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree on moving the Sun paragraph. [[User:Rab V|Rab V]] ([[User talk:Rab V|talk]]) 20:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: |
:Sandy, for consistency with the previous drafts, I think these need to be flipped with the new one on the right and the historical on the left. Unless I'm missing something? [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 20:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
::I left a note about that at the top of [[#Draft 6]]; when editing to make changes, it's easier if the version being edited is first. I often had to start over, as I entered changes in the old version when trying to change the draft, so having the draft first is easier. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sorry, I shouldn't have peeked while multi-tasking. Sorry for clogging up the page. Will get back to it later when I can focus. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 22:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==== First sentence: feedback needed ==== |
|||
:OK, I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&type=revision&diff=962231946&oldid=962224050 moved] the paragraph up, into the part of the article that talks about the marriage and about the domestic abuse. For now, I left in the sentence about Jacobs reprimanding the ''Sun'', although it's kind of ... straying off of the topic of this article? (But I don't feel strongly enough to remove it. Another idea for consideration is to make it a {{tl|efn}}, though.) [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*This is a substantial improvement. I'd delete "espoused" without replacement, and I'd simplify "Beginning in" to "Since", and then I'm happyish with it.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 00:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Implemented [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1222449061 beginning in --> since.]. {{pb}} On the opening sentence, now that the rest of the para gives more context (the laws and the self-identification without diagnosis), I would probably be OK with that as well, but I'll wait to hear from others before implementing that change in the draft. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::It reads okay without "espoused". If we keep it, suggest converting to present tense - "espouses". Lets see what others say. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 13:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::I prefer the version without "espoused", and I agree if we do keep it, it should at least be present tense. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 14:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Changed to present tense. On the rest, my concern is that we cite three scholarly sources who quite carefully do ''not'' label her as such, rather state that ''some'' do. Wikipedia does not lead; it follows sources. I'd feel much better about flat out labeling her if we had three scholarly sources which did that. (I've included the exact quotes from the sources; the reasons we can't label her flat out are already covered in the section just above this one, [[#"Transgender people" section should be re-titled as "Transphobia"]]. And the section name should be "Transgender rights".) [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::: Followup from [[WP:BLP]]: {{tq|"Material about living persons added to {{em|any}} Wikipedia page '''must be written with the greatest care and attention''' to [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]], [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrality]], and [[Wikipedia:No original research|avoidance of original research]]."}} {{pb}} In the interest of moving forward, I have attempted to find a compromise ("espouses views") for this area of disagreement. I have always been willing to install content developed by consensus on talk to the article even when I disagree with that content; I can't do that in this case, as without sources, I believe the proposed changes to the first sentence breach BLP. We can't label Rowling "gender-critical" in the absence of high-quality sources that do so. The sources we have so far do not do that. {{pb}} Our options at this point are: 1) find scholarly sources labeling her outright, 2) wait for more feedback, 3) someone besides me installs the draft should consensus form to add what I believe to be a BLP breach, or 4) run an RFC (do we install before the RFC, or wait a full month to get something installed, or find an interim compromise?). [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::It's really important to be fully immersed in the sources to understand the nuances, and I'm not convinced an RFC would be helpful at this point. I'm fine with "espouses" because that's really the best that can be done with the sources. I'm wondering whether the sources support that she's outspoken? If so, can we simply say something along the lines that "Rowling has been vocal about her gender-critical beliefs". Sorry, I'm not feeling well today, so this is just brainstorming and an imperfectly framed idea and I don't have sources open to check, so feel free to ignore. P.s - thanks Sandy for the work on the talkpage - I got caught in a number of edit conflicts earlier. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 18:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::After walking away for a bit of perspective & then re-reading this evening, "espouses" seems fine to me. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 23:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Scholarly sources are written for scholars, so there are things they don't say. |
|||
:The sun is quite large and rather hot. But you won't find a paper in an astronomical journal that says so. The paper might give specifics of the sun's temperature at various depths, its diameter, its mass, its density or its circumference. But if you need to explain in a Wikipedia article that the sun is big and hot, scholarly sources are no good at all. Because the astronomy professors are writing for an audience that knows about stars, there are things they don't have to say and they don't waste words on. |
|||
:Therefore you need a source that says the sun is big and hot, you have to go to a non-academic source. |
|||
:But, Sandy, I want to ask you to stop and think here. If, as it seems, you can genuinely read the sources on Rowling and not think she has gender-critical views, then really, how objective are you about this?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 00:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with you that we shouldn't require scholarly sources specifically if we have good quality [[WP:NEWSORG]] ones. But I do sympathize somewhat with Sandy here: this is a featured article on a BLP and we do need to make sure we can clearly source everything we say about her. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 02:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Re S Marshall, the "sun is hot" analogy doesn't apply to this situation for two reasons. |
|||
::# We have three high-quality sources (that multiple editors seem to agree are good scholarly sources) that quite specifically are ''not silent'' on the topic, as an astronomy professor may be on whether the sun is hot. The academics we have so far ''do'' address the matter by specifically ''not'' saying that JKR is a TERF, rather they clearly state that some say she is, while others disagree. Silence on the "sun is hot" is not the situation here. |
|||
::# Since the sun is not a [[WP:BLP|living person]], Wikipedia doesn't have a Wikipedia policy to make sure we don't defame it. |
|||
::We can't use lower quality sources to refute good academic sources that we have on this matter, and Wikipedia can't be the first to say something that high quality sources, when specifically addressing the matter, have not said as far as we know. {{pb}} Re your final question, perhaps you would stop and think about whether you want to be the first editor in several years to personalize a discussion on this, or the FAR, talk page? What any of us ''thinks'' is irrelevant; our content is guided by policy and sources. If there really are no scholarly sources or academics willing to label JKR a TERF, then we should be moving forward on an alternate way to frame the first sentence; compromise should not be hard, considering there are many ways to frame the sentence. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::All right then. |
|||
:::We need one phrase that encapsulates J. K. Rowling's views on sex and gender. In draft 6, we've already decided and agreed that she: |
|||
:::# Opposes gender self-recognition; |
|||
:::# Accuses trans women of being men; |
|||
:::# Believes sex is real, or at least, warns of dire consequences of thinking sex isn't real; and |
|||
:::# Denies being transphobic. |
|||
:::These are of course the precise views we cover in [[Gender-critical feminism]], with a long string of academic references for the definition. But also at issue here is the law, and there's also a legal definition of what gender-critical views are, from the judgment in [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf Maya Forstater -v- CGD Europe & ors]. They include: ''The belief that sex is immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity...'' [which are] ''...absolutist in nature and whereby...'' [Forstater would] ''...refer to a person by the sex she considers appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment.'' According to the Tribunal, this is the element of gender-critical views that amounts to a protected philosophical belief. It's even more simply encapsulated (at page 3) as: ''the Claimant’s belief as to the immutability of sex''. (This is the Law of England and Wales. Unfortunately for 13tez, Maya Forstater's case isn't about Scots Law.) |
|||
:::Therefore, J. K. Rowling's views on sex and gender meet both the academic and legal tests for what a gender-critical belief is. QED. |
|||
:::The objection is that a sufficiently academic source doesn't say so. Wikipedia does have a problem with this. We use hedges like: "[Donald] Trump's political positions are viewed by some as right-wing populist" (from [[Political positions of Donald Trump]]), because to say Donald Trump is a right wing populist in wikivoice would be sooo controversial.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 08:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I feel it should be pointed out that this section "[Forstater would] ''...refer to a person by the sex she considers appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment.''" is the Appeal Tribunal quoting the first instance judgement, and was an interpretation disputed in that appeal. The Appeal judgement found that "''On a proper reading of the Judgment, the Tribunal was stating that the Claimant would not use preferred pronouns whenever she considered it appropriate not to do so. That must mean that she would not use them where she considered it to be relevant. If that is correct, then the description “absolutist” would appear to be something of a misnomer as her position was more nuanced and context dependent''." Absolutism and an automatic rejection of preferred pronouns are not therefore part of the legal definition of the protected gender-critical belief in the UK. [[User:Daff22|Daff22]] ([[User talk:Daff22|talk]]) 11:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==== Unnecessary attribution ? ==== |
|||
:: Hi all. I added the bit about Jacobs and believe it should stay as context pivotal to a full understanding of the outcry against The Sun. Without that statement from Jacobs, it's not in itself clear why The Sun's publishing choices have been formally found to be reprehensible (the quote from the ex-husband is not enough... "he slapped her and he's not sorry" does not in itself adequately convey that his actions are domestic violence and therefore criminal). Thoughts welcome. [[User:Zedembee|Zedembee]] ([[User talk:Zedembee|talk]]) 01:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Re {{tq2|In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – that Tolonda Henderson[35] and Whited state left trans people feeling betrayed[12] – Rowling said her views ... }} Could we drop the attribution, and make this just: {{tq2|In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – that left trans people feeling betrayed[12][35] – Rowling said her views .... }} My impression is that this is a widely supported statement, so that the attribution is creating a false impression, not needed, and only clunking up the sentence. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Imv: Yes, drop it.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree we can drop the attribution there. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 18:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== "who lost her employment tribunal against (x)" === |
|||
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1222643520 Done], [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==== Thoughts from Scientelensia==== |
|||
:: {{re|-sche}} to answer your question in Contrib comments... "tribunal" (no need to follow with "case") is correct in British English. ''Her loss in the tribunal inspired Ms. Doe to advocate for better protections for pregnant women.'' [[User:Zedembee|Zedembee]] ([[User talk:Zedembee|talk]]) 15:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Regarding this part: “In April 2024, responding to Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act, she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".” |
|||
* Could it be changed to this (or a shorter version of it)? “After the [[Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021]] had come into force in April 2024, Rowling, who resides in Edinburgh, took to [[X (social network)|X]] to criticise the bill, stating that "freedom of speech and belief" was at an end if accurate description of biological sex was outlawed. She further posted a list of transgender women, and wrote that they were "men, every last one of them".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://deadline.com/2024/04/jk-rowling-scotland-hate-crime-law-1235872981/|title=J.K. Rowling Mocks Trans Women To Defy Scotland's New Hate Crime Law: "I Look Forward To Being Arrested"|website=deadline.com|access-date=3 April 2024|archive-date=1 April 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240401190451/https://deadline.com/2024/04/jk-rowling-scotland-hate-crime-law-1235872981/|url-status=live}}</ref> Rowling also said: "Scottish lawmakers seem to have placed higher value on the feelings of men performing their idea of femaleness, however misogynistically or opportunistically, than on the rights and freedoms of actual women and girls."<ref>{{cite web |title= JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime law |url= https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51j64lk2l8o |website=BBC News |access-date=8 April 2024 |date=1 April 2024}}</ref>” |
|||
My main criticsm of this draft (though it is much better than before) is that: |
|||
* The actors who didn’t support Rowling are in the main text, the others are merely a note. I understand the difference between main and supporting actors, but it does seem that those who oppose Rowling are being given more prominence. Intentions could be misconstrued. As for scholarly sources (which Sandy Georgia wanted; these are surely adequate I hope):<ref name=FiennesSupport>{{cite web|title= Ralph Fiennes: Verbal abuse directed at JK Rowling is disgusting and appalling |url= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/24/ralph-fiennes-verbal-abuse-directed-jk-rowling-disgusting-appalling/ |publisher=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]] |date=24 October 2022 |access-date=13 December 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=BonhamCarterSupport>{{cite web|title= 'It's horrendous': Helena Bonham Carter defends JK Rowling and Johnny Depp |url= https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/nov/28/helena-bonham-carter-defends-jk-rowling-and-johnny-depp |work=The Guardian |date=28 October 2022 |access-date=30 November 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=SupportMargolyes>{{cite web|title= JK Rowling: Miriam Margolyes says anger at Harry Potter author over trans views has been 'misplaced' |url= https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/miriam-margolyes-jk-rowling-trans-b2060541.html |work=The Independent |date=19 April 2022 |access-date=16 December 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=SupportColtrane>{{cite web|title= Robbie Coltrane says JK Rowling transphobia critics ‘hang around waiting to be offended’ |url= https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/robbie-coltrane-jk-rowling-transphobic-tweet-hagrid-troubled-blood-b445069.html |work=The Independent |access-date=7 May 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref> (for example). From Scientelensia (17:47, May 7, 2024) |
|||
* Another main criticism is that this paragraph… |
|||
: Fans turned away from her work, boycotted events, and publishers hesitated to accept her work. Criticism came from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron, and LGBT charities Mermaids, Stonewall, and Human Rights Campaign. GLAAD called Rowling's comments "cruel" and "inaccurate". Leading actors of the Wizarding World spoke out against her stance; Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Eddie Redmayne and others declared support for the transgender community. After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation. |
|||
: …almost wholly only lists critics from organisations. No support for her has been mentioned at all, which arguably displays bias as there was a lot of support for her also. From Scientelensia (20:04, May 7, 2024) |
|||
* The last paragraph also fails to mention any praise for JK Rowling’s essay; only criticism. Only the views of trans people are considered. See for example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55350905. From Scientelensia (20:08, May 7, 2024) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
==== Thoughts from Victoria ==== |
|||
::: "Her loss in the tribunal" is grammatically very different from "who lost her tribunal against [X]", though, are you sure the latter phrase is also grammatical? One can also say "her loss in court inspired Ms Doe", but not "she lost her court against X". I see all of eight(!) google hits for the phrase "lost her tribunal against", and while I know [[WP:GHITS]] aren't an argument for titling or deleting an article, it does make be wonder if the phrase is standard English. [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 21:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
A couple of thoughts to keep things moving. |
|||
*First, there's been a sustained effort to improve what's currently in the article & in my view that's a Good Thing. Pats on the back all around! |
|||
*Second, re first sentence. What we have is honestly fine. There are other options too. I'm not convinced that [[Wikipedia:CONTROVERSY]] applies - it's an essay about articles rather than about one section in an BLP. Following that line of thought, then we can write something like Rowling's remarks/comments (pick the word) have been/are controversial. This [https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy Glamour article] (very long) has been continually updated for a number of years & is cited by a number of the literary critics. The verbiage they use is that J.K. Rowling has come "under fire" for controversial tweets (not verbatim, but very very close). We should either stick with the first sentence as written in Draft 6 or consider rewriting along the lines of the controversial tweets verbiage. |
|||
*Third, re scholarly sources: Rowling is a productive writer - something like 20 works in 25 years - and the reason this article exists is because of her writing career. Because she's a writer, literary critics do what literary critics do - hence scholarly sources. For this topic in Rowling's bio, those sources simply distill news sources and are now the desired secondary sources. |
|||
*Fourth, I think Scientelensia raises points that are maybe worth considering. Back when we were discussing Draft 3 it became clear that draft had veered into discussing what others were saying about Rowling, rather than what Rowling says/believes. To veer back, we might consider trimming or even cutting the text in the third para beginning from "Criticism came from the Harry Potter fansites ... " possibly to the end of the paragraph. If so, the text can focus on Rowling & there'd be fewer words. |
|||
Personally, I think we're almost there. In fact, I think we could take the "it's good enough" route and say that Draft 6 is good to go. What do others think? [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 23:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:My general thoughts are that while there are things I'd change if I could write it entirely myself, I think that Draft 6 is basically fine and I'm not that interested in getting in a big fight about what are essentially small quibbles. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 23:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Support for Rowling on Trans issues == |
|||
:I'm concerned that the proposal has veered into non-neutral territory by overfocusing on one academic writer (Whited) rather than a [[WP:WIAFA|thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature]]. A survey of the entire literature would not have seen us drop the one sentence in the article that is [[WP:RECENTISM|most likely to endure beyond what any Hollywood star said or thinks]]. "Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom and cancel culture ... " and more). But this is not a hill worth dying on; I wouldn't mind if we install and move on, but if I had my druthers we'd move the list of all actors and organizations to footnotes (who is surprised at the list of charities?), and restore and expand instead the content that will endure beyond Hollywood -- that is, the overall and lasting cultural effects of the whole brouhaha as reflected in a variety of scholarly sources. A thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature produces scholarly analyses of linguistics, hate speech, fandom, feminism, women's rights, trans rights, etc -- much more than passing opinions of Radcliffe, Watson and anyone else who spends the GDP of a small country to attend the Met Gala. I don't think the draft is POV enough to tag it as such, the POV is subtle, and I won't protest if it goes in, but somewhere along the way, neutrality was dropped in the content that was excised. My solution is different than Scientelensia's; rather than add in those who support her, delete all of that recentism, and focus on a survey of the literature and the broader issues raised. But if someone wants to install now, I won't object. I still believe the section heading should be "Transgender rights". I don't think Draft 6 is FA material, but the rest of the article is, so neither do I think a FAR is in order; it's good enough, but won't endure. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 01:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Your solution would work also, but there would also have to be rigorous testing to ensure that the selection of literary works constitutes an unbiased interpretation. [[User:Scientelensia|Scientelensia]] ([[User talk:Scientelensia|talk]]) 16:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::1. Looking back at Victoria's fourth point, I agree; that's where in my view most precious real estate (word count) is misspent on excess detail, and trimming that would give us room to work back in some neutrality and replace some RECENTISM with enduring content. {{tq2|Criticism came from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron, and LGBT charities Mermaids, Stonewall, and Human Rights Campaign. GLAAD called Rowling's comments "cruel" and "inaccurate". Leading actors of the Wizarding World spoke out against her stance; Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Eddie Redmayne and others declared support for the transgender community. }} could become {{tq2|Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World.}} by moving the detail to a footnote. That word count could be better used on more enduring issues. |
|||
:::2. Whited may have said this, but here's where neutrality is particularly lost: {{tq|"Fans turned away from her work, boycotted events, and publishers hesitated to accept her work."}} In fact, book sales increased, Universal Studios is expanding Harry Potter World, a TV series is in the works, Maya Forstater was exonerated, etc ... so while the statement is true to some extent and for many people, it's factually inaccurate in terms of leaving out the big picture, and redundant to territory already covered in the first point above. Dropping the sentence is an alternative to discuss. |
|||
:::3. Looking back at [[Talk:J._K._Rowling#Fourth_draft|Draft 4]] reveals the problem with trying to write an encyclopedic entry with topic sentences: doing so can result in a POV construction that leads the reader (I forget which article is on a record number of [[WP:FAC|FACs]] for this very problem, which has proven insurmountable). Grouping like content logically by paragraphs avoids wasting wordcount in ways that risk leading the reader or telling the reader what a paragraph is about; just the facts, and let the reader make their own decision. |
|||
:::4. I agree with Scientelensia that the sentence {{tq|she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them"}} needs a few more clauses for context and relevance, although I wouldn't take as many words as Scientelensia suggests. |
|||
:::5. And after doing that wordcount reduction, use the gained space to rework and update the enduring content based on [[WP:WIAFA|a survey of the literature]], which was: {{tq|Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture; and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors}} ... we seem to have lost academic freedom, and there's plenty of scholarly literature on how fandom has evolved, and the power of Twitter. |
|||
:::We could put in Draft 6 now, but it is POV and we'll be back here in less than two years to repair the damage we inflicted. {{u|Victoriaearle}} I had my turn; are you interested in working up Draft 7 ?[[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::PS, my separate and growing concern is that none of the three main FA authors have shown up to update the rest of the article to reflect Whited 2024, so if that doesn't happen, we're likely to end up at [[WP:FAR|FAR]] anyway. I think we made a mistake in over-relying on Whited for transgender content, but she certainly should be used for updating literary content. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] You suggest {{!xt|Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World.}}, but that implies (to me) all "leading" actors, which isn't true. Either define "leading actors", or quantify with "most", "some", etc. [[User:Bazza_7|Bazza <span style="color:grey">7</span>]] ([[User_talk:Bazza_7|talk]]) 21:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yep, I wasn't trying to wordsmith the thing yet ... just give the broad points I'd do if we started over. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{u|SandyGeorgia|Sandy}} please excuse my brevity, but I'm not at all able at this time. Will get back here when able. Sorry. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 23:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Draft 6.3=== |
|||
Support of Rowling's stance on Transgender issues should be included as much as critique is included. Excluding support for her comments is indicative of an obvious bias in support of the gender narrative and isn't conducive to wikipedias main purpose. Some would debate adding any information is controversial and that adding support that doesn't come from Potter cast isn't proper. Support is support no matter who it comes from as in the case of Transgender pop singer [[Dana International]] who spoke in support of Rowling. |
|||
Since I agree that all of Sandy's proposed elisions improve the text, I've made them. I've made no effort to add the suggested new content, and I view cutting words as more important.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 16:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I will add the supporters to counteract the detractors who are motivated by publicity reasons . Hpdh4 16:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I think that would apply to an article on the controversy surrounding Rowling's tweets, should we decide we need one. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color: #00b;">Serendi</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><span style="color: #b00;">pod</span></sup>]]<span style="color: #00b;">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</span></b> 17:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Please read [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. Positions should be represented proportional to their weight in RS. Including Dana when HP stars only get brief mentions would be [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]].[[User:Rab V|Rab V]] ([[User talk:Rab V|talk]]) 17:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Mermaids, an LGBTQ+ charity, gets a single sentence, and the CEO of GLAAD doesn't get a mention, despite her not insignificant response to Rowling's essay. With all due respect to Dana, her opinion doesn't matter for the purposes of this article. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 18:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
Dana's opinions matter more then Radcliffe,Glaad,Mermaids, Watson,Lynch,Redmayne,Wright . Dana is actually transgender. Opinions of the person from the actual group matters more then that of controversial organizations like mermaids or PR driven actors . Plus it's a situation of Us vs Them . Having only Rowlings detractors is bias as it assumes Rowling is entirely wrong when people like Dana agrees with her to an extent. Support as much as critique should be included . Even a neutral sentence should be included like : Rowling's claims have garnered some support and then have the Reuters/dana article used as a citation. Hpdh4 19:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Draft 6.3: 403 words |
|||
:: Mermaids is a major nonprofit transgender advocacy organisation, and therefore carries much more weight than that of a single random trans person. Furthermore, you seem to still be misunderstanding what a neutral point of view means in relation to Wikipedia and transphobia. Transphobia is a fringe position, and therefore should be given less weight on this website than the opposite. [[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 21:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Historical: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1202117364#Transgender_people 429 words] |
|||
|- |
|||
|| {{Main|Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights}} |
|||
No |
|||
I am starting to understand one thing from this: theirs a bias against Rowlings comments. I still stand by my original position; Both CRITIQUE and SUPPORT should be included to avoid being seen as giving creditability to one side only. It isn't neutral if theirs only critique from PR driven actors and a controversial transRIGHTS organization. |
|||
Neutral is this : Rowling's statements regarding transgender issues have generated controversy and have garnered both criticism and support from an assortment of celebrities and organizations. Hpdh4 22:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::please consider [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight|undue weight]]--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 22:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hpdh4, can you please sign your posts with 4x ~ so we can find our way to your talk page? As you were asked to do [[User talk:HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4#Chatting on talk pages|here]] [[User:Britmax|Britmax]] ([[User talk:Britmax|talk]]) 22:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Overview --> |
|||
:::Yes, there likely ''is'' a bias against Rowling's comments in the real world - LGBT rights issues have included the 'T' since - well, Stonewall, actually and literally, if not before. They're pretty key. To have someone who wrote the HP books apparently miss the point of her own writing by such a distance, and to have her punch down on trans women, women who've had hysterectomies, and post-menopausal women, was shocking for many. Radcliffe's response explains why far better than I can. So it is entirely [[WP:DUE|due]] to feature the response of GLAAD, The Trevor Project, and Mermaids, all significant organisations, plus the reaction of the actors synonymous with the HP films. Dana International is relevant to JK Rowling how, exactly? You're new here - please read [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:DUE]]. Regards, [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 22:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Rowling has ''[some contributors want to add a qualifier here]'' [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical]] views.{{sfn|Whited|2024|loc= p. 7. "But in June 2020, Rowling's manifesto led some people to label her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), a term first used in 2008 that has more recently evolved as 'gender critical'."}}{{sfn|Steinfeld|2020|loc= pp. 34–35. "Just ask JK Rowling and other women who have been labelled as Terfs"}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|loc= pp. 367–368. "This sparked a heated discussion within the Twitter community, one side buttressing Rowling's statements, and the other espousing her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF)"}} She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. She is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.<ref name= Milne2020>{{cite web|first1= Amber |last1=Milne|first2 = Rachel| last2 =Savage | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn-idUSKBN23I3AI | title=Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? | publisher=[[Reuters]] | date=11 June 2020 | access-date=6 April 2021 }}</ref><ref name= Brooks2020>{{Cite news|last=Brooks|first=Libby|date=11 June 2020|title=Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? |url= http://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate|access-date=14 January 2022 |work= [[The Guardian]] }}</ref><ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie |last2= Andrew |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019|url= https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref>{{efn|The laws and proposed changes are the UK [[Gender Recognition Act 2004]] and the Scotland [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill|Gender Recognition Reform Bill]]; related also are the UK [[Equality Act 2010]]{{sfn|Pedersen|2022|loc=Abstract}}{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}}{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} and the Scotland Gender Representation on Public Boards Act of 2018.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Watson |first1=Jeremy |title=JK Rowling donates £70k for legal challenge on defining a woman |date=18 February 2024 |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |work=[[The Times]] |access-date=5 May 2024|archive-url=https://archive.today/20240217200104/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |archive-date=17 February 2024 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref>}} She opposes gender self-recognition{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}<ref name=BacksProtest>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling backs protest over Scottish gender bill |date= 6 October 2022|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63162533 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref>{{efn|Rowling wrote in 2020: "The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law."<ref name=RowlingReasons/>}} and suggests that children and [[cisgender]] women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.{{sfn|Duggan|2021|p=161}} In April 2024, responding to [[Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021|Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act]], she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".<ref name=Brooks2024>{{cite news |last1=Brooks |first1=Libby |title=JK Rowling’s posts on X will not be recorded as non-crime hate incident |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/03/jk-rowling-comments-scotland-non-crime-hate-incident |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=3 April 2024 |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> |
|||
<!-- History --> |
|||
You prove my point Batsun. This site is supposed to be neutral and report things as is. Agendas are left at the table . |
|||
Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended [[Maya Forstater]].{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6-8}} When Forstater's employment contract with the [[Center for Global Development]] was not renewed after Forstater shared gender-critical views,{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}} Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".<ref name=Stack2019/>{{efn|A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]].<ref name=Faulkner2021>{{cite news |first= Doug |last= Faulkner |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579 |title= Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= 10 June 2021 |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref><ref name=Siddique2021>{{cite news |first= Haroon |last= Siddique |date= 10 June 2021 |title= Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules|url= https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref>{{sfn|Pape|2022|p=230}} In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (''[[Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe]]'') ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.<ref>{{cite news |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules|date=6 July 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |publisher=[[BBC News]] |access-date=6 July 2022}}</ref>}} According to ''Harry Potter'' scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal".{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=6}} In June 2020,{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=6}} Rowling mocked the phrase "[[people who menstruate]]",<ref name=Gross2020>{{Cite news|last=Gross|first=Jenny|date=7 June 2020|title=Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-date=7 June 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=6 January 2022 }}</ref> and tweeted that [[women's rights]] and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=14–15}}{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}} |
|||
Fairness demands both criticism and support exist in the same article section. Dont play the new card when your blatantly against Rowling. I'm neither against her and nor am I with her. I just want both criticism and and support to be included. Information should not be excluded on the basis of whose relavent or not and definitely not be excluded on the basis of a editors personal agenda. |
|||
Somebody else will include Dana's support and I can't wait for the blow up . Hpdh4 00:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:The proper point of comparison is with the comments of the Harry Potter actors. Including those, and not those of a notable transgender woman, whose comments were treated as noteworthy by [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI Reuters] (and [https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/06/14/israeli-transgender-pop-star-dana-international-comes-to-defense-of-harry-potter-author-j-k-rowling/ elsewhere]), and creating the impression that all celebrities condemned Rowling, is what creates [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. Simply having played a character in the Harry Potter movies ''does not'' give one special authority in this matter. It takes some sort of intellectual [[gerrymandering]] to say that their opinions need to be included, but those of an actual transgender woman do not. It's still clear that many other trans people do not feel the way Dana International does because we have comments from groups like GLAAD. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 03:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::That's one sentence only in the Reuters source suggests this isn't as notable in RS as the other actors, especially those with many RS dedicated to their opinions. [[User:Rab V|Rab V]] ([[User talk:Rab V|talk]]) 05:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Reaction --> |
|||
I mean, in theory I have no problem with the inclusion of Dana International's opinions, it's just that there are quite a few trans people's opinions that disagree with her, and there's no reason to give her more weight over them. So if Dana's opinion gets included, it is only fitting that we include quite a lot more of trans opinions, making this chapter the longest in the article. Also, there is no need to defend Rowling more than her own defence if several professional organisations (the Trevor Project, GLAAD, Mermaids) condemn her entire behaviour in this controversy. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 06:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Rowling's views have impacted her reputation. As her thoughts on the [[legal status of transgender people]] came under scrutiny,{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} she received insults and threats{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|p=69}}{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=9}} and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community.{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|p=368}} While her remarks provoked condemnation,{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}}{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230, 238}} sales of ''Harry Potter'' books grew during the [[COVID-19]] lockdown.{{sfn|Pape|2022|p=238}}<ref> {{cite news |first=Mark |last= Sweney |title= Harry Potter books prove UK lockdown hit despite JK Rowling trans rights row |work= [[The Guardian]] |date= 21 July 2020 |url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/21/jk-rowling-book-sales-unaffected-by-transgender-views-row |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World.{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}}<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars | title=The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK's gender wars | work=[[New Statesman]]|first=Gaby |last=Hinsliff|date=3 November 2021 | access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref> and [[Human Rights Campaign]].<ref name= Milne2020/><ref name=AP7June2020>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling's tweets on transgender people spark outrage |date= 7 June 2020 |url= https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-jk-rowling-us-news-media-7338b2b262090c00f04deafe2e6689c2 |publisher= [[Associated Press]] |access-date= 4 May 2024}}</ref><ref name=Waterson2020>{{Cite news|last= Waterson |first= Jim|title= Children's news website apologises to JK Rowling over trans tweet row|url= https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day|date= 23 July 2020 |access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]] |quote= Rowling's comments on gender were condemned by LGBT charities and the leading stars of her Harry Potter film franchise.}}</ref><ref name=Lang2020>{{cite magazine |last=Lang |first=Brent |title= Eddie Redmayne criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets |date= 10 June 2020 |url= https://variety.com/2020/film/news/eddie-redmayne-jk-rowling-anti-trans-tweets-harry-potter-fantastic-beasts-1234630226/ |magazine= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date=28 March 2022 |quote= Eddie Redmayne, star of the ''Fantastic Beasts'' franchise, is speaking out against J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets, as the controversy surrounding the author and her beliefs continues to swirl.}}</ref> After [[Kerry Kennedy]] expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the [[Ripple of Hope Award]] given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.<ref name=RFKAward>{{cite news |last=Flood|first=Alison |url= https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/28/jk-rowling-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-award-trans-views|title=JK Rowling returns human rights award to group that denounces her trans views |work=[[The Guardian]]|date=28 August 2020|access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref> |
|||
<!-- Denial --> |
|||
:It's Bastun, not Batsun. My ''point'', person whose username is about Harry Potter and wants to include an additional defence of Rowling but is neutral and doesn't stand with her, is [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. Organisations working with, by and for trans people, amongst others, including GLAAD, Memaids and The Trevor Project have all criticised Rowling's comments, but if you look at the page history here, their criticisms were all removed at one point or another. We still have nothing in the article about the criticism she received for equating sex with menstruation (apparently you stop being a woman after menopause or hysterectomy; and keep being a woman even if you're a trans man?). I have no objection whatsoever to including support for Rowling, if its relevant and satisfies [[WP:DUE]] and [[WP:BALANCE]]. The HP-associated actors satisfy that. A random singer, not so much. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 09:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Rowling rejects these characterisations and denies being transphobic.<ref name=RowlingReasons>{{cite web|title=J.K. Rowling writes about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues |url=https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |publisher=JK Rowling |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=10 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200610182056/https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |archive-date=10 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name= Dismisses>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling dismisses backlash over trans comments: 'I don't care about my legacy' |date= 22 February 2023|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64729304 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}} – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and [[sexual assault]].{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=160–161)}}<ref name=Shirbon2020>{{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.<ref name= Shirbon2020/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gonzalez |first1=Sandra |title=J.K. Rowling explains her gender identity views in essay amid backlash |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/10/entertainment/jk-rowling/index.html |access-date=16 September 2023 |publisher=[[CNN]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Garrand |first1=Danielle |title=J.K. Rowling defends herself after accusations of making 'anti-trans' comments on Twitter |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/j-k-rowling-defends-anti-trans-comments-twitter/ |access-date=16 September 2023 |publisher=[[CBS News]] |date=11 June 2020}}</ref> Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6, 8–9}} |
|||
|| {{Main|Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights}} |
|||
::The post above says that: ''"We still have nothing in the article about the criticism she received for equating sex with menstruation ('''apparently you stop being a woman after menopause or hysterectomy'''; and keep being a woman even if you're a trans man?)."'' |
|||
Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws,<ref name= Milne2020>{{cite web|first1= Amber |last1=Milne|first2 = Rachel| last2 =Savage | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn-idUSKBN23I3AI | title=Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? | publisher=[[Reuters]] | date=11 June 2020 | access-date=6 April 2021 }}</ref><ref name= Brooks2020>{{Cite news|last=Brooks|first=Libby|date=11 June 2020|title=Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? |url= http://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate|access-date=14 January 2022 |work= [[The Guardian]] }}</ref>{{efn|The UK laws and proposed changes are the [[Gender Recognition Act 2004]], the [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill]] and the related [[Equality Act 2010]].{{sfn|Pedersen|2022|loc=Abstract}}{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}}{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} }} and her views on [[sexual identity|sex]] and [[gender identity|gender]], have provoked controversy.{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} Her statements have divided [[Feminist views on transgender topics|feminists]];<ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie | last2= Andrew|title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019 |access-date= 29 March 2022 | url= https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html}}</ref><ref name=BBC2020JKRResponds>{{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times | title=Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in 'anti-intellectual times'|first=Alona |last=Ferber | work=[[New Statesman]] | date=22 September 2020 | access-date=26 March 2021}}</ref> fuelled<!-- This article uses British spelling --> debates on [[freedom of speech]],{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230}}<ref>{{cite web|title=BBC nominates J.K.Rowling's controversial essay of trans rights for award|url=https://www.dw.com/en/bbc-nominates-jk-rowlings-controversial-essay-on-trans-rights-for-award/a-56014673|website=[[DW News]]|date=22 December 2020|access-date=22 December 2020}}</ref> [[academic freedom]]{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} and [[cancel culture]];{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}} and prompted declarations of [[Transgender rights movement|support for transgender people]] from the literary,<ref>UK, US, Canada, Ireland: {{cite news |last= Flood |first= Alison |date=9 October 2020|title= Stephen King, Margaret Atwood and Roxane Gay champion trans rights in open letter|url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/oct/09/stephen-king-margaret-atwood-roxane-gay-champion-trans-rights-open-letter-jk-rowling |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> arts<ref>{{cite magazine|last= Rowley |first= Glenn |title= Artists fire back at J.K. Rowling's anti-trans remarks, share messages in support of the community|url= https://www.billboard.com/culture/pride/artists-fire-back-jk-rowling-anti-trans-remarks-9400386/|magazine= [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 7 April 2022}}</ref> and culture sectors.<ref>Culture sector: |
|||
* [[Universal Destinations & Experiences]], [[Warner Bros.]] and [[Scholastic Corporation]]: {{cite news |last1= Siegel |first1= Tatiana |last2= Abramovitch |first2= Seth |date= 10 June 2020 |title= Universal Parks responds to J.K. Rowling tweets: 'Our core values include diversity, inclusion and respect' |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]] |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/universal-parks-responds-jk-rowling-tweets-core-values-include-diversity-inclusion-respect-1297845/ |access-date= 3 April 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment]] president: {{cite news |last= Skrebels |first= Joe |title= WB Interactive president responds to ongoing debate over supporting JK Rowling |date=1 October 2020 |url= https://www.ign.com/articles/wb-interactive-president-responds-to-ongoing-debate-over-supporting-jk-rowling |publisher= [[IGN]] |access-date= 2 April 2022|ref=none}}</ref> |
|||
When [[Maya Forstater]]'s employment contract with the London branch of the [[Center for Global Development]] was not renewed after she tweeted [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical views]],{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}}<ref name=Stack2019>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|title=J.K. Rowling criticized after tweeting support for anti-transgender researcher|last=Stack|first=Liam|date=19 December 2019|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=13 June 2020| url-access=registration|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200613012737/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|archive-date=13 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that [[transgender]] people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".<ref name=Stack2019/>{{efn|A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]].<ref name=Faulkner2021>{{cite news |first= Doug |last= Faulkner |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579 |title= Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= 10 June 2021 |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref><ref name=Siddique2021>{{cite news |first= Haroon |last= Siddique |date= 10 June 2021 |title= Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules|url= https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref> In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (''[[Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe]]'') ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.<ref>{{cite news |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules|date=6 July 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |publisher=[[BBC News]] |access-date=6 July 2022}}</ref>}} In another controversial tweet in June 2020,<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref> Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "[[people who menstruate]]",<ref name=Gross2020>{{Cite news|last=Gross|first=Jenny|date=7 June 2020|title=Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-date=7 June 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=6 January 2022 }}</ref> and tweeted that [[women's rights]] and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15}}<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|title=J.K. Rowling gets backlash over anti-trans tweets|last=Moreau|first=Jordan|magazine=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|date=6 June 2020|access-date=13 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607005447/https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|archive-date=7 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> |
|||
::That's not what Rowling said; regardless of what one thinks of her views, let's not put things into her mouth that she never said, that's a [[WP:BLP]] issue. Saying that "only women menstruate" does '''not''' equate with "only the persons who menstruate are women" (ie. what she says is that men don't menstruate, '''not''' that women who don't menstruate aren't real women). What she means is: "Not all women menstruate, but only women menstruate." The part on transmen may be indeed her view, but not the bolded part about menopause/hysterectomy.[[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB|2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB|talk]]) 10:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
[[LGBT]] charities and leading actors of the [[Wizarding World]] franchise condemned Rowling's comments;<ref name=Waterson2020>{{Cite news|last= Waterson |first= Jim|title= Children's news website apologises to JK Rowling over trans tweet row|url= https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day|date= 23 July 2020 |access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]] |quote= Rowling's comments on gender were condemned by LGBT charities and the leading stars of her Harry Potter film franchise.}}</ref><ref name=Lang2020>{{cite magazine |last=Lang |first=Brent |title= Eddie Redmayne criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets |date= 10 June 2020 |url= https://variety.com/2020/film/news/eddie-redmayne-jk-rowling-anti-trans-tweets-harry-potter-fantastic-beasts-1234630226/ |magazine= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date=28 March 2022 |quote= Eddie Redmayne, star of the ''Fantastic Beasts'' franchise, is speaking out against J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets, as the controversy surrounding the author and her beliefs continues to swirl.}}</ref>{{efn| [[Daniel Radcliffe]], [[Emma Watson]], [[Rupert Grint]],<ref name= Hibberd2021/> [[Eddie Redmayne]]<ref name=Lang2020/> and others expressed support for the transgender community in reaction to Rowling's comments;<ref>{{cite magazine |first= Maureen |last= Lenker|title= Every Harry Potter actor who's spoken out against J.K. Rowling's controversial trans comments |date= 10 June 2020 |access-date= 1 April 2022 |magazine= [[Entertainment Weekly]]|url=https://ew.com/movies/every-harry-potter-actor-whos-spoken-out-against-j-k-rowlings-controversial-transgender-comments/ }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |first= Maggie |last= Baska|title= Stephen Fry defends 'friendship' with JK Rowling: 'I'm sorry that people are upset' |date= 20 May 2021 |url= https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/05/20/stephen-fry-jk-rowling-friend-harry-potter-jordan-b-peterson-podcast-trans/ |publisher= [[PinkNews]] |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> [[Helena Bonham Carter]],<ref name=Evans2022> {{cite news |first= Greg |last= Evans |url= https://deadline.com/2022/11/helena-bonham-carter-johnny-depp-j-k-rowling-1235182523/ |title= Helena Bonham Carter says Johnny Depp 'completely vindicated' in defamation trial, and J.K. Rowling 'hounded' for transgender stance |work= [[Deadline Hollywood]] |access-date= 18 December 2022}}</ref> [[Robbie Coltrane]],<ref>{{cite news |last= Yasharoff |first= Hannah |title= How the 'Harry Potter' reunion addresses author J.K. Rowling's anti-trans controversy |date= 30 December 2021|url= https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2021/12/30/harry-potter-return-hogwarts-20th-reunion-emma-watson-jk-rowling-controversy/9042955002/ |work= [[USA Today]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> and [[Ralph Fiennes]] supported Rowling.<ref name= Hibberd2021>{{cite news |first= James |last= Hibberd |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/ralph-fiennes-defends-j-k-rowling-amid-trans-controversy-says-backlash-is-disturbing-4151944/ |title= Ralph Fiennes defends J.K. rowling amid trans controversy, says backlash is 'disturbing' |date= 17 March 2021 |access-date=26 March 2022 |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]]}}</ref>}} [[GLAAD]] called them "cruel" and "inaccurate".<ref name= Yasharoff2020> {{cite news |last= Yasharoff |first=Hannah|url= https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/06/07/j-k-rowling-harry-potter-author-slammed-transphobic-comments/3169833001/ |title= J.K. Rowling reveals she's a sexual assault survivor; Emma Watson reacts to trans comments |work= [[USA Today]] |date= 10 June 2020 |access-date= 27 March 2022}}</ref> Rowling responded with an essay on her website<ref name=RowlingReasons>{{cite web|title=J.K. Rowling writes about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues |url=https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |publisher=JK Rowling |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=10 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200610182056/https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |archive-date=10 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> in which she revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and [[sexual assault]].<ref name=Shirbon2020>{{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she believed that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.<ref name= Shirbon2020/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gonzalez |first1=Sandra |title=J.K. Rowling explains her gender identity views in essay amid backlash |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/10/entertainment/jk-rowling/index.html |access-date=16 September 2023 |work=[[CNN]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Garrand |first1=Danielle |title= J.K. Rowling defends herself after accusations of making "anti-trans" comments on Twitter |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/j-k-rowling-defends-anti-trans-comments-twitter/ |access-date=16 September 2023 |work=[[CBS News]] |date=11 June 2020}}</ref> Writing of her own experiences with [[sexism]] and [[misogyny]],<ref>{{cite news |first= Sian |last= Cain |date= 11 June 2020 |title= JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault |url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/10/jk-rowling-says-survivor-of-domestic-abuse-sexual-assault |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to [[Gender transitioning|transition]] if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class".<ref name=DAlessandro2020>{{cite news |last=D'Alessandro |first=Anthony |title=J.K. Rowling defends trans statements in lengthy essay, reveals she's a sexual assault survivor & says 'trans people need and deserve protection' |url=https://deadline.com/2020/06/j-k-rowling-defends-trans-statements-essay-1202955524/ |access-date=5 January 2022 |work=[[Deadline Hollywood]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref> |
|||
:::Cool, so you support the addition of criticism about her implicit claim that trans men are women, and her saying that those who say otherwise are trying to erase the concept of sex? [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 11:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Rowling's continual statements – beginning in 2017{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}}<ref name= Jacobs2023>{{cite news |last= Jacobs |first= Julia |title= Hogwarts legacy can't cast aside debate over J. K. Rowling |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/09/arts/hogwarts-legacy-jk-rowling.html |date= 9 February 2023 |work = [[The New York Times]] |access-date= 14 July 2023}}</ref><ref name= Spangler2023>{{cite news |last= Spangler|first= Todd |title= J.K. Rowling addresses backlash to her anti-trans comments in new podcast: 'I never set out to upset anyone' |url= https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/jk-rowling-anti-trans-comments-podcast-witch-trials-1235522301/ |date= 14 February 2023|work= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date= 14 July 2023}}</ref> – have been called transphobic by critics<ref name= Breznican2023>{{cite news |last= Breznican |first= Anthony |title= J.K. Rowling will oversee a new streaming ''Harry Potter'' series |url= https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/04/jk-rowling-harry-potter-series|date= 12 April 2023 |work= [[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]] |access-date= 14 July 2023}}</ref><ref name=Rosenblatt2020>{{Cite web|last = Rosenblatt| first =Kalhan |title=J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto' |url= https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351|date= 10 June 2020 |access-date=19 January 2022|publisher=[[NBC News]] }}</ref> and she has been referred to as a [[TERF (acronym)|TERF]].<ref name= Rosenblatt2020/>{{sfn|Steinfeld|2020|pp=34–35}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–368}} She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.<ref name=RowlingReasons/><ref name= Breznican2023/><ref name= Spangler2023/> Criticism of Rowling's views has come from the ''Harry Potter'' fansites [[MuggleNet]] and [[The Leaky Cauldron (website)|The Leaky Cauldron]];<ref name=FanSites>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/03/harry-potter-fan-sites-distance-themselves-from-jk-rowling-over-transgender-rights|title=Harry Potter fan sites distance themselves from JK Rowling over transgender rights|publisher=[[Reuters]]|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=3 July 2020|access-date=3 July 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200703011204/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/03/harry-potter-fan-sites-distance-themselves-from-jk-rowling-over-transgender-rights|archive-date=3 July 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> and the charities [[Mermaids (charity)|Mermaids]],<ref name=Petter2020/> [[Stonewall (charity)|Stonewall]],<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars | title=The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK's gender wars | work=[[New Statesman]]|first=Gaby |last=Hinsliff|date=3 November 2021 | access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref> and [[Human Rights Campaign]].<ref>{{cite news |first= Elise |last= Brisco |title=Dave Chappelle says he's 'Team TERF,' defends J.K. Rowling in new Netflix comedy special|url= https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/10/05/dave-chappelle-terf-defends-j-k-rowling-netflix-special/6002017001/ |work= [[USA Today]] |date= 8 October 2021|access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> After [[Kerry Kennedy]] expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the [[Ripple of Hope Award]] given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.<ref name=RFKAward>{{cite news |last=Flood|first=Alison |url= https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/28/jk-rowling-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-award-trans-views|title=JK Rowling returns human rights award to group that denounces her trans views |work=[[The Guardian]]|date=28 August 2020|access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref> |
|||
::I'm sorry, what is a BLP issue? I haven't implied that she said anything that she didn't write. She wrote what she wrote. What she wrote about menstruation [https://www.newspostleader.co.uk/read-this/why-jk-rowling-has-been-accused-transphobia-and-how-she-has-responded-2877982 offended a lot of women and men], and it's on the record. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 11:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
As Rowling's views on the [[legal status of transgender people]] came under scrutiny,{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} she received insults and death threats{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|p=69}}{{sfn|Qiao|2022|p=1323}} and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community.{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|p=368}} Some performers and feminists have supported her.{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|p=368}}<ref> Supporting Rowling: |
|||
== mermaids == |
|||
* [[Ayaan Hirsi Ali]]: {{cite news |first=Katie |last=Law |date= 15 October 2020|title= JK Rowling and the bitter battle of the book world |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/books/trans-battle-book-world-jk-rowling-a4571221.html |work= [[Evening Standard]] |access-date=27 March 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Allison Bailey]]: {{cite news |url= https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/maya-forstater-transgender-twitter-jk-rowling-b1838151.html |title= Maya Forstater: who is woman in employment tribunal over transgender comments? |first= Sam |last= Hancock |date= 27 April 2021 |work= [[The Independent]] |access-date= 27 March 2022|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210427131430/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/maya-forstater-transgender-twitter-jk-rowling-b1838151.html |archive-date= 27 April 2021 |quote= criminal defence barrister Allison Bailey – known for launching legal action against LGBT+ rights charity Stonewall over its attempt to have her investigated for setting up the anti-trans rights group LGB Alliance – has also been a vocal supporter of Ms Forstater.|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Julie Bindel]]: {{cite news |last1=Thorpe |first1=Vanessa |title=JK Rowling: from magic to the heart of a Twitter storm |url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=14 June 2020 |quote=Arrayed on Rowling's side are some of the veteran voices of feminism, including the radical Julie Bindel, who spoke out in support this weekend |access-date=6 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200704200412/https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm |archive-date=4 July 2020 |url-status=live|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Dave Chappelle]]: {{Cite news |first= Maya |last=Yang|date=7 October 2021|title='I'm team Terf': Dave Chappelle under fire over pro-JK Rowling trans stance|url=https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2021/oct/07/dave-chappelle-transgender-netflix-special-backlash|access-date=27 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]]|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Dana International]]: {{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Eddie Izzard]]: {{cite news |title='I don't think JK Rowling is transphobic,' says gender-fluid comedian Eddie Izzard |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dont-think-jk-rowling-transphobic-says-gender-fluid-comedian/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dont-think-jk-rowling-transphobic-says-gender-fluid-comedian/ |archive-date=10 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |access-date=27 November 2021 |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|date=1 January 2021|ref=none}}{{cbignore}} |
|||
* [[Kathleen Stock]], [[Alison Moyet]]: {{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".<ref name= Flockhart2020>{{cite news |last= Flockhart |first= Gary |date= 28 September 2020 |access-date= 2 April 2022 |work = [[The Scotsman]] |title= JK Rowling receives support from Ian McEwan and Frances Barber amid 'transphobia' row|url= https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/jk-rowling-receives-support-from-ian-mcewan-and-frances-barber-amid-transphobia-row-2986268|ref=none}}</ref> |
|||
|} |
|||
Is the uk times a reliable enough source to label mermaids as controversial? From my understanding it's up there with the daily mail in terms of manufacturing fake controversies. EDIT: see also the wikipedia page about [[Mermaids (charity)|mermaids itself]] which does not refer to them as such.--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 22:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:to expand on this further: should we call a charity controversial if the subject it raises money for is already controversial? I feel the current wording implies that there is something nefarious going on with this charity beyond it dealing with potentially controversial subject matter, which, going by the charity's wikipedia page and my knowledge of it, doesn't seem to be the case--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 23:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{Reply to|Britmax}} pinging you since you reverted my edit on this --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 23:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
==== Sources ==== |
|||
== Summary of J. K. Rowling's essay on transgender issues == |
|||
{{cot|Sources}} |
|||
The section ''Transgender issues'' reads like this: |
|||
::Rowling later published an essay on her website in response to the criticism.[251] She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women, while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection. She also wrote that many women consider terms like "people who menstruate" to be demeaning.[252] |
|||
This is such a poor summary of Rowling's essay that it's almost a caricature of that essay. For some reason, the summary focuses on single-sex spaces access of transwomen although that is only a minor part of that essay (and as somebody else pointed it's not even clear if Rowling has a problem with access of transwomen as such, rather than with broad regulations which would allow ''any man'' to enter such spaces). There are so many other issues she addresses in that essay, including medical concerns re MS (she is involved in MS activism), concerns regarding huge increases in teenage girls transitioning in recent years, inability of women to define themselves as a class; Rowling sees these, as well as many other issues, as problems. If we choose to summarize Rowling's essay we should do it properly, without misrepresenting what she says; if we can't do that, than we shouldn't comment at all on the essay, instead we should simply say that she wrote an essay in response which sought to clarify her positions on trans issues, with a link to the essay so that readers see for themselves what the essay contains and make their own minds.[[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB|2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB|talk]]) 07:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: I'm okay with something along the lines of "Rowling later published an essay... In which she opposed several transgender rights, such as changing the gender marker on IDs and letting trans people enter the same toilets as their gender." Which includes more of what she said there. You may also add that "she claimed trans women in women's toilets are a threat to women, an that the transgender community is trying to erase the concept of biological sex, forcing doctors to ignore it when treating them." All of these are claims in that essay, all of them are false. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 07:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Also let's not forget that she claimed trans men are confused women and that trans people are trying to "convert" cis gay men. You wanna include that too? [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 07:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Why would we include your false claims? [[User:Abbyjjjj96|Abbyjjjj96]] ([[User talk:Abbyjjjj96|talk]]) 19:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[WP:TRIFECTA]] keeping your cool, assume good faith and no personal attacks. [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 19:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[WP:DNTL]]. [[User:Abbyjjjj96|Abbyjjjj96]] ([[User talk:Abbyjjjj96|talk]]) 20:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::Have you read Rowling's manifesto, or are you just calling me a liar to defend her? [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 14:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Bias against Rowling is showing |
|||
This site is full of SJW editors. |
|||
Pity , wikipedia is regressive not progressive. |
|||
Both points of view should be included. |
|||
Arguments of the things Rowling is right about |
|||
Arguments of the things Rowling is wrong about |
|||
But you editors won't allow that just to fit the gender narrative. Wonder if she could sue - I would if I could . Indeed this site is misrepresenting Rowlings ideas by not including some support for her or the points shes right about and their are people who support her . Hpdh4 15:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:For the record, I am not a SJW. I am a Level 12 Social Justice Warlock. And my house is Ravenclaw. We will not have a section or points on what Rowling is right about or wrong about because that is not our call to make. We report on what reliable sources say, and we include those bearing in mind various policies and guidelines, including but not limited to [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:BALANCE]], [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]], and [[WP:DUE]]. I think Rowling's lawyers would tell her "No, you can't sue Wikipedia just because an editor there wrote that Daniel Radcliffe responded to your tweets by writing 'Trans women are women'", but then nor do I think Rowling would be stupid enough to ask her lawyer to look into it. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 23:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I would like to point out though that it seems only people that disagreed with Rowling are mentioned under her views, not the tons of ppl that agreed with her. That is a sign of bias if anything. Why are even these peoples views listed under JK Rowlings views? [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 20:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Reactions (criticism and support) to J. K. Rowling's views on transgender issues == |
|||
I see there has been a lot of controversy regarding whose reactions on Rowling's views on transgender issues should be included here, but the question is should any reactions be included at all in this article? There's a section ''Views'' with four subsections: ''Politics'', ''Religion'', ''Press'', ''Transgender issues''. For some reason, the first three subsections just explain Rowling's views on those issues without giving any reactions or response from other people or organizations, although many of those issues are highly controversial; whereas the ''Transgender issues'' is almost half about response/reactions from others. We already have the [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] page where we can (and should) detail how her views were received. |
|||
On the other hand, if we do include reactions from others, we should only include those people/organizations who had commented ''explicitly'' on Rowling. Some of the actors cited as "criticizing her views" didn't actually say anything on Rowling. They have only posted support for trans rights in general, without any mention of Rowling. Of course, given the timing of such postings, it can be inferred that they were indirectly criticizing Rowling, but we are not allowed to engage in [[WP:OR]] here. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB|2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB|talk]]) 07:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:This section is justifyingly long, because it's the biggest controversy Rowling has been part of (just as a way of measurement, the only thing Rowling tweeted since that stream of tweets on 7 July was the link to that 3600 word essay). Rowling's claims were denounced by several major LGBTQ+ organisations and by the entire main cast of Harry Potter. You can't ignore that. The actors other than Radcliffe (who's special in this case) were only mentioned in a single sentence, so that this chapter doesn't become too text heavy. |
|||
:I understand why you are concerned, but the current status of this chapter is entirely justified. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 08:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:You're right, there has been a lot of controversy. We're discussing how it should be covered in a couple of sections above, already. Starting a new one implies you probably haven't read the talk page, where your points have already been addressed. Can we keep discussion to the sections that are already open, please? [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 12:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::yep it is confusing and repetive... I do apologise for replying when someone starts a new thread and I felt the need to reply. This talk page has become very messy. [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 22:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
But why should only people and organizations that disagreed with Rowling be listed? Tons of individuals are listed, why not list some individuals that defended Rowling? There are even some high profile lgbt people (including trans) that defended her right to have a view, or part of that view (like transgender athletes). [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 20:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{reply|Chronicler87}} In my opinion, the article accurately reflects the ratio of support-opposition that she received: a lot of condemnation and almost zero support from prominent figures. Giving equal mention to JK supporters could give the false impression that they are comparable in number to her critics. Anyway, could you name some of those "high profile" LGBT ppl who supported her? (Please don't tell me that you are referring to "Dana International" or "Blair White") <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#0d0638">[[User:Daveout|<span style="font-family:Courier New;color:#15ff00">'''daveout'''</span>]]</span> 👾 [[User talk:Daveout|<span style="color:#333b40"><sup>(talk)</sup></span>]] 21:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Well, is there a single mention of a person or organization that agreed with Rowling? If you just want examples, one could be that I watched the news where India Willoughby and Nicole Gibson made comments, they both defended Rowling, or at least things Rowling claimed, such as being against self-identification, against transgender athletes etc. There is also no mention of psychologists or other ppl that agreed with Rowling. Also, let's remember that it's a small clique of people that disagree with Rowling, if you look at newspapers and likes and dislikes, it's clear the support for Rowling is overwhelming. Most people think the entire dispute is just silly. And should we really take serious ppl that just tweeted "Transgender women are women", like that is a serious input in the discussion, while we completely disregard people that made long statements? [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 21:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|Chronicler87}}, there is a request for comment [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#RfC:_J._K._Rowling|here]] that concerns this very topic that you are welcome to participate in; after a month of discussion, it will be closed with the consensus determined and the decision implemented here. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 22:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|Chronicler87}} Her comments were condemned by the majority of LGBT campaign groups and most of the the reliable new media was negative about her essay. [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 23:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Well Bodney. There is another way to look at things, like for example when Sopranos started running, all the Italian-American organizations opposed it, but basically all the Italian-Americans loved it. It seems similar with the JK Rowling situation. Lots of transgender women think the whole transgender athlete thing is silly btw. These are just organizations, they say nothing about the people on the ground. Tons of transwomen have come out in favour of Rowling, those I mentioned like Nicole and India, but then many others. It has mostly been the "gay transmen" that she specicially mentioned (young women with autism) that have been reacting badly. I disagree with most news media being negative btw. [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 12:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Transwomen and transmen are as variable in their politics and beliefs as the rest of humanity, it is pointless waving mysterious unknown and imaginary tons of unnotable people into the argument, you need to back it up with with actual notable people preferably with some experience or organisations working in the area, so far I see the known friend of Rawlings and a couple of YouTube z list celebrities who represent only themselves. But in the end listing minor figures is pointless. I read about 26 News articles, from reliable sources, none were positive. [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 12:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{reply|Chronicler87}} Please refrain from using potentially insensitive remarks while making your point. There's no need to suggest that JK critics are autistic. This support-opposition thing is nuanced indeed. People who are expressing support\opposition are not necessarily supporting\opposing everything she says. For instance, India Willoughby thinks that JK is transphobic, but agrees with her on the specific issue of "trans self-identification". Dana International, on the other hand, doesn't consider her transphobic and defended her right to speak, Dana said that the topics JK was addressing were "worthy of discussion". In Dana's case, it's not clear whether she supports JK opinions, or simply her right to express and discuss them. |
|||
:When I google ´´J.K. Rowling´´ at Google News, these are the headlines: |
|||
:*Harry Potter Stars And Fan Community Reject J.K. Rowling’s Statement On ‘Trans Activism’ And Gender Identity (Forbes) |
|||
:*Trans activists call J.K. Rowling essay 'devastating' (CNN) |
|||
:*GOP senator quotes J.K. Rowling while blocking vote on LGBTQ bill (NBC) |
|||
:When I google ´´'''SUPPORT FOR''' J.K. Rowling´´ at Google News, the results are basically the same. Almost unanimous condemnation.<span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#0d0638">[[User:Daveout|<span style="font-family:Courier New;color:#15ff00">'''daveout'''</span>]]</span> 👾 [[User talk:Daveout|<span style="color:#333b40"><sup>(talk)</sup></span>]] 13:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Hey dave (I'm sorry I don't know how to "reply" like you do). And I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be offensive, it was a reference (which also Rowling stated) about the increase in young women seeking transition, there being studies showing for example 90% of gay transmen having autism, and there being a theory that it's the body dysmorphia of young women with autism and bpd that makes them go for transition, if you need the studies I can try to find them, but basically the point of many psychologists is that the same girls that used to self-harm and have eating disorders are now transitioning, here in Sweden the entire staff of a certain department of health care (dealing with trans) quit their jobs because they didn't think these girls should get that kind of treatment (and they couldn't refuse it), due to the high chance of later (sex-change) regret and it not dealing with their underlying issues. But yeah, I didn't mean to be offensive to anyone. It's crazy how many detransition videos there are on youtube right now from young women that regret changing into gay men and talking about their other issues. But yeah it's a big issue right now overall, and why so many are involving themself in this debate. But yeah, I didn't mean to offend sorry. I don't think I suggested that Rowlings critics were autists, but maybe I phrased my sentence badly. For that I'm sorry. [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 16:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: Yep it was Rowlings who was being offensive, her attack on young transmen is as bad as it was against women, she repeatedly purposefully missgenders them both. Rowling forgets to mention that most of the young folks who change their mind regards transitioning are just on puberty blockers, which are totally reversible with no long term effect. A 2018 survey of WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) surgeons found that approximately 0.3% of patients who underwent transition-related surgery later requested detransition-related surgical care. I thought the figure was about 2.5% of all transpeople had regrets, still a tiny figure exaggerated by Rowlings and I am afraid yourself.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 17:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't think I gave a figure. Also statistics can be read in many ways, if we say the number is 2.5%, that doesn't say anything about how many are gay transmen, or how many are male to female or female to male. Like for example there are many more male to female than there are female to male, if then of those 2.5%, like 80% would be gay transmen (made up number) then that would be significant. I am more interested of what kind of people that 2.5% is made up, and who is most likely to detransition, and right now it seems that gay transmen are most likely to detransition. Also, a lot of those that de-transed had been on opposite sex hormones and had breasts removed (at least those in the news). [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 18:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{reply|Chronicler87}} You do understand we are talking about *just* 2.5% of all transsexual people, who them selves are a tiny minority. What is written in Wikipedia articles is not about our individual interests or opinions (though they of course play *may* apart in which article you choose to edit) but what is reported in reliable secondary sources. ALSo something basic [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum]]. (unsigned from: [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]) |
|||
:{{reply|Chronicler87}} That's alright. That's why I said "potentially insensitive". Sometimes we may be insensitive without noticing\intending. All the concerns you are bringing here are valid (although there might be some unintentional exaggeration and conflation going on). In your argument, you say that most ppl criticizing JK are young transmen with autism, that is clearly false. As for ppl who regret transitioning, well... we all regret some life choices that we've made, don't we? Some ppl regret spending their lives pursuing lucrative careers instead of their dreams. Some regret undergoing plastic surgery. Some regret having children. Some regret becoming priests. That's normal. Why should that be some sort of taboo when it comes to trans ppl? Specially when the number of ppl who regret transitioning is comparatively insignificant. I'm certain that the vast majority of ppl who transition do not regret it. In fact, many of them say that transitioning saved their lives. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#0d0638">[[User:Daveout|<span style="font-family:Courier New;color:#15ff00">'''daveout'''</span>]]</span> 👾 [[User talk:Daveout|<span style="color:#333b40"><sup>(talk)</sup></span>]] 17:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Well daveout, for me it's partially personal. Let me explain. I know a girl, well, just imagine a girl so autistic she can't even look people in the eye (she also has bpd), she has scars over her entire arms (wear long sweaters with hoods), and has an eating disorder. She got the idea she was a gay man (based on her idea that her discomfort with her body was the same as the discomfort a transgender person feels with their body), and started hormones and had her breasts removed, she now regrets it, and is back to being a girl (with a darker voice) and even more miserable than before. There was no-one stopping her from getting that treatment (parents warnings were ignored), and this kind of story is repeated every day. And as I wrote above, sure, there might be a low number of detransitions overall, but how many of that low number are gay transmen (It's a huge problem that all these populations are just put together in most studies)? Most transppl are male to female (also my point earlier was only about transppl, which it seems to me that most have come out in support of many of Rowlings views, but maybe not Rowling herself). Anyhow, there is no logical biological explanation that can explain a "gay transman", we have to remember there are two schools of sexology, one that pretends sexual orientation, sex and gender (as in biological differences rather than cultural) are things that are separate and separately developed, but hard science show a completely different picture. I mean the latest antibody studies on the fraternal birth order effect show great promise in explaining how a male fetus is "prevented" (as in the testosterone surges in utero being disrupted) from masculinizing properly for example, therefore resulting in a person with a "female" sexual orientation (attraction towards men), engaging in "female" social behaviour and so on (brain failing to "masculinize"). But as stated, there is no biological explanation for "gay transmen". There are more male to female than female to male transgender for the same reason there are more gay men than lesbian women, that is, the brain being female by default in utero, and doesn't change for boys until the testosterone surges start. As someone that works with autistic young women I am deeply concerned. EDIT: Oh yeah, and I'm sorry, I realize this is massively off-topic, but then I didn't start it =P. My point was just that Rowlings article has 0% nuance and my experience from the news was massive support for Rowling in most quarters, especially transppl. [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 18:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
So are we then saying India Willoughby and Nicole Gibson are not notable? What transgender people are the most notable? Laverne Cox? I mean India is media person. Most the HP actors just tweeted in support of transwomen (Transwomen are women). Is Dana International notable? I mean if we are talking transpersons specifically, is this not as notable as it gets? And man, it might depend on what you read, and how you experience those articles, I've seen tons of articles and columnists supporting Rowling, and finding the misrepresentation of her views as silly. [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 13:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Apologies about India Willoughby, can you point to a reliable source that shows her support, not the metro or daily mail. Personally I can find almost nothing on Nicole Gibson. But these people only represent themselves. Of course some folks support her, just the main leading support organisations don't. I am interested in balance it would be good to see some of these supportive articles as my search engine keeps failing to pick them up. But we are going down a silly hole, none of this is relevant.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 13:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Bodney, here for example is a news discussion including both India and Nicole Gibson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXKSVWnyOSM&t=152s |
|||
Now if I remember right for example Nicole Gibson states she agrees with Rowling on transgender athletes and some other things, and India says that she agrees on self-identification and other things, but if I remember right she states she considers JK Rowling transphobic (despite agreeing with her major points). I also read some newspaper articles in which she talks about the self-identification thing. My point was that they seem to agree with some or most of Rowlings views, maybe not just everything (but then there is generally no person that 100% agrees with another person overall, especially not when Rowling covered so much in her essay). [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 16:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I am afraid YouTube is not considered a reliable source for wikipedia.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 17:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Also, let me please just restate my point. My point was that her page was completely biased in favour of her critics, with no nuance or stating that there was extensive agreement with Rowling on a lot of issues. [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 17:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::It simply reflects the overwhelming majority of the coverage of the essay in the reliable sources, if you want to know what wikipedia considers a reliable source [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources|click here]] [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 17:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Well, obviously, the source isn't youtube, it's Good Morning Britain, but I got no access to their website/that channel (location), so I linked from good morning britains youtube channel, of a panel which India is on, it's the same clip that was in their news episode. But obviously someone British or that has no location lock could find it on their website. [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 17:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Good Morning Britain is the TV equivalent of a cross between the Daily Mail and a trashy celebrity magazine, its presenter Eamonn Holmes was publically criticised for supporting the Covid-19 5G conspiracy theory. [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 18:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::My understanding was that ITV was a pretty big channel in Britain, anyhow, it's clear it's India Willoughby in that video, stating her own opinions. I am feeling this is just your bias showing here. (The platform she uses for stating her opinions shouldn't matter in a free debate). [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 18:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::The Sun, Daily Mail, the Daily Star, Hello Magazine are all big sellers in the Uk, but they are not used in Wikipedia. [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 19:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::And ITVnews is not any of those publications. Anyhow, I would have to look at the rule itself. [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 19:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== This is a biographical article == |
|||
If this controversy is important enough to include alternate views, then it probably needs an article of its own. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color: #00b;">Serendi</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><span style="color: #b00;">pod</span></sup>]]<span style="color: #00b;">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</span></b> 09:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:This could be taken as an argument for keeping the section as short as it is. Per [[WP:NOTNEWS]], and the fact that most of the sources on this are low-quality entertainment sources that are usually about flash-in-the-pan things like what so and so wore to such and such premiere, a new article is not warranted. Such an article would be a [[WP:POVFORK]] and would not survive AfD. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 16:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::It may scare you but there are plenty of sources that are certainly not 'low-quality entertainment sources' which Wikipedia considers very reliable that have reported on this issue, or maybe the Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Forbes, Variety etc should be treated as unreliable on the [[WP:RSP]].[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 16:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Doesn't scare me at all. Note that per RSP, though, "As an entertainment trade magazine, Variety is considered a reliable source '''in its field'''." (Emphasis added.) And in any case, just because several outlets cover something at the same time does not mean it warrants its own article. Per [[WP:NOTNEWS]], "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion...Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia". Tweets are trivia. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 16:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Firstly I should say I actually do share your concerns regards article forks, I prefer for the event to be treated properly and accurately here. |
|||
::::Most peoples Tweets are indeed total trivia, but these tweets are by a high profile sociopolitical commentator which have been reported in the serious press, so they have become elevated to more than just tweets. Tweets can be notable in themselves, ([[Donald Trump on social media|our great world leader is well known for using them and there is an article on his tweets]]). |
|||
:::: I do think the notable reactions against her tweet AND the lengthy essay with which she released to the world as a famous social-political commentator (which contained several additional erroneous fallacies regards transgendered people), should not be dismissed away as some loopy trans activists with their knickers in a twist in the low-quality entertainment press, it deserves to be treated with accurately neutrally respectfully, with full knowledge about the words and topics she chose to use.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 22:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::Even Reuters has covered this. Imagine! Reuters! :sarcasm: But FWIW I don't think we have nearly enough material to justify a new article. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 23:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I do support going into further detail in [[Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender issues]], but you can't really shorten what's written in the main article without making things worse. I mean, three paragraphs isn't much for quite a big controversy. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 10:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Agreed. It is after all (deservedly or not) a topic commonly seen as political in nature. Politics of JKR seems like a good place for expanding on this. [[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 10:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::[[WP:NOTNEWS]] applies to the entire encyclopedia. Since we are in June 2020 and this has mostly happened in June 2020, we are not in a position to judge how "big" a controversy this is in the sense that there would be lasting significance. We should not write about every tweet back the gossip press reports on. Any expansion at that fork article would tend to have different [[WP:WEIGHT]] and thus makes it into a [[WP:POVFORK]], which is not allowed. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 21:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Excuse me, where exactly did I claim the intention to "create (or use) a different article to be developed according to a particular point of view."?? Al I am saying is that if we're going to spend more words on this, it should be in the article specifically about her politics, as it's a political topic. Please keep your outrage at the appropriate level per [[WP:CALM]]. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 21:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Notice of Request for Comment == |
|||
Editors should be aware that a Request for Comment (RfC) about aspects of the [[:J.K Rowling]] and [[:Politics of J. K. Rowling]] articles has been posted on the BLP Noticeboard, [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#RfC: J. K. Rowling|here]]. Some editors have expressed concern that the RfC has not been put together or presented neutrally. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 13:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== HP fansites' statement on Rowling's anti-transgender activism == |
|||
I inserted the following: |
|||
:In July 2020, the [[MuggleNet]] and [[The Leaky Cauldron (website)|The Leaky Cauldron]] Harry Potter fansites jointly announced that they would no longer link to the Rowling's website, use photos of her, or write about achievements outside her Harry Potter fiction, as her views are "out of step with the message of acceptance and empowerment we find in her books and celebrated by the Harry Potter community," and describing them as "harmful and disproven beliefs about what it means to be a transgender person."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/03/harry-potter-fan-sites-distance-themselves-from-jk-rowling-over-transgender-rights|title=Harry Potter fan sites distance themselves from JK Rowling over transgender rights|work=The Guardian|date=3 July 2020|access-date=3 July 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/harry-potter-jk-rowling-trans-mugglenet-leaky-cauldron-a9599151.html|title=Harry Potter fan sites distance themselves from JK Rowling over transgender comments|last=Chilton|first=Louis|work=Independent|date=3 July 2020|access-date=3 July 2020}}</ref> |
|||
It was immediately reverted by {{u|Crossroads}}, stating "Removing excessive material per WP:NOTNEWS. The RfC at BLPN is addressing the length of this section and most such comments favir brevity. The WP:ONUS to get consensus is on those who wish to add material". |
|||
I contend that two of the biggest HP fansites jointly taking this action is [[WP:NOTABLE|notable]] and is certainly worthy of coverage; that the now moribund RFC was '''not''' called to discuss [[WP:NOTPAPER|length]]; and that the excision of anything from this and related articles that could in any be viewed as critical of TERF positions, with a cry of "[[WP:ONUS]]!" is now bordering on [[WP:TE|tendentious editing]] - Wikipedia [[WP:NOTCENSORED|is not censored]]. <small>The Guardian source even cites '''Reuters!!!'''</small> Yet, here we are. Line up, usual sides... [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 23:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
{{reflist-talk}} |
||
{{notelist-talk}} |
|||
*I obviously '''oppose''' this material for the reason I said in the edit summary. [[WP:NOTNEWS]] states, {{tq|Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of...events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion...Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia.}} And yes, [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#RfC:_J._K._Rowling|the RfC]] has 6 editors besides myself saying the section should be brief, with some of those even favoring removal (which I do not). It ''is'' being addressed there (and it is not "moribund"; it ''will'' be officially closed like all RfCs). Excessive length on this matter on Rowling's biography is [[WP:Undue]] and [[WP:Recentism]]. The section is not going to be a POV repository of each and every condemnatory opinion that got mentioned somewhere in the gossip press. And no, the opinion of some Harry Potter fans on the internet is in no way significant. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 00:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC) <small>updated <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 00:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|||
* {{Cite journal|last=Duggan|first=Jennifer|date=28 March 2021|title=Transformative readings: Harry Potter fan fiction, trans/queer reader response, and J. K. Rowling|journal=[[Children's Literature in Education]]|volume=53 |issue=2 |pages=147–168 |doi=10.1007/s10583-021-09446-9|pmid=35645426 |pmc=9132366 |s2cid=233661189 }} |
|||
::The RFC wasn't about this latest addition, which happened after the rfc, nor was it about the lenght of the text. NOTNEWS doesn't apply either, since these fansites are large enough to be notable and this is a permanent development. So crossroad's point is completely moot. If you guys want to improve the flow of the text by moving it around do that, and don't just revert because me no likey. I favour inclusion of the fact that this happened and you guys are free to figure out a way to better include it if you feel inclined to do so. Just keep in mind that there's nothing counterfactual, grammatically incorrect, or unencyclopedic about what is currently written in that alinea. Crossroad's personal preference is not an argument for reverting a change.--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 12:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*{{cite book |editor-last=Konchar Farr |editor-first=Cecilia |title=Open at the Close: Literary Essays on Harry Potter |publisher=[[University Press of Mississippi]] |year=2022 |isbn=978-1-4968-3931-2|ref = {{harvid|Konchar Farr|2022}} }} |
|||
:I don't think this needs its own lengthy paragraph at this time, but IMO it would be appropriate/due to expand the current sentence {{tq|Several actors known for portraying Rowling's characters criticised her views or spoke in support of trans rights, including Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Eddie Redmayne, Evanna Lynch, Bonnie Wright, and Katie Leung}} to add {{tq|[...Leung], as did the fansites [[MuggleNet]] and [[The Leaky Cauldron]]}}. [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 06:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
**{{harvc|last=Henderson |first=Tolonda |date=2022 |in=Konchar Farr |c= A Coda: She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named |url= https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2kqx0kz.19 |doi= 10.2307/j.ctv2kqx0kz.19|year=2022|nb=yes}} |
|||
::I think this is a good way to do it.--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 12:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* {{cite journal |first= Madeleine |last= Pape |author-link= Madeleine Pape |title= Feminism, trans justice, and speech rights: a comparative perspective |journal= [[Law and Contemporary Problems]] |pages= 215–240 |url= https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5037&context=lcp |date= 2022 |volume= 85 |issue= 1 |access-date= 29 March 2022 }} |
|||
* {{cite journal |first= Sarah |last= Pedersen |title= 'They've got an absolute army of women behind them': the formation of a women's cooperative constellation in contemporary Scotland |journal= [[Scottish Affairs]] |date= 2022 |volume= 31 |issue= 1 |pages= 1–20 |doi= 10.3366/scot.2022.0394 |s2cid= 246762983 |url= https://rgu-repository.worktribe.com/output/1375349 }} |
|||
::{{u|-sche}}, agreed there is no need for a lengthy paragraph. One sentence would seem resaonable? {{u|Crossroads}}, if the RFC has drifted off=topic that's unfortunate, but if you want it to be discussing something other than the particular questions which have already been put, then maybe you should point that out there, openly? The fact is, the ''whole topic'' of Rowling's attitude to transgender people and issues is now ''very'' [[WP:NOTABLE|notable]] and is not going away. There are additional related issues that should probably also be included. Whatever whitewashing or censorship mission you're on - stop? Expecting a talk page section for every new addition simply is not on and is [[WP:GAMING|not how wikipedia works]]. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 08:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* {{Cite book|last=Pugh|first=Tison|author-link=Tison Pugh|title=Harry Potter and Beyond: On J. K. Rowling's Fantasies and Other Fictions|publisher=[[University of South Carolina Press]]|year=2020|isbn=978-1-64336-088-1|oclc=1142046769|doi=10.2307/j.ctvs09qwv|s2cid=225791872}} |
|||
* {{cite book |first1=Tatiana |last1=Schwirblat|first2=Karen |last2=Freberg |first3=Laura |last3=Freberg |year=2022 |chapter= Chapter 21: Cancel culture: a career vulture amongst influencers on social media |editor1-last=Lipschultz |editor1-first= Jeremy Harris |editor2-last=Freberg |editor2-first= Karen |editor3-last=Luttrell |editor3-first= Regina|title= The Emerald Handbook of Computer-Mediated Communication and Social Media |publisher= [[Emerald Group Publishing|Emerald Publishing Limited]] |doi=10.1108/978-1-80071-597-420221021|isbn=978-1800715981}} |
|||
:::I would OPPOSE the inclusion of the paragraph per WP:NOTNEWS.I also think it's entirely reasonable to propose major additions to an article on its talk page prior to adding them as per WP:ONUS.[[User:NEDOCHAN|NEDOCHAN]] ([[User talk:NEDOCHAN|talk]]) 12:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* {{cite journal |last1=Steinfeld |first1=Jemimah|title= Not my turf: Helen Lewis argues that vitriol around the trans debate means only extreme voices are being heard |journal= [[Index on Censorship]] |year=2020 |volume=49 |issue= 1 |pages=34–35 |doi= 10.1177/0306422020917609 |s2cid=216495541 |doi-access=free }} |
|||
* {{cite journal |first1= Judith |last1= Suissa |first2= Alice |last2= Sullivan |title= The gender wars, academic freedom and education |journal= [[Journal of Philosophy of Education]] |volume= 55 |issue= 1 |date= February 2021 |pages= 55–82 |doi= 10.1111/1467-9752.12549 |s2cid= 233646159 |doi-access= free |url= https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10125585/1/Suissa_1467-9752.12549.pdf }} |
|||
:::::I oppose the addition of that paragraph too. It gives undue weight to recent events; and you end up with the section "''Transgender issues''" being mostly about the reactions of other people/organizations, rather than describing Rowling's views. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250|2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250|talk]]) 12:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*{{Cite book|editor-last=Whited|editor-first=Lana A.|title=The Ivory Tower, Harry Potter, and Beyond|publisher=[[University of Missouri Press]]|year=2024|isbn=978-0-8262-2300-5 |ref= {{harvid|Whited (ed)|2024}} }} |
|||
::::::I mean, yes? that's how that works? if someone says something controversial, people's reactions to it are a good way (and the only acceptable way) to illustrate that without violating wiki policy--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 13:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC). |
|||
** {{harvc|last= Borah |first= Rebecca Sutherland |c= 'Accio Jo!' Woke Wizards and Generational Potter Fandom |in= Whited (ed) |year=2024 |nb=yes}} |
|||
:::::::Rowling chose to publish that manifesto, and she now faces the consequences. It doesn't make those consequences irrelevant to the article. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 13:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
** {{harvc|last=Whited|first=Lana A.|c = Introduction |in= Whited (ed) |year=2024 |nb=yes}} |
|||
::::::::::I don't really think that ''"Rowling chose to publish that manifesto, and she now faces the consequences"'' is an appropriate tone to have a productive discussion here. And the "consequences" that Rowling faces are not all negative (there's more on this at the RfC). With regard to the reactions to her essay, there were very many of them, and we must choose carefully and give due weight to what we add here, both with regard of whose opinions we add and with regard to how much the discussion on others' opinion can take from that section. Just because these things are '''now''' all over the news, that doesn't mean we must throw everything here indiscriminately because [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250|2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250|talk]]) 14:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
::::::::I mean, it's not even about consequences or anything as arcane as that, it's a basic principle of wikipedia. If you don't want OR in your articles, which we don't, citing other sources' reactions to something is the only legitimate way to actually include the fact that something happened on wikipedia. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 13:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm with Batsun. Saying that Rowling liked pro-conversion therapy tweets or that she deleted a tweet praising Stephen King after he showed support for trans women may fall under WP:NOTNEWS. But these are two significant websites (combined they are about as popular as [[Pottermore]]), significant enough to have Warner Bros. send them movie materials before release. Just because [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|you don't like it]] doesn't make it unencyclopedic. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 13:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You should really have in mind that [[WP:BLP]] applies to talk pages too. Your claim ''"Saying that Rowling liked pro-conversion therapy tweets"'' is deeply misleading because it implies that Rowling supports conversion therapy (in its original meaning, that is practices trying to change a person's sexual orientation). That tweet was about a Canadian law that dealt with children's biological sex and how it related to a child's gender identity and what can therapists say to that child about biological sex. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250|2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250|talk]]) 13:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::That's what's being reported. Would you care to log in, 2A92:ipv6? You appear to have forgotten to. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 19:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
It's clear there's a consensus for inclusion. I would prefer a distinct sentence (single - it doesn't need a paragraph), but including it as part of the other reactions is fine. Of equal import, though, is the seeming marker bring drawn by Crossroads, which seems to be saying nothing gets included without them removing it and forcing a discussion, per [[WP:ONUS]] (which is a subsection, let us remember, of the [[WP:V|Verifiability policy]], ''not'' the notability policy!). To my mind, that is [[WP:GAMING|gaming the system]]; and equally, the reference above to the RfC, which apparently is now also about the length of this section, even though that's '''not''' addressed in any resolution in that RfC. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 19:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Again. Bastun has done the right thing. I disagree that consensus is clear. I suggest proposing an edit here and we'll see if we can find sth we're happy with.[[User:NEDOCHAN|NEDOCHAN]] ([[User talk:NEDOCHAN|talk]]) 19:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::: That already happened. Considering the fact that you don't acknowledge this I am starting to feel that you are acting in bad faith by suggesting we go through the process again. Do you even know what the version you are reverting says? --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 19:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::: <small>FWIW, the user did something similar on [[Talk:Graham Linehan]], participating in a discussion about making a change and even supporting the change, as enough other users also did to establish consensus, but then claiming the change had been made without discussion or support. I assume good faith, though, despite being mindful of the [[WP:DUCK]]/[[Sealioning|Sealion]] test. :) [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 20:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|||
::::::<small> the user just way too hastily dropped a 3rr admin request on my head after triggering an edit war with me (which stopped at excactly three revisions), so make of that what you will. (so hasty in fact that nothing on the form has actually been filled in besides my name) --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 20:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:Someone boldly adding something and me reverting it as not encyclopedic is not [[WP:GAMING|gaming the system]], it ''is'' the system, per [[WP:BRD]]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 00:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::it also says you should err on the side of caution when choosing what to revert, something you certainly aren't a shining example of. let me remind you that [[WP:BRD-NOT|BRD is not]] an excuse for tedentious editing, nor for reverting changes you don't like. BRD is never a reason for reverting, and I quote: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." which, despite all the random WP:pages you drag into it, certainly appears to be what you are doing. I recommend you stop doing it and take a good read through what WP:BRD is NOT before you press that undo button again, because I for one am seriously getting fed up with your antics. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 09:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:: Shouldn't there be inclusion of the fact the the sites did more than merely criticising her? I mean, removing pictures of her, not linking to her site and practically ignoring her existence after 2007 is quite big. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 03:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree. I liked the original version better for that reason, but since there seems to be a bit of a spanish inquisition present on this page I elected to be conservative in what the consensus version was. Feel free to try to add it to the current version, but I expect we'll have to deal with another bullshit revert-and-complain cycle immediately afterwards. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 09:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020 == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|J. K. Rowling|answered=y}} |
|||
"change Transgender issues to Transgender people" [[User:JKISEVIL|JKISEVIL]] ([[User talk:JKISEVIL|talk]]) 20:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:What justification is there for this change? — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 20:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::[[File:Pictogram voting wait.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Already done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Rummskartoffel|Rummskartoffel]] ([[User talk:Rummskartoffel|talk]]) 21:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Transgender people vs transgender issues == |
|||
There appears to be a slow moving edit war both here and on [[Politics_of_J._K._Rowling|Rowling's politics page]] about whether the heading under #views should be "Transgender people" or "transgender issues". The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=966222526&oldid=966221860 claim has been made] that there is a consensus about this, though I can't find one. Let's discuss it further here and establish a consensus for both pages. — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 21:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
It's just come to my attention that this edit war is thanks to Paris Lees' very unhelpful [https://twitter.com/parislees/status/1279869216997376000 canvassing]. Semiprotect status has been requested. — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 21:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{Not a ballot}} |
|||
*I would support the correction to Transgender '''people'''. Rowling's is concerned and has written about her issue with real people's rights, both trans men and trans women. I do not think we can separate these 'issues' with trans people - from trans people themselves. When discussing a person's views on '''peoples rights''' is is it OK to say gay issues, lesbian issues, black issue, disability issues, etc if we are talking about a section of society. Lets us be respectful, neutral and call them people and simply not 'issues'. To call someone a Issues, does not sound neutral and suggests that the is a problem with them.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 21:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*I support '''issues''', with '''matters''' or '''topics''' as equally acceptable alternatives. Her comments are not about any individual people, nor about the group of people as a whole. Rather, they are about certain related issues/matters/topics. There is disagreement among transgender people on these matters as well, for example: [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-transgender-superstar-dana-international-to-the-defense-of-j-k-rowling-1.8919710][https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-dare-the-body-shop-tell-jk-rowling-what-to-think] And [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] show that it is not about people but about political questions: [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate][https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm] I had stated that "issues" was the consensus version per what is said at [[WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS]], and because the heading had not been changed despite all the other controversy that had been going on over the last few weeks. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 21:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*I think changing it is both justifiable and not a big enough deal to warrant yet another talk page discussion. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 22:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* The phrase "Transgender issues" has negative connotations, implying that the group in question may have issues, or are an issue. Compare it with the phrase "Jewish problem". This can thus be best avoided by the phrase "Transgender people". "Transgender matters" is <i>better</i>, but still less than ideal. [[User:AlbertW|AlbertW]] ([[User talk:AlbertW|talk]]) 22:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* Agree with Crossroads and his reasoning for '''issues'''. I do not agree that there's any kind of implication that this heading implies trans people have issues: I think it's clear that it's about issues relating to transgender people. — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 22:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* [[User:Czello|Czello]] Maybe you just came up with a good new title for the section with the line you just used! Maybe the title should be Issues Relating To Transgender People. Keep everyone happy! Good compromise. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:FlyboyExeter|FlyboyExeter]] ([[User talk:FlyboyExeter#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/FlyboyExeter|contribs]]) 22:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
* [[User:Czello|Czello]] and others posting above: The title "Anti-transgender Activism" is used on Graham Linehan's page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Linehan#Anti-transgender_activism. That might also work as a title for the section. But I like "Issues Relating To Transgender People" the best as a good compromise for both parties! <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:FlyboyExeter|FlyboyExeter]] ([[User talk:FlyboyExeter#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/FlyboyExeter|contribs]]) 22:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
** I think this is far too loaded a term -- it's not for us to say that Rowling is anti-transgender, as that doesn't seem to be the crux of her political views. She's coming at this through the lens of women's rights. I think changing the heading to "Anti-transgender activism" would violate WP:NPOV. However, I would be happy with "Issues relating to transgender people" as that seems to be a fair compromise, as you say. — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 06:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)\ |
|||
***I would find this an acceptable compromise as well, though I do think it's still a bit too white-washy and vague --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 14:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* I find 'issues' a bit euphemistic/vague. I agree with Bod that labeling a section gay issues or gay matters would raise an eyebrow from me if it was about a person's negative views towards gay people. I understand the desire for neutrality but being vague in this case feels less than neutral. I find Crossroads arguments that this isn't about individuals or a group of people strange as well. These are clearly her opinions about transgender people as a group and RS talk about it that way. For example, Forbes refers to this as her "opinions on transgender people and rights" and Washington Post refers to this as her opinions on the transgender community [https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmapocock/2020/06/23/harry-potter-stars--fan-community-reject-jk-rowlings-statement-on-trans-activism-and-gender-identity/#435a7057295d here] and [https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/jk-rowling-transgender-women-comments/2020/06/07/303dd2e2-a8f7-11ea-a9d9-a81c1a491c52_story.html here]. [[User:Rab V|Rab V]] ([[User talk:Rab V|talk]]) 22:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
**A Forbes "contributor" piece, which you have linked to, carries no more weight than a blog post, per [[WP:RSP]]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 02:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Good catch, I missed that since the contributor tag is so tiny on the page. Here is how some reliable sources do refer to Rowlings' comments; [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/style/jk-rowling-transgender-fans.html NYT] "Ms. Rowling’s anti-transgender comments", [https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-53276007 BBC] "comments about transgender people",[https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/ Variety] "Anti-Trans Tweets", [https://apnews.com/7338b2b262090c00f04deafe2e6689c2 Associated Press] "JK Rowling’s tweets on transgender people", [https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351 NBC] "her controversial stance on the transgender community", [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/03/harry-potter-fan-sites-distance-themselves-from-jk-rowling-over-transgender-rights The Guardian] "her beliefs on transgender rights", [https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/06/30/jk-rowling-deletes-stephen-king-tweet-support-transgender-women/3283982001/ USA Today] "her recent anti-transgender comments." It seems like RS support that het comments pertain to transgender people and transgender rights. [[User:Rab V|Rab V]] ([[User talk:Rab V|talk]]) 03:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Transgender Issues:''' The Transgender People heading is dishonest, and it flies in the face of article neutrality. Rowling's issue isn't with the existence of transgender people. She's arguing against the current handling of issues concerning transgender people. The belief that the Transgender Issues heading is insulting is 100% obtuse. The heading is clearly referring to issues surrounding the transgender debate. Wikipedia is not intended for users who are easily insulted by the most innocuous of phrasing. (BTW, a better heading would be Gender, since Rowling's views on this matter aren't limited to transgender issues.) [[User:MetaTracker|MetaTracker]] ([[User talk:MetaTracker|talk]]) 02:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*I would go with '''transgender people''', for much the same reasons as Rab V. (I have seen at least one article use the wording "transgender topics", which is vaguer but would at least avoid the—well—''issues'' people have raised with the connotations of "issues".) [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 04:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Transgender people''' is the correct term. '''Transgender issues''' is a nebulous "whitewash" heading. Rowling has a problem with transgender women in particular. At a minimum, she doesn't want them in the bathroom with her, and she doesn't want them to be able to self identify.[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate] She wants to control the lives of '''Transgender people''' and deal with them on her terms. Rowling supported Maya Forstater in a case where the judge ruled that similar views on transgender people to Rowling's "violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment".[https://drive.google.com/file/d/12P9zf82TicPs2cCxlTnm0TrNFDD8Gaz5/view] [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 04:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*Just rename the subsection to [[Cissexism]]. [[User:Gobonobo|<span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans; color: #333300">gobonobo</span>]] [[User talk:Gobonobo|<sup>+</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Gobonobo|<sup>c</sup>]] 09:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:*I don't think this would be appropriate -- as far as I'm aware, there aren't any reliable sources accusing her beliefs as "cissexist" -- or at least, not in any such number that it'd be appropriate to label her as one here. — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 09:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Of course it can't be named "cissexist" and neither should such a term be used to describe her or her views, it's needless to say that would violate numerous policies.[[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:56B8|2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:56B8]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:56B8|talk]]) 12:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::It also violates [[WP:JARGON]]. We here debating this know what it means, but very many readers will not. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 14:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Transgender issues''' (or transgender matters or a similar formulation) but not "transgender people". Transgender people is POV and a provocative title, because it implies that Rowling has a problem with the trans people themselves, rather than with politics surrounding some forms of trans activism. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:56B8|2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:56B8]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:56B8|talk]]) 12:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:*@ Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:56B8 From what source are you getting that Rowling had a problem with trans politics or trans activism, rather than with the trans people themselves. The use of the word 'activists' or even 'politics' are POV in themselves, a way to divorce the discussion away from the fact that we discussing a person's opinions on the civil liberties or human rights of a section of people in society. The first rule in attacking the rights of a section of society is to deny we are talking about human beings, but to say it is only an issue or problem with their leaders, or them crazy radical activists, or vaguer the politics.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 15:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:*Agree with this point; I think it encapsulates why I'd prefer it to be "issues". — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 12:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I mean, does she not? She seems to have quite the problem with them, given that she's written an entire longread criticizing their very right to exist in ~women's spaces~. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 14:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I'm in favour of "people", as I pointed out directly above this, her words are directly directed at and affect trans people, who in her opinion should barely be allowed to exist in women's spaces if they're passing, let alone if not.--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 14:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm afraid that's your interpretation though (that she has a problem with trans people themselves) and so would be go against WP:NPOV. Personally I don't think she has an issue with the people, she's raising an issue about the safety of women's spaces. That said, I don't to turn this into a WP:FORUM thing, which is why I agree with the IP above that this seems that "issues" is the most neutral way of presenting the subject. However, earlier you have expressed that "Issues relating to transgender people" could be a good compromise, even though you feel it's white-washing the subject. While I have my own qualms with that heading, I also do think it's the heading that would please the maximum number of people. It seems an accurate heading to me -- while her comments are mostly about women's issues, they are by proxy "Issues relating to transgender people". It also includes the word "people" which I'm hoping will please you and others in this thread. What do you think? — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 14:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::While I don't think my suggestion is against NPOV, like I said, I am more than willing to more than willing to make a compromise on this one. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 14:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I can accept this as a compromise if it comes to that. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 14:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::It looks like we're developing a consensus for "'''Issues relating to transgender people'''". There seems to be a fairly even split between "people" and "issues" (with good arguments on both sides) -- so is there anyone who disagrees with "'''Issues relating to transgender people'''"? — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 15:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Issue (noun) = ''a subject or '''problem''' that people are thinking and talking about'' ~ [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/issue the Cambridge Dictionary], so "Issues relating to transgender people" = "Problems relating to transgender people" nice, great improvement. If an article subject has negative issues with the rights of a section of society or minority group we should not side with the article subject and reduce the rights of those other people to mere issues or problems. When discussing a person's views on a section of society, especially their civil and human rights it is not OK to merely say gay issues, lesbian issues, black problem, disability issues, Jewish problem, women's issues in the title etc. Lets us be respectful, neutral and call, when referring to people and simply not call discussions about them 'issues' or 'problems'. To call someone an Issues in Wikipedia's voice (which a heading is) is not neutral and suggests that the is a problem with them.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 15:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::Respectfully, I think you boldened the wrong word there. The word that should have been in bold was "or". It can relate to a problem, but most people will read it as "subject" -- rather than willfully reading it in a way to take offense. No one is saying that transgender people are an issue, we're saying it's a topic relating to them. However, the suggestion was made above that "matters" or "topics" could serve just as well. — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 15:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Naaa "Or(s?) relating to transgender people" would not make sense (joke). People read things in different ways, one extremely common way to read 'issues' is to see that word as an alternative to 'problems'. [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 15:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I take your point, but I don't think we should be avoiding the word "issues" on the off-chance someone reads it in the wrong way -- when I think it's fairly clear what to real meaning is. That said, we do have alternatives in "matters" or "topics" as above (I'd pick "matters" above "topics", personally). — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 15:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::if we make it "matters relating to transgender people" I'm fine with that too --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 15:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::It certainly comes across better, but a Wikipedia title heading 'Topics relating to X' or 'Matters relating to X' is not the ''Topics or Matters relating'' part of the heading a bit superfluous.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 16:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::it's a compromise. If it works for them, it works for me.--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 16:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
(out)The "issues" are about "<b>transgender rights</b>" or "<b>transgender law reform</b>" or "<b>gender identity</b>"[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm][https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate][https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-53276007][https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/][https://apnews.com/7338b2b262090c00f04deafe2e6689c2][https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/06/30/jk-rowling-deletes-stephen-king-tweet-support-transgender-women/3283982001/][https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/06/07/j-k-rowling-harry-potter-author-slammed-transphobic-comments/3169833001/] Any of those three could be a reasonable compromise. "Issues relating to transgender people" is <b>not</b> a good compromise because it too has the original objection that the interpretation can be "transgender people have issues". That is not [[WP:NPOV]]. Many of the cited sources use the terms "anti-trans” and “transphobic” by her critics so there is a strong arguement "Transgender people" is appropriate. There were only 2 citations given to support "issues". Only one uses "transgender issues", which is in a quote from what the article admits is a radical feminist. That same reference uses the term "transgender rights". [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 15:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I made a [[WP:BRD]] edit and used the term "gender identity" to get to a neutral term. It is already used in the subsection. [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 16:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::With all due respect, literally no one would read it the way you just did.--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 16:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I would word it not "transgender people have issues" but rather other people have issues/problems with "<b>transgender rights</b>" or "<b>transgender law reform</b>" or "<b>gender identity</b> of trans people.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 16:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::It's already discussed in the subsection, "facts about gender identity" and "do not respect a person's self-identity". Please expand on why "Gender identity" is not a good compromise. [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 16:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I have no problem with "Gender identity." I was just pointing out that trans people do not have issues with it (well not when it comes to them having rights and protection under the law) its other people like Rowling <s>s</s> and Bindel who have the problem.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 16:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Her name (that is, the name of the subject of the article) isn't 'Rowlings'. And transgender people already have 'rights and protections under the law' in the UK -- not so much in the USA -- and Rowling hasn't said that she has any problem with that at all. And that whole section of the article, including the heading 'Transgender people', with the deliberate and false implication that Rowling has a problem with transgender people when what she's actually talking about is women's rights (the thing that TRAs, who are mostly blokes with beards, wish to eradicate, quelle surprise), reads as if it were written by people with... quite serious unresolved issues. [[User:Khamba Tendal|Khamba Tendal]] ([[User talk:Khamba Tendal|talk]]) 17:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I am sure you did not mean to be offensive about transwomen, this article is after all a biographic article. '''Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page'''. If Rowling was not talking about transgender people why then is most of her essay about her concerns regarding transgender people, both how trans rights some how affect women's spaces and the very existence of transgenderism ~ many times she miss-genders trans people, regarding the growth in the number of young transmen, Rowling said in her essay she believed misogyny and sexism, fuelled by social media, were reasons behind the 4,400% increase (in the UK) in the number of transmen transitioning in the past decade, not transgenderism itself. To deny that her essay and tweets is about trans people is to whitewash and deny the clear reality that her words are clearly about how transgender people who are seen by Rowling and radical feminists as a threat to biological sex.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 18:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I, however, am sure that you ''did'' mean to be offensive. IF you're not here to improve the article but just to make provocative statements, please find somewhere else to do it. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 19:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Thanks [[User:Bodney]] for making that more clear to me. [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 17:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:Licks-rocks]]:I don't understand your objection to "Gender identity". As I stated, it's already discussed in the subsection, "facts about gender identity" and "do not respect a person's self-identity". Please be more specific about why it isn't a good compromise. Thank you. [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 17:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
(out)Reading [[Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender people vs transgender issues 2]], I think there was some progress made on a consensus for using a term like Transgender identity, Transgender rights, Gender identity, Comments on gender identity, Women's rights vs transgender rights or something similar that would relieve the objection she was not tolerating "people", and the objection of how "issues" could be misconstrued. Discussions? [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 21:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Seriously? You've read this discussion, and are genuinely proposing "Women's rights vs transgender rights"?! Transgender women are women. The two are '''not''' mutually exclusive and the vindication of one set of rights does '''not''' come at the expense of anyone else's rights. That's the whole bloody point of this controversy! After taking a breath... no, Ward20. That would not be a [[WP:NPOV]] heading. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 22:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't ascribe to Rowling's way of framing it, but my opinions don't matter a bit. That is her argument as far as I understand from the sources, and the article is about Rowling's political views. I have seen several media articles write about both sides. Most articles don't make a value judgement one way or the other, but interview the advocates for the sides. The advocates and option "against" Rowling's viewpoint seem to have much more [[WP:WEIGHT|coverage]] in the reliable sources I've read. |
|||
::It is up to the editors [[WP:NPOV|to neutrally give the proper weight]] to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." |
|||
::I was a mechanical engineer before I retired. When brainstorming concepts it is usual to throw things into consideration, without making value judgements, in hopes of stimulating a idea. Sorry I offended, it was not my intent to adhere to a particular point of view except [[WP:POLICY]]. [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 00:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Understood, and accepted. My reaction was prompted by use of a term that could be said to come straight out of the TERF playbook and could be seen to be/was seen by me as partisan rather than neutral, but I accept you were brainstorming in good faith. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 16:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2020 == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|J. K. Rowling|answered=yes}} |
|||
"=== Transgender people ===" to "=== Transgender issues ===", using 'Transgender people" makes no sense in the article. As these are her views, and the only reason why the said change was made was because of the transgender community taking offence to Ms. Rowling's views. [[User:Brakesahib|Brakesahib]] ([[User talk:Brakesahib|talk]]) 00:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Not done}} - {{u|Brakesahib}}, this is already being discussed [[Talk:J._K._Rowling#Transgender_people_vs_transgender_issues|in the previous section]]. You are welcome to comment there to help us reach a consensus. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 02:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Should her views on transgender people be mentioned in the lede? == |
|||
A few months ago, I considered adding a single sentence to the end of the lede section acknowledging the ongoing controversy about Rowling's views on transgender people, but I felt it might be premature. I think that now it may be time to do so. These hateful views of hers have been the defining characteristic of her public life for several months now, and there's no reason to think this will stop being the case anytime soon. What do others think? --[[User:Reschultzed|Reschultzed]]|||[[User_talk:Reschultzed|Talk]]|||[[Special:Contributions/Reschultzed|Contributions]] 04:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:From what I remember the coverage reached its highest level up till then last month, with those tweets and then the essay. Since that is recent, I think we do need to beware of [[WP:Recentism]]. I think it would be better to wait a little more to see if it really stays so defining that it is worth mentioning in the lead. But if it is mentioned, one sentence is all we should have per [[WP:Due]]. And the source to be used for it should be something top-tier at [[WP:RSP]]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 05:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Rowling herself considers this subject important, as evident by the fact she refuses to let it go. Rowling recently released a new book, yet almost all news and online talks regarding her are about her transphobia. Imagine if Stephen King were to release a new book, and all everyone talked about were his tweets. I would imagine there's significance to those tweets. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 06:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:My initial inclination was to suggest waiting, as this "feels" recent (and I suspect the case for inclusion will grow with time). However, not only have her "likes" of things in this vein been getting coverage in RS going back years, but looking at the dates I am reminded that her statements "standing with" Maya etc and significant RS coverage of those goes back to last year: this has been given significant coverage for months. It also accordingly constitutes a not-insubstantial portion of the article, about 1 of 30 "screens", or about 5% of the body by word count when I paste it into a word processor (in both case excluding [[WP:RPS|the text of the references]]). (She also appears to consider it significant herself, as YuvalNehemia notes.) So, I think a sentence about it would be [[WP:DUE]]<!-- (and almost exactly mathematically appropriate, as the lead is currently 18 sentences)-->. But what should the sentence say? [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 07:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I think including her views in the lede would be a case of [[WP:RECENTISM]]. It's been big news for the past few months, but I think it'd be undue weight to add it to the lede at this time. We have a fairly prominent section on her views further down in the article, though, which I think works. — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 08:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:We agree that this has been going on for longer than six months and has certainly been covered extensively by a very large number of international reliable news media sources, plus neither are Transgender people going to disappear nor sadly is Rowling's outspoken gender critical view of them is likely to change. The case for [[WP:RECENTISM]] is more than a little bit crumbling away. Her views on transgenderism are covered by a fairly prominent established section in this article, and as the lede is supposed to reflect the article, so a mention is increasingly [[WP:Due]]. Lede statements do not need to sourced as citations are usually found in the main body, but I guess if we do not add a good source or three somebody will come along and delete the segment.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 11:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Some top level sources :- |
|||
::Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate?] |
|||
::NBC [https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351 J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto'] |
|||
::Independent [https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people] |
|||
::Independent [https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-transgender-letter-twitter-trans-people-a9559346.html JK Rowling reveals sexual abuse and domestic violence in open letter defending transgender comments] |
|||
::Independent [https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jk-rowling-trans-people-tweets-letter-reaction-bathrooms-a9561871.html J K Rowling, predatory men and the nuance we're all missing out] |
|||
::Telegraph [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/trust-jk-rowling-spouting-dangerous-nonsense-trans-people/ Trust me, JK Rowling is spouting dangerous nonsense about trans people] [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 12:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
This is something that has been very prominent now for several months, and various sources have pointed to issues going back much further than December 2019. [[WP:RECENTISM]] can hardly apply any longer. As the lede should summarise the body, brief mention is warranted. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 15:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:While I'm aware the issue of her views does go back longer than 6 months, I don't think the significance and controversy of her views has been as major as it has been recently. If she remained as controversial a figure in, say, six months' time I think it would warrant inclusion. Including it now I feel is [[WP:UNDUE]] weight. — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 15:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I don't feel that her views on this issue are a sufficiently-defining characteristic to (as yet) warrant a place in the lede. <b>[[User:Esowteric|<span style="color: green;">Esowteric</span>]]+[[User talk:Esowteric|<span style="color: blue;">Talk</span>]]</b> 16:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I feel the same about her recent career as a screenwriter and producer, but reliable sources disagree... [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 18:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* I'm going to agree with Esowteric here: It hasn't reached that level of significance in the public consciousness, not even close. it might one day, but it hasn't yet, and as such, I don't think it warrants a place in the lede. (To be clear, it might take just a day for this to change, if she talks about it on a very large large public event or something like that.) --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 21:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Radical feminist? == |
|||
In [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&type=revision&diff=966700992&oldid=966655791 diff], this article was placed into the categories "English feminists" and "Radical feminists". My understanding (and the policy [[WP:BLPCAT]]) is that such categories need to be supported "by the article text and its reliable sources" (and may also need to be definitional and not just incidental attributes, I'm not sure). There is not presently any text in the article that supports either category. If the categories are appropriate, would someone like to add some text and refs? Otherwise the categories should go... [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 18:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I was unsure about that too, it seems to be an assumption based on her other views (so, [[WP:OR]]). I think I'll go ahead and remove that -- though I think English feminists should remain. — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 18:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't, so I'll remove that one. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 18:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Here is one source [https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351 J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto'] to start with, the is probably more, (sorry i am busy for next couple of hours). [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 18:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Oh, there are ''many'' more for the TERF category. Some have even been discussed previously. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 18:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm not sure that is a good enough citation for her to be called a radfem. The quote in question from that link is, ''In a tweet sharing the blog post, Rowling simply wrote "TERF wars." TERF stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminist, a term which critics have called the author''. Her tweeting "TERF wars" isn't an admission of being a radfem. (Unless there's some other part of that article I've missed?) — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 18:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::I accept, I just whizzed through over a dozen news articles and her essay. [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 18:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I would say yes on "English feminists" and below borderline (no at this time but could change if more sources support) on "Radical feminists". |
|||
:I'm basing that on present text and citations the in article: |
|||
:*Rowling has been referred to as a [[TERF]] on multiple occasions, though she rejects the label.<ref>{{Cite web|last=López|first=Canela|title=J.K. Rowling wrote a controversial statement about transgender people in response to being called a 'TERF.' Here's what that means.|url=https://www.insider.com/jk-rowling-what-is-a-terf-trans-exclusionary-radical-feminist-2020-6|access-date=5 July 2020|website=Insider}}</ref> She has received support from some feminists, such as [[Julie Bindel]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Thorpe |first1=Vanessa |title=JK Rowling: from magic to the heart of a Twitter storm |url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm |work=The Observer |date=14 June 2020 |quote=Arrayed on Rowling’s side are some of the veteran voices of feminism, including the radical Julie Bindel, who spoke out in support this weekend:...}}</ref> |
|||
:Bindel says Rowling "has always been a feminist" in the Guardian citation. |
|||
:Speaking about that text. At [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] consensus supported the term [[Feminist views on transgender topics|gender critical feminist]] for Julie Bindel. The material is similar but condensed slightly as I believe is proper on this main article. But the question is, should this wording for Bindel be duplicated here? [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 18:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Three more articles, <i>Vanity Fair</i> calling her a "British feminist", all three just shy of calling her a TERF.[https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/06/jk-rowling-trans-men-terf.html][https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/09/what-terf-definition-trans-activists-includes-j-k-rowling/5326071002/][https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/06/jk-rowling-transphobia-feminism].[[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 19:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I think she can be safely called a feminist.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 19:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:Bastun]]:I believe you were the one to remove the cat "English feminists". Can it be put back, or is there a source that states she is not an English feminist? Thanks. [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 05:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, it can be find right next to the source that proves the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. But she would certainly qualify as a feminist if she were to qualify as a TERF. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 08:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{talkref}} |
|||
== |
==== Discussion of Draft 6.1 ==== |
||
Thanks for getting the ball rolling on this, {{u|S Marshall}}, and I hope Victoria feels better soon. I am traveling today and won't be able to peek in 'til tomorrow. Bst, [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Agreed, thanks. As a newcomer to this discussion, I have to ask why are we just relying on one critic, Whited, whose opinion seems at ace level very pro-trans. What gives Whited the right to be here? Would it be useful to insert another critic to level the bias, or remove reference to Whited together? |
|||
One bullet point states, "*The topics of her political values in the series have been discussed here, here, here, here, here and here. She has not publicly espoused any radical political views and any attempt to uncover such views in her works is very likely to violate WP:OR." |
|||
:Also, in terms on labelling JKR, if a label is needed, gender-critical is indeed appropriate and applicable. [[User:Scientelensia|Scientelensia]] ([[User talk:Scientelensia|talk]]) 18:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::If you can find a proper Rowling scholar who ''doesn't'' think Rowling's a trans-exclusionary feminist, go ahead and cite them.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 20:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
It's getting pretty good, actually; focused mostly on what she actually said rather than endless tedious recounting of what other people think of it. As to the discussions about whether to say "gender-critical", that seems to be a reasonable label to use, one that is frequently used as a self-label by people expressing views of a similar nature to JKR's, not a pejorative name like "TERF" or "transphobe". The point of disagreement is in the apparent lack of her actually self-labeling this way; it seems JKR hasn't applied any sort of ideological or political label to herself, preferring her views to speak for themselves. This makes it harder to put a label on her, but if one is to be applied, this one seems fairly reasonable. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] ([[User talk:Dtobias|talk]]) 18:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Weird characterisation==== |
|||
That bullet point is out of date, and inadequate about it's warning to possible future events. I think it has outlived it's usefulness and should be removed. I would do it if there is consensus, but I don't know where that template is located. [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 21:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
"Since 2017,[4] she has written frequently about transgender rights, mostly in the context of proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws that would make it easier to transition without a medical diagnosis." |
|||
:I still wouldn't call her a radical; her views on transgender people are fairly mainstream here in the UK, unfortunately. But if you want it, the template is [[Template:JRowling]]. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color: #00b;">Serendi</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><span style="color: #b00;">pod</span></sup>]]<span style="color: #00b;">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</span></b> 23:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Part of the problem was [[Special:Diff/963079284|this recent good-faith edit]], which obscured the fact that those discussions were about people labeling her a secret communist / communist-sympathizer—the changed wording is unclear and overbroad to the point of inaccurate, as noted. I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AJRowling&type=revision&diff=966801526&oldid=966774440 tried to revise it] to reflect what the linked discussions (and intent of the sentence prior to the recent broadening) were about. [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 08:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::That makes more sense. I still don't believe the warning should attempt to predict the future. Suggest, "attempts to uncover such views in her works have been rejected as [[WP:OR]]. [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 14:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I don't get why we're using such a weirdly unspecific wording as "about". Like "she has written frequently against transgender rights" says something. If we can't get the sentence to say something with actual meaning, then the sentence is filler and should be scrapped: as it is, the only part that seems to be meaningful is "since 2017". |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020 == |
|||
Well, there's also the part about the gender recognition laws being the main focus... I have to ask if that's supported by sources as a general rule, or if the sources only say that she reacted at three times to such laws. It's kind of hard to make such a general statement with sources locked to very narrow periods of time. If the statement is something like "initially in response to..." then that's much easier to support. |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|J. K. Rowling|answered=yes}} |
|||
Add {{redacted}} on the ''External links'' section. It is the most complete source of all J.K. Rowling's writing, forewords, articles, and publications. [[User:101008a|101008a]] ([[User talk:101008a|talk]]) 21:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Like, the draft's a massive improvement, but that one sentence... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 22:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Not done}} per [[WP:COPYVIOEL]] (and a shady-lookin' website anyway). –[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]] ([[User Talk:Deacon Vorbis|carbon]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deacon Vorbis|videos]]) 00:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*And, she's not writing about or against transgender rights. She's writing about the law and the definition of a woman, with a focus on access to female-only spaces. I'll get my thinking cap on.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 10:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Editorialisation == |
|||
*:Actually why not just say that? |
|||
::{{tq2|Since 2017 she has written about the law and the definition of a woman. She is concerned about proposed changes to UK law that would make it easier to transition without a medical diagnosis, and about freedom of speech. She is particularly interested in how increased transgender rights would affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.}} |
|||
::The downside is, it's long.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 10:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think, as long as that doesn't replace the sentences after the one under discussion, that it's okay, but I do worry we're skirting the line of falling into the gender critical movement's framing of itself. As the rest of the paragraph explains, her views are very anti-transwomen. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 13:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I wouldn't just say anti-trans woman. She has expressed some pretty serious contempt for trans men too, just in the "poor deluded girls" framing that often gets people to mistake condescension for concern. |
|||
::::I agree that "about" is bad and "against" is better. But maybe something like {{tq|She has frequently opposed proposed laws that would expand transgender rights, such as...}} would be even better? [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 14:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::True, though her views on transmen aren't as widely reported (and more-or-less don't appear in the rest of the proposed paragraph) so it's a little harder to source with the restrictions on sources <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 16:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I wouldn't write "opposed proposed". You might say I'm disposed to oppose opposed proposed.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 16:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::😅 |
|||
:::::::Alright then, {{tq|She has frequently spoken against proposed laws that would expand transgender rights, such as...}}. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 18:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*How about: |
|||
:{{tq2|Since 2017 she has written about transgender people. She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. She is concerned about how easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.}} |
|||
:Better?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 19:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::This works! [[User:Scientelensia|Scientelensia]] ([[User talk:Scientelensia|talk]]) 19:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Now up as draft 6.2.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 19:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I still don't like it because IMO {{tq|Since 2017 she has written about transgender people}} is meaningless without saying which way she has written about them. We could cut that sentence and just have: |
|||
::::{{tq2|Since 2017 she has resisted proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. She is concerned about how easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.}} [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 23:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::She hasn't, though. She started writing about trans issues in 2017 but the resistance to legal changes dates to 2019 at the earliest, so that's counterfactual.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 23:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Was there any commentary of particular prominence or noteworthiness in 2017 or 2018? If not, one could say something like "While she had made some comments beginning in 2017, her views first came to widespread prominence in 2019..." and then jump into the Maya Forstater stuff and the proposed changes to UK law. If her extremely early views are going to hurt an otherwise clear and consise description of what she did, cut out the information or isolate it to its own sentence. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 01:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: That's a lot of extra words though.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 06:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*In draft 6.3, I've cut the disputed sentence.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 06:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Suissa and Sullivan == |
|||
I removed the following words, as they are not from the sources: 'prejudicial' and 'along with misgendering a person' in regard to the court's ruling. None of the first sources says 'prejudice' and none of the other sources mentions 'misgendering' as relates to the court's ruling. |
|||
{{cot|Continue this at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Suissa and Sullivan]], please.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 15:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
We've discussed anove what an odd source this is, and how it has sections that are clearly pro-gender critical movement. The introduction explicitly states that transwomen are not women, and that transgender people need no mord rights than already offered under UK law at the time. In the revised draft, it's used once. Does it ''have'' to be used at all? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 16:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Is it your position that no source that takes such positions should be used? How about sources that take opposing positions (stating that trans women are women, that transgender people need more rights under law, and being anti-gender-critical movement)? Do all sources have to be strictly neutral, or is it just that sources taking one side (but not the other) need to be avoided? [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] ([[User talk:Dtobias|talk]]) 14:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=967331858&oldid=967235607 |
|||
::The issue here is that it appears to be a non-mainstream position in academic philosophy. (I'd link that to [[WP:FRINGE]] but in the context of philosophy that feels inflammatory. Nevertheless, I still would avoid citing it for its argument for similar reasons.) And it's also only being used as a redundant citation for a single footnote right now. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 02:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::In which case there's no reason to cut it.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 07:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::It's giving a questionable source exposure. I'm not sure how it adds anything but makes the article vulnerable to a source check. Does it even support the content? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 07:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Well, you say it's questionable, but you've raised questions about its ideology rather than its accuracy.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 07:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::They're saying it's [[WP:PROFRINGE]] - which it is - and as such it should not be used as a source in circumstances like this one. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::No, that sentence isn't promoting a fringe theory.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 18:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::The paper is, for example, {{tq|We will argue that current conflicts around sex and gender are not about trans rights per se, which we fully support, and which are already protected under current UK legislation,1 but about the imposition of ontological claims underlying a particular ideological position. Often associated with the intellectual traditions of postmodernism and queer theory, this position entails denying the material reality and political salience of sex as a category, and rejecting the rights of women as a sex class (Jones and Mackenzie, 2020). Disallowing discussion on these points is a feature of and, as we will argue, fundamental to a prominent strand of activism associated with this position, which we will refer to here as the gender identity ideology and movement.}} Is dipping into fringe territory with the claims that: |
|||
::::::::# There is a postmodernism and queer theory-derived ontological position that denies the material reality of sex as a category. |
|||
::::::::# That said ontological position "rejects the rights of women" |
|||
::::::::# That discussion of these points is disallowed |
|||
::::::::These are fringe positions. They're frankly farcical if you have even a passing familiarity with queer theory or the major ontological works of "postmodernism". [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Carrying on, we have this chestnut: {{tq|For gender identity campaigners, simply asserting that sex exists as a meaningful category, distinct from people’s self-declared ‘gender identity’, is deemed transphobic. Lobby groups such as Stonewall demand affirmation of the mantra ‘Trans Women Are Women’, with explicit and repeated calls for ‘No debate’. The statement ‘Trans Women Are Women’ could be assumed to be a polite fiction.}} Which is both deeply inaccurate, deliberately disingenuous with its interpretation of what "trans women are women" means and also pretty bloody bigoted to boot such as the language it uses to position [[Stonewall (charity)]]. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I would give this line {{tq|In practice, the kinds of statements that routinely lead to people (overwhelmingly women) being denounced as transphobes include:}} a big old {{citation needed}} tag if it were in a Wikipedia article. Since, you know, it makes a factual claim with absolutely no citation nor evidence. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 19:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Over and over Suissa and Sullivan make the claim, unsupported by evidence, that the ideology of Stonewall and another trans rights charity erases, eliminates or obviates sex as a protected category. This is a factually inaccurate statement and is, frankly, a [[WP:FRINGE]] view within politics, social sciences and philosophy regarding the relationship between sex and gender and how trans rights legislation goes about protecting the rights of trans people. This is what I mean when I say it's fringe. The whole paper, front to back, is fringe. And, in fact, had such slap-dash research quality that the press had to issue a factual correction. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 19:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{unindent}}My draft uses that source as a reference for: "[Rowling] received insults and threats". Not a single part of [[WP:FRINGE]] or [[WP:PROFRINGE]] is relevant.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The question is whether the source, as a fringe source, should be used when another, non-fringe, source would suffice for that particular piece of copy. I don't think anyone is objecting to the claim that Rowling was insulted and may have even faced threats. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 19:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{reply to|RabV}} reverted the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=967339534&oldid=967331858 |
|||
:I mean, if it's not a reliable source, we shouldn't use it to source anything. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 21:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I'd also question whether it's even a great source for citing the information it's meant to. Quote the text in Suissa and Sullivan that supports that point. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 22:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Okay! I've said "Rowling received insults and threats". Suissa and Sullivan p. 69 supports the insult part of that, which if you read it, is specifically that Rowling got told to "choke on a basket of dicks". Among many other things. Because that's the level of discourse you get on Twitter.{{pb}}Anyway, at issue here is whether Suissa and Sullivan is a reliable source for the claim being made. You have identified that it's not an impartial source. As you rightly say, it has a POV. Predictably, Wikipedia has a rule about that. The rule says that Wikipedia articles have to be neutral, but sources don't. Good sources are by experts and experts ''always'' have a POV. Our task, as Wikipedians, is to construct a NPOV article from POV sources. (This is all written up in WP:RS, and specifically the paragraph at [[WP:BIASEDSOURCES]].){{pb}}It's also true that some sources are just unreliable for ''any claim at all''. We call those sources "deprecated" and they include for example the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail isn't unreliable for being a horrible Tory rag full of ghastly right-wing opinions (even though it definitely is). We don't deprecate other horrible Tory rags full of ghastly right-wing opinions. We deprecate the Daily Mail because it has a history of straight up lying, publishing stuff its so-called journalists made up in their lunch breaks.{{pb}}Where a source is an academic or professional journalist, to deprecate it needs an ''extraordinary'' level of proof. The Daily Mail's complete sitewide deprecation needed three RfCs, [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC|here]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 255#2nd RfC: The Daily Mail|here]], and [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 299#RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from WP:RSPDM summary|here]], the third of which I personally closed in June 2020. If you want to say Suissa and Sullivan are unreliable for ''any claim at all'', then that's the kind of level of proof that Wikipedians demand.{{pb}}But if you want to say it's unreliable for the specific claim I'm making, then that's a normal use of a talk page and I'm all ears.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 22:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::That's not how any of this works. What you're describing is not [[WP:DEPS|deprecated]], it's [[WP:GUNREL|generally unreliable]]. "Deprecated" means that a source is both generally unreliable and we warn people whenever they try to add it. Even generally unreliable sources {{tq|should never be used for information about a living person}}, as this source is being used here. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 22:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::: It's not unreliable for the claim I'm making.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 22:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I see no policy-based reason for excluding the source or the content it's citing. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::You yourself say that it ''only'' sources the insult part - and it literally only quotes one incident of it. So it doesn't even source half the content that's its ''only'' reason for being in the article in the first place. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 23:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I get that you don't like it, Adam, but this is a teachable moment. I can use a source without conceding to a single one of its biases.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I don't think you ''should''. It's improving the prominence of a POV, Fringe source without any compelling reason, not even to properly source the phrase in question (as it only sources half). Insisting on including it is no different than someone putting in a spam link to vaguely cite some fact in an article. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 00:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::I refer you to my answer of 14th May at 22:36, paragraph 2.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 11:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::There's a bit of [[WP:IDHT]] going on here - our concern is not with whether Rowling was insulted - I am confident you can find plenty of reliable sources for that - the concern is that this source is [[WP:PROFRINGE]] and as such should not be used for a general comment about a [[WP:BLP]] regardless of whether the source should be deprecated. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::: There's certainly plenty of IDHT going on here. Since you persist in claiming that the source is generally unreliable, I'll open a thread on WP:RSN about it later today, so we can collapse all this verbiage until it's archived.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 12:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
So, if I'm understanding discussion properly, perhaps [[WP:ONUS]] Suissa and Sullivan is out and we can finally move on with getting this back to FA level? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 14:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree. Someone should make a draft 7, if we feel it's necessary. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 22:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:55, 26 May 2024
J. K. Rowling is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2008, and on June 26, 2022. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Transgender people" section should be re-titled as "Transphobia"
Why are we white-washing her transphobic views? Representing overt transphobia as simply her "views on transphobic people" is reductive. It makes her views sound way more benign than they really are, violating NPOV in the process. 98.116.173.242 (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, it shouldn't. Because it labels her, and leaves no room in a section like that for any supportive or neutral views of transgender people, and this is a WP:BLP which must maintain a neutral point of view. There is no ban on representing her transphobia in a section entitled Views on Transgender people, and well-sourced content on her transphobic views are welcome in that section. The heading is fine as it stands. Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reinforcing this - WP:BLP has a very specific and strident set of guidelines about how we can refer to a person and, in order for us to just say "Rowling is a transphobe," we would need the vast preponderance of reliable sources, including, in her case, academic sources to say "Rowling is a transphobe." Otherwise we simply cannot. That's why you'll see the fiddly and fussy discussions over minutia above. There's a pretty widespread sentiment right now that the article, as it stands, is not neutral or accurate regarding how Rowling has expressed her political views surrounding the rights of trans people. And a lot of effort is going into trying to correct that within the bounds of what we can do on Wikipedia. For more, though, we must use other venues than Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- No it shouldn't, for reasons already explained. But since Rowling's comments have been made in the context of changes to laws, a more apt section heading would be something like Transgender rights. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- 98.116.173.242: This is an idea riddled with bias and cannot be accepted. I agree with @Simonm223, this page is very left-leaning and biased. I think it needs radical changes, personally. Scientelensia (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think you should probably go back and re-read what I said. Because my concern is that it is not neutral in that it under-plays the extent to which Rowling is transphobic but that we should make sure that changes happen within the appropriate boundaries of WP:BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Reboot: Draft 6 (near final)
- First five drafts can be reviewed at #Proposed text for "Transgender people" section; previous discussions and source dumps in Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 16.
Draft 6
NOTE!!!! I have reversed the order (draft vs. historical) compared to earlier versions because it's easier to edit with the draft first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Draft 6: 459 words | Historical: 429 words |
---|---|
Rowling espouses gender-critical views.[1][2][3] Since 2017,[4] she has written frequently about transgender rights, mostly in the context of proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws that would make it easier to transition without a medical diagnosis.[5][6][7][a] She opposes gender self-recognition[12][13][b] and suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.[15] In April 2024, responding to Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act, she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".[16] Controversy over Rowling's gender-critical messaging accelerated in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater.[17] When Forstater's employment contract with the London branch of the Center for Global Development was not renewed after she expressed gender-critical views,[18] Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".[19][c] According to Harry Potter scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal".[24] In June 2020,[24] Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate",[25] and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".[26][18] Rowling's views have impacted her reputation. As her views on the legal status of transgender people came under scrutiny,[9] she received insults and threats[27][28] and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community.[29] While her remarks provoked condemnation,[10][30][31] sales of Harry Potter books grew during the COVID-19 lockdown.[32][33] Fans turned away from her work and boycotted events, and publishers hesitated to accept her work.[34] Criticism came from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron,[35] and LGBT charities Mermaids,[36] Stonewall,[37] and Human Rights Campaign.[5] GLAAD called Rowling's comments "cruel" and "inaccurate".[38] Leading actors of the Wizarding World spoke out against her stance;[39][40] Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Eddie Redmayne and others declared support for the transgender community.[41][d] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[45] Rowling rejects these characterisations and denies being transphobic.[14][46] In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – that left trans people feeling betrayed[12][35] – Rowling said her views on women's rights arose from her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault.[47][48] While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.[48][49][50] Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".[51] |
Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws,[5][6][e] and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy.[10] Her statements have divided feminists;[7][52][53] fuelled debates on freedom of speech,[54][55] academic freedom[9] and cancel culture;[30] and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary,[56] arts[57] and culture sectors.[58] When Maya Forstater's employment contract with the London branch of the Center for Global Development was not renewed after she tweeted gender-critical views,[18][19] Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".[19][f] In another controversial tweet in June 2020,[36] Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate",[25] and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".[60][61] LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments;[39][40][g] GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate".[65] Rowling responded with an essay on her website[14] in which she revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault.[48] While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she believed that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.[48][66][67] Writing of her own experiences with sexism and misogyny,[68] she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to transition if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class".[69] Rowling's continual statements – beginning in 2017[10][70][71] – have been called transphobic by critics[72][73] and she has been referred to as a TERF.[73][74][75] She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.[14][72][71] Criticism of Rowling's views has come from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron;[76] and the charities Mermaids,[36] Stonewall,[77] and Human Rights Campaign.[78] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[45] As Rowling's views on the legal status of transgender people came under scrutiny,[9] she received insults and death threats[27][79] and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community.[29] Some performers and feminists have supported her.[29][80] Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".[81] |
Sources
|
---|
References
Notes
|
Discussion of draft 6
My intent was to work in everything mentioned under Draft 5, recognizing that the first sentence may still be a sticking point. My apologies if I missed anything (it's been quite a chore to keep up with this talk page :).
Going forward, could people please remember that we are now at a state which is approaching final and would like others to weigh in, so please try to keep your feedback chronological, brief, and within a separate fourth-level heading when starting a new issue. All that said, I think great progress has been made, in a collegial and collaborative environment!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sandy, for consistency with the previous drafts, I think these need to be flipped with the new one on the right and the historical on the left. Unless I'm missing something? Victoria (tk) 20:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- I left a note about that at the top of #Draft 6; when editing to make changes, it's easier if the version being edited is first. I often had to start over, as I entered changes in the old version when trying to change the draft, so having the draft first is easier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
First sentence: feedback needed
- This is a substantial improvement. I'd delete "espoused" without replacement, and I'd simplify "Beginning in" to "Since", and then I'm happyish with it.—S Marshall T/C 00:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Implemented beginning in --> since.. On the opening sentence, now that the rest of the para gives more context (the laws and the self-identification without diagnosis), I would probably be OK with that as well, but I'll wait to hear from others before implementing that change in the draft. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- It reads okay without "espoused". If we keep it, suggest converting to present tense - "espouses". Lets see what others say. Victoria (tk) 13:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I prefer the version without "espoused", and I agree if we do keep it, it should at least be present tense. Loki (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Changed to present tense. On the rest, my concern is that we cite three scholarly sources who quite carefully do not label her as such, rather state that some do. Wikipedia does not lead; it follows sources. I'd feel much better about flat out labeling her if we had three scholarly sources which did that. (I've included the exact quotes from the sources; the reasons we can't label her flat out are already covered in the section just above this one, #"Transgender people" section should be re-titled as "Transphobia". And the section name should be "Transgender rights".) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Followup from WP:BLP:
"Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research."
In the interest of moving forward, I have attempted to find a compromise ("espouses views") for this area of disagreement. I have always been willing to install content developed by consensus on talk to the article even when I disagree with that content; I can't do that in this case, as without sources, I believe the proposed changes to the first sentence breach BLP. We can't label Rowling "gender-critical" in the absence of high-quality sources that do so. The sources we have so far do not do that. Our options at this point are: 1) find scholarly sources labeling her outright, 2) wait for more feedback, 3) someone besides me installs the draft should consensus form to add what I believe to be a BLP breach, or 4) run an RFC (do we install before the RFC, or wait a full month to get something installed, or find an interim compromise?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)- It's really important to be fully immersed in the sources to understand the nuances, and I'm not convinced an RFC would be helpful at this point. I'm fine with "espouses" because that's really the best that can be done with the sources. I'm wondering whether the sources support that she's outspoken? If so, can we simply say something along the lines that "Rowling has been vocal about her gender-critical beliefs". Sorry, I'm not feeling well today, so this is just brainstorming and an imperfectly framed idea and I don't have sources open to check, so feel free to ignore. P.s - thanks Sandy for the work on the talkpage - I got caught in a number of edit conflicts earlier. Victoria (tk) 18:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- After walking away for a bit of perspective & then re-reading this evening, "espouses" seems fine to me. Victoria (tk) 23:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Followup from WP:BLP:
- It reads okay without "espoused". If we keep it, suggest converting to present tense - "espouses". Lets see what others say. Victoria (tk) 13:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Implemented beginning in --> since.. On the opening sentence, now that the rest of the para gives more context (the laws and the self-identification without diagnosis), I would probably be OK with that as well, but I'll wait to hear from others before implementing that change in the draft. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Scholarly sources are written for scholars, so there are things they don't say.
- The sun is quite large and rather hot. But you won't find a paper in an astronomical journal that says so. The paper might give specifics of the sun's temperature at various depths, its diameter, its mass, its density or its circumference. But if you need to explain in a Wikipedia article that the sun is big and hot, scholarly sources are no good at all. Because the astronomy professors are writing for an audience that knows about stars, there are things they don't have to say and they don't waste words on.
- Therefore you need a source that says the sun is big and hot, you have to go to a non-academic source.
- But, Sandy, I want to ask you to stop and think here. If, as it seems, you can genuinely read the sources on Rowling and not think she has gender-critical views, then really, how objective are you about this?—S Marshall T/C 00:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with you that we shouldn't require scholarly sources specifically if we have good quality WP:NEWSORG ones. But I do sympathize somewhat with Sandy here: this is a featured article on a BLP and we do need to make sure we can clearly source everything we say about her. Loki (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Re S Marshall, the "sun is hot" analogy doesn't apply to this situation for two reasons.
- We have three high-quality sources (that multiple editors seem to agree are good scholarly sources) that quite specifically are not silent on the topic, as an astronomy professor may be on whether the sun is hot. The academics we have so far do address the matter by specifically not saying that JKR is a TERF, rather they clearly state that some say she is, while others disagree. Silence on the "sun is hot" is not the situation here.
- Since the sun is not a living person, Wikipedia doesn't have a Wikipedia policy to make sure we don't defame it.
- We can't use lower quality sources to refute good academic sources that we have on this matter, and Wikipedia can't be the first to say something that high quality sources, when specifically addressing the matter, have not said as far as we know. Re your final question, perhaps you would stop and think about whether you want to be the first editor in several years to personalize a discussion on this, or the FAR, talk page? What any of us thinks is irrelevant; our content is guided by policy and sources. If there really are no scholarly sources or academics willing to label JKR a TERF, then we should be moving forward on an alternate way to frame the first sentence; compromise should not be hard, considering there are many ways to frame the sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- All right then.
- We need one phrase that encapsulates J. K. Rowling's views on sex and gender. In draft 6, we've already decided and agreed that she:
- Opposes gender self-recognition;
- Accuses trans women of being men;
- Believes sex is real, or at least, warns of dire consequences of thinking sex isn't real; and
- Denies being transphobic.
- These are of course the precise views we cover in Gender-critical feminism, with a long string of academic references for the definition. But also at issue here is the law, and there's also a legal definition of what gender-critical views are, from the judgment in Maya Forstater -v- CGD Europe & ors. They include: The belief that sex is immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity... [which are] ...absolutist in nature and whereby... [Forstater would] ...refer to a person by the sex she considers appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment. According to the Tribunal, this is the element of gender-critical views that amounts to a protected philosophical belief. It's even more simply encapsulated (at page 3) as: the Claimant’s belief as to the immutability of sex. (This is the Law of England and Wales. Unfortunately for 13tez, Maya Forstater's case isn't about Scots Law.)
- Therefore, J. K. Rowling's views on sex and gender meet both the academic and legal tests for what a gender-critical belief is. QED.
- The objection is that a sufficiently academic source doesn't say so. Wikipedia does have a problem with this. We use hedges like: "[Donald] Trump's political positions are viewed by some as right-wing populist" (from Political positions of Donald Trump), because to say Donald Trump is a right wing populist in wikivoice would be sooo controversial.—S Marshall T/C 08:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I feel it should be pointed out that this section "[Forstater would] ...refer to a person by the sex she considers appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment." is the Appeal Tribunal quoting the first instance judgement, and was an interpretation disputed in that appeal. The Appeal judgement found that "On a proper reading of the Judgment, the Tribunal was stating that the Claimant would not use preferred pronouns whenever she considered it appropriate not to do so. That must mean that she would not use them where she considered it to be relevant. If that is correct, then the description “absolutist” would appear to be something of a misnomer as her position was more nuanced and context dependent." Absolutism and an automatic rejection of preferred pronouns are not therefore part of the legal definition of the protected gender-critical belief in the UK. Daff22 (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- We need one phrase that encapsulates J. K. Rowling's views on sex and gender. In draft 6, we've already decided and agreed that she:
Unnecessary attribution ?
Re
In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – that Tolonda Henderson[35] and Whited state left trans people feeling betrayed[12] – Rowling said her views ...
Could we drop the attribution, and make this just:
In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – that left trans people feeling betrayed[12][35] – Rowling said her views ....
My impression is that this is a widely supported statement, so that the attribution is creating a false impression, not needed, and only clunking up the sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Imv: Yes, drop it.—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree we can drop the attribution there. Loki (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Thoughts from Scientelensia
Regarding this part: “In April 2024, responding to Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act, she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".”
- Could it be changed to this (or a shorter version of it)? “After the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 had come into force in April 2024, Rowling, who resides in Edinburgh, took to X to criticise the bill, stating that "freedom of speech and belief" was at an end if accurate description of biological sex was outlawed. She further posted a list of transgender women, and wrote that they were "men, every last one of them".[1] Rowling also said: "Scottish lawmakers seem to have placed higher value on the feelings of men performing their idea of femaleness, however misogynistically or opportunistically, than on the rights and freedoms of actual women and girls."[2]”
My main criticsm of this draft (though it is much better than before) is that:
- The actors who didn’t support Rowling are in the main text, the others are merely a note. I understand the difference between main and supporting actors, but it does seem that those who oppose Rowling are being given more prominence. Intentions could be misconstrued. As for scholarly sources (which Sandy Georgia wanted; these are surely adequate I hope):[3][4][5][6] (for example). From Scientelensia (17:47, May 7, 2024)
- Another main criticism is that this paragraph…
- Fans turned away from her work, boycotted events, and publishers hesitated to accept her work. Criticism came from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron, and LGBT charities Mermaids, Stonewall, and Human Rights Campaign. GLAAD called Rowling's comments "cruel" and "inaccurate". Leading actors of the Wizarding World spoke out against her stance; Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Eddie Redmayne and others declared support for the transgender community. After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.
- …almost wholly only lists critics from organisations. No support for her has been mentioned at all, which arguably displays bias as there was a lot of support for her also. From Scientelensia (20:04, May 7, 2024)
- The last paragraph also fails to mention any praise for JK Rowling’s essay; only criticism. Only the views of trans people are considered. See for example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55350905. From Scientelensia (20:08, May 7, 2024)
References
- ^ "J.K. Rowling Mocks Trans Women To Defy Scotland's New Hate Crime Law: "I Look Forward To Being Arrested"". deadline.com. Archived from the original on 1 April 2024. Retrieved 3 April 2024.
- ^ "JK Rowling in 'arrest me' challenge over hate crime law". BBC News. 1 April 2024. Retrieved 8 April 2024.
- ^ "Ralph Fiennes: Verbal abuse directed at JK Rowling is disgusting and appalling". The Telegraph. 24 October 2022. Retrieved 13 December 2022.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ "'It's horrendous': Helena Bonham Carter defends JK Rowling and Johnny Depp". The Guardian. 28 October 2022. Retrieved 30 November 2022.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ "JK Rowling: Miriam Margolyes says anger at Harry Potter author over trans views has been 'misplaced'". The Independent. 19 April 2022. Retrieved 16 December 2022.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ "Robbie Coltrane says JK Rowling transphobia critics 'hang around waiting to be offended'". The Independent. Retrieved 7 May 2024.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Thoughts from Victoria
A couple of thoughts to keep things moving.
- First, there's been a sustained effort to improve what's currently in the article & in my view that's a Good Thing. Pats on the back all around!
- Second, re first sentence. What we have is honestly fine. There are other options too. I'm not convinced that Wikipedia:CONTROVERSY applies - it's an essay about articles rather than about one section in an BLP. Following that line of thought, then we can write something like Rowling's remarks/comments (pick the word) have been/are controversial. This Glamour article (very long) has been continually updated for a number of years & is cited by a number of the literary critics. The verbiage they use is that J.K. Rowling has come "under fire" for controversial tweets (not verbatim, but very very close). We should either stick with the first sentence as written in Draft 6 or consider rewriting along the lines of the controversial tweets verbiage.
- Third, re scholarly sources: Rowling is a productive writer - something like 20 works in 25 years - and the reason this article exists is because of her writing career. Because she's a writer, literary critics do what literary critics do - hence scholarly sources. For this topic in Rowling's bio, those sources simply distill news sources and are now the desired secondary sources.
- Fourth, I think Scientelensia raises points that are maybe worth considering. Back when we were discussing Draft 3 it became clear that draft had veered into discussing what others were saying about Rowling, rather than what Rowling says/believes. To veer back, we might consider trimming or even cutting the text in the third para beginning from "Criticism came from the Harry Potter fansites ... " possibly to the end of the paragraph. If so, the text can focus on Rowling & there'd be fewer words.
Personally, I think we're almost there. In fact, I think we could take the "it's good enough" route and say that Draft 6 is good to go. What do others think? Victoria (tk) 23:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- My general thoughts are that while there are things I'd change if I could write it entirely myself, I think that Draft 6 is basically fine and I'm not that interested in getting in a big fight about what are essentially small quibbles. Loki (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that the proposal has veered into non-neutral territory by overfocusing on one academic writer (Whited) rather than a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. A survey of the entire literature would not have seen us drop the one sentence in the article that is most likely to endure beyond what any Hollywood star said or thinks. "Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom and cancel culture ... " and more). But this is not a hill worth dying on; I wouldn't mind if we install and move on, but if I had my druthers we'd move the list of all actors and organizations to footnotes (who is surprised at the list of charities?), and restore and expand instead the content that will endure beyond Hollywood -- that is, the overall and lasting cultural effects of the whole brouhaha as reflected in a variety of scholarly sources. A thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature produces scholarly analyses of linguistics, hate speech, fandom, feminism, women's rights, trans rights, etc -- much more than passing opinions of Radcliffe, Watson and anyone else who spends the GDP of a small country to attend the Met Gala. I don't think the draft is POV enough to tag it as such, the POV is subtle, and I won't protest if it goes in, but somewhere along the way, neutrality was dropped in the content that was excised. My solution is different than Scientelensia's; rather than add in those who support her, delete all of that recentism, and focus on a survey of the literature and the broader issues raised. But if someone wants to install now, I won't object. I still believe the section heading should be "Transgender rights". I don't think Draft 6 is FA material, but the rest of the article is, so neither do I think a FAR is in order; it's good enough, but won't endure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Your solution would work also, but there would also have to be rigorous testing to ensure that the selection of literary works constitutes an unbiased interpretation. Scientelensia (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- 1. Looking back at Victoria's fourth point, I agree; that's where in my view most precious real estate (word count) is misspent on excess detail, and trimming that would give us room to work back in some neutrality and replace some RECENTISM with enduring content.
could becomeCriticism came from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron, and LGBT charities Mermaids, Stonewall, and Human Rights Campaign. GLAAD called Rowling's comments "cruel" and "inaccurate". Leading actors of the Wizarding World spoke out against her stance; Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Eddie Redmayne and others declared support for the transgender community.
by moving the detail to a footnote. That word count could be better used on more enduring issues.Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World.
- 2. Whited may have said this, but here's where neutrality is particularly lost:
"Fans turned away from her work, boycotted events, and publishers hesitated to accept her work."
In fact, book sales increased, Universal Studios is expanding Harry Potter World, a TV series is in the works, Maya Forstater was exonerated, etc ... so while the statement is true to some extent and for many people, it's factually inaccurate in terms of leaving out the big picture, and redundant to territory already covered in the first point above. Dropping the sentence is an alternative to discuss. - 3. Looking back at Draft 4 reveals the problem with trying to write an encyclopedic entry with topic sentences: doing so can result in a POV construction that leads the reader (I forget which article is on a record number of FACs for this very problem, which has proven insurmountable). Grouping like content logically by paragraphs avoids wasting wordcount in ways that risk leading the reader or telling the reader what a paragraph is about; just the facts, and let the reader make their own decision.
- 4. I agree with Scientelensia that the sentence
she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them"
needs a few more clauses for context and relevance, although I wouldn't take as many words as Scientelensia suggests. - 5. And after doing that wordcount reduction, use the gained space to rework and update the enduring content based on a survey of the literature, which was:
Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture; and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors
... we seem to have lost academic freedom, and there's plenty of scholarly literature on how fandom has evolved, and the power of Twitter. - We could put in Draft 6 now, but it is POV and we'll be back here in less than two years to repair the damage we inflicted. Victoriaearle I had my turn; are you interested in working up Draft 7 ?SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- PS, my separate and growing concern is that none of the three main FA authors have shown up to update the rest of the article to reflect Whited 2024, so if that doesn't happen, we're likely to end up at FAR anyway. I think we made a mistake in over-relying on Whited for transgender content, but she certainly should be used for updating literary content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia You suggest Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World., but that implies (to me) all "leading" actors, which isn't true. Either define "leading actors", or quantify with "most", "some", etc. Bazza 7 (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, I wasn't trying to wordsmith the thing yet ... just give the broad points I'd do if we started over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sandy please excuse my brevity, but I'm not at all able at this time. Will get back here when able. Sorry. Victoria (tk) 23:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- 1. Looking back at Victoria's fourth point, I agree; that's where in my view most precious real estate (word count) is misspent on excess detail, and trimming that would give us room to work back in some neutrality and replace some RECENTISM with enduring content.
- Your solution would work also, but there would also have to be rigorous testing to ensure that the selection of literary works constitutes an unbiased interpretation. Scientelensia (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Draft 6.3
Since I agree that all of Sandy's proposed elisions improve the text, I've made them. I've made no effort to add the suggested new content, and I view cutting words as more important.—S Marshall T/C 16:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Draft 6.3: 403 words | Historical: 429 words |
---|---|
Rowling has [some contributors want to add a qualifier here] gender-critical views.[1][2][3] She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. She is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.[4][5][6][a] She opposes gender self-recognition[11][12][b] and suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.[14] In April 2024, responding to Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act, she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".[15] Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater.[16] When Forstater's employment contract with the Center for Global Development was not renewed after Forstater shared gender-critical views,[17] Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".[18][c] According to Harry Potter scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal".[23] In June 2020,[23] Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate",[24] and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".[25][17] Rowling's views have impacted her reputation. As her thoughts on the legal status of transgender people came under scrutiny,[8] she received insults and threats[26][27] and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community.[28] While her remarks provoked condemnation,[9][29][30] sales of Harry Potter books grew during the COVID-19 lockdown.[31][32] Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World.[33][34][35] and Human Rights Campaign.[4][36][37][38] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[39] Rowling rejects these characterisations and denies being transphobic.[13][40] In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed[11][33] – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and sexual assault.[41][42] While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.[42][43][44] Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".[45] |
Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws,[4][5][d] and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy.[9] Her statements have divided feminists;[6][46][47] fuelled debates on freedom of speech,[48][49] academic freedom[8] and cancel culture;[29] and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary,[50] arts[51] and culture sectors.[52] When Maya Forstater's employment contract with the London branch of the Center for Global Development was not renewed after she tweeted gender-critical views,[17][18] Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".[18][e] In another controversial tweet in June 2020,[34] Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate",[24] and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".[54][55] LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments;[37][38][f] GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate".[61] Rowling responded with an essay on her website[13] in which she revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault.[42] While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she believed that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.[42][62][63] Writing of her own experiences with sexism and misogyny,[64] she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to transition if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class".[65] Rowling's continual statements – beginning in 2017[9][66][67] – have been called transphobic by critics[68][69] and she has been referred to as a TERF.[69][70][71] She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.[13][68][67] Criticism of Rowling's views has come from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron;[72] and the charities Mermaids,[34] Stonewall,[73] and Human Rights Campaign.[74] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[39] As Rowling's views on the legal status of transgender people came under scrutiny,[8] she received insults and death threats[26][75] and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community.[28] Some performers and feminists have supported her.[28][76] Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".[77] |
Sources
Sources
|
---|
References
Notes
|
Discussion of Draft 6.1
Thanks for getting the ball rolling on this, S Marshall, and I hope Victoria feels better soon. I am traveling today and won't be able to peek in 'til tomorrow. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, thanks. As a newcomer to this discussion, I have to ask why are we just relying on one critic, Whited, whose opinion seems at ace level very pro-trans. What gives Whited the right to be here? Would it be useful to insert another critic to level the bias, or remove reference to Whited together?
- Also, in terms on labelling JKR, if a label is needed, gender-critical is indeed appropriate and applicable. Scientelensia (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you can find a proper Rowling scholar who doesn't think Rowling's a trans-exclusionary feminist, go ahead and cite them.—S Marshall T/C 20:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
It's getting pretty good, actually; focused mostly on what she actually said rather than endless tedious recounting of what other people think of it. As to the discussions about whether to say "gender-critical", that seems to be a reasonable label to use, one that is frequently used as a self-label by people expressing views of a similar nature to JKR's, not a pejorative name like "TERF" or "transphobe". The point of disagreement is in the apparent lack of her actually self-labeling this way; it seems JKR hasn't applied any sort of ideological or political label to herself, preferring her views to speak for themselves. This makes it harder to put a label on her, but if one is to be applied, this one seems fairly reasonable. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Weird characterisation
"Since 2017,[4] she has written frequently about transgender rights, mostly in the context of proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws that would make it easier to transition without a medical diagnosis."
I don't get why we're using such a weirdly unspecific wording as "about". Like "she has written frequently against transgender rights" says something. If we can't get the sentence to say something with actual meaning, then the sentence is filler and should be scrapped: as it is, the only part that seems to be meaningful is "since 2017".
Well, there's also the part about the gender recognition laws being the main focus... I have to ask if that's supported by sources as a general rule, or if the sources only say that she reacted at three times to such laws. It's kind of hard to make such a general statement with sources locked to very narrow periods of time. If the statement is something like "initially in response to..." then that's much easier to support.
Like, the draft's a massive improvement, but that one sentence... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 22:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- And, she's not writing about or against transgender rights. She's writing about the law and the definition of a woman, with a focus on access to female-only spaces. I'll get my thinking cap on.—S Marshall T/C 10:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Actually why not just say that?
Since 2017 she has written about the law and the definition of a woman. She is concerned about proposed changes to UK law that would make it easier to transition without a medical diagnosis, and about freedom of speech. She is particularly interested in how increased transgender rights would affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.
- The downside is, it's long.—S Marshall T/C 10:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think, as long as that doesn't replace the sentences after the one under discussion, that it's okay, but I do worry we're skirting the line of falling into the gender critical movement's framing of itself. As the rest of the paragraph explains, her views are very anti-transwomen. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 13:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't just say anti-trans woman. She has expressed some pretty serious contempt for trans men too, just in the "poor deluded girls" framing that often gets people to mistake condescension for concern.
- I agree that "about" is bad and "against" is better. But maybe something like
She has frequently opposed proposed laws that would expand transgender rights, such as...
would be even better? Loki (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)- True, though her views on transmen aren't as widely reported (and more-or-less don't appear in the rest of the proposed paragraph) so it's a little harder to source with the restrictions on sources Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 16:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't write "opposed proposed". You might say I'm disposed to oppose opposed proposed.—S Marshall T/C 16:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- True, though her views on transmen aren't as widely reported (and more-or-less don't appear in the rest of the proposed paragraph) so it's a little harder to source with the restrictions on sources Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 16:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think, as long as that doesn't replace the sentences after the one under discussion, that it's okay, but I do worry we're skirting the line of falling into the gender critical movement's framing of itself. As the rest of the paragraph explains, her views are very anti-transwomen. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 13:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- How about:
Since 2017 she has written about transgender people. She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. She is concerned about how easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.
- Better?—S Marshall T/C 19:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- This works! Scientelensia (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Now up as draft 6.2.—S Marshall T/C 19:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I still don't like it because IMO
Since 2017 she has written about transgender people
is meaningless without saying which way she has written about them. We could cut that sentence and just have:
Loki (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Since 2017 she has resisted proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. She is concerned about how easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.
- She hasn't, though. She started writing about trans issues in 2017 but the resistance to legal changes dates to 2019 at the earliest, so that's counterfactual.—S Marshall T/C 23:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Was there any commentary of particular prominence or noteworthiness in 2017 or 2018? If not, one could say something like "While she had made some comments beginning in 2017, her views first came to widespread prominence in 2019..." and then jump into the Maya Forstater stuff and the proposed changes to UK law. If her extremely early views are going to hurt an otherwise clear and consise description of what she did, cut out the information or isolate it to its own sentence. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 01:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's a lot of extra words though.—S Marshall T/C 06:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Was there any commentary of particular prominence or noteworthiness in 2017 or 2018? If not, one could say something like "While she had made some comments beginning in 2017, her views first came to widespread prominence in 2019..." and then jump into the Maya Forstater stuff and the proposed changes to UK law. If her extremely early views are going to hurt an otherwise clear and consise description of what she did, cut out the information or isolate it to its own sentence. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 01:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- She hasn't, though. She started writing about trans issues in 2017 but the resistance to legal changes dates to 2019 at the earliest, so that's counterfactual.—S Marshall T/C 23:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I still don't like it because IMO
- Now up as draft 6.2.—S Marshall T/C 19:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- This works! Scientelensia (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- In draft 6.3, I've cut the disputed sentence.—S Marshall T/C 06:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Suissa and Sullivan
Continue this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Suissa and Sullivan, please.—S Marshall T/C 15:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
We've discussed anove what an odd source this is, and how it has sections that are clearly pro-gender critical movement. The introduction explicitly states that transwomen are not women, and that transgender people need no mord rights than already offered under UK law at the time. In the revised draft, it's used once. Does it have to be used at all? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 16:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
My draft uses that source as a reference for: "[Rowling] received insults and threats". Not a single part of WP:FRINGE or WP:PROFRINGE is relevant.—S Marshall T/C 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
|
So, if I'm understanding discussion properly, perhaps WP:ONUS Suissa and Sullivan is out and we can finally move on with getting this back to FA level? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 14:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)