Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No queerphobes: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎Merging all "WP:NO ____" into WP:HID: oops, that adds the page to the category.
Line 283: Line 283:
*:Good faith does not absolve someone of being anti-LGBTQ any more than it absolves someone of racism, sexism, etc. We even have articles on some of these "good faith" variants, eg [[Benevolent sexism]]. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 08:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*:Good faith does not absolve someone of being anti-LGBTQ any more than it absolves someone of racism, sexism, etc. We even have articles on some of these "good faith" variants, eg [[Benevolent sexism]]. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 08:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*::I agree that at a certain point Anti-LGBTQ edits are disruptive enough to revert regardless of good faith. But this essay page calls for blocking over way too many things, and, as stated before, the subject of the article is controversial enough that I don't trust that anything removed for crossing the line will stay removed. [[User:Unnamed anon|Unnamed anon]] ([[User talk:Unnamed anon|talk]]) 18:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*::I agree that at a certain point Anti-LGBTQ edits are disruptive enough to revert regardless of good faith. But this essay page calls for blocking over way too many things, and, as stated before, the subject of the article is controversial enough that I don't trust that anything removed for crossing the line will stay removed. [[User:Unnamed anon|Unnamed anon]] ([[User talk:Unnamed anon|talk]]) 18:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*:Let's avoid euphemisms: {{tq|I am worried about children making such an irreversible decision they may regret at too young of an age}} -> {{tq|I think children should go through irreversible changes they don't want because I'm convinced they're not actually trans}}. "irreversible decision" is bullshit fearmongering since those who talk about it never show any concern for the irreversible changes they're deciding against the child's wishes.
*:{{tq|I believe putting trans women in women's prisons could get the cisgender women pregnant}} - is a factual statement. {{tq|That transgender rights conflict with feminism, the rights of cisgender women}} is a non-sequitur as feminism does not conflict with the observation "people can have sex and get pregnant". The argument holds as much weight as "I believe the birds can fly, (problem on {{tq|That rights of this minority conflict with the rights of this majority}})" If what you're getting at is the belief {{tq|I believe that putting trans women in women's prisons is a danger to cisgender women so they should be put in men's prisons}} - you're framing an entire demographic as inherently dangerous (when they're disproportionately more likely to be sexually assaulted) based on their immutable characteristics and consigning them to a place where they're at an incredibly high risk of sexual assualt, beatings, murder, etc.
*:So are these equivalent to {{tq|trans people should die}}? No (though the second one does put trans women at a higher risk of being murdered), they're equivalent to {{tq|trans people should suffer}}. If your bar for {{Tq|legitimately harmful}} is straight up calling for people's murder - IDK what else to say except you should probably be aware people can be bigoted and/or hold bigoted beliefs without going as far as calling for murder. [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 18:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
* '''Keep''', even though this discussion is probably isn't going to go anywhere anyway. [[User:Neo Purgatorio|Neo Purgatorio]] ([[User talk:Neo Purgatorio|talk]]) 12:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
* '''Keep''', even though this discussion is probably isn't going to go anywhere anyway. [[User:Neo Purgatorio|Neo Purgatorio]] ([[User talk:Neo Purgatorio|talk]]) 12:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


Revision as of 18:53, 3 May 2024

Wikipedia:No queerphobes

Wikipedia:No queerphobes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

It's a political screed coatracking as an essay. People are free to believe what they will as long as they do not act in a manner that is disruptive. The "No (fill in whichever group or set of beliefs you want banned)" essays are getting out of hand. Trying to elevate social conservatives and gender critical beliefs to the same level as Nazism is an abuse of WP:ESSAYS and also of WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NOTFORUM. It smacks of an attempt to turn Wikipedia into an ideological echo chamber. We need to draw a line somewhere and this seems like a good place to start. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete per Ad Orientem Okmrman (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
  • Keep a political screed is an insult without justification. If you don't like the essay, you can suggest improvements, be bold and make them, or write why you don't endorse it.
We currently have 4 other essays in this vein. WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE is about bigotry in general, yet we also have WP:No racists (which I don't see anybody saying should redirect there), and then we have WP:NONAZIS and WP:No Confederates about specific kinds of racists (and I see nobody clamoring for a redirect there). 3 essays on racism, yet none on queerphobia... Interestingly, WP:NONAZIS was nominated for deletion in 2019 and 2023 for the same vague charges of advocacy and foruming.
Trying to elevate social conservatives and gender critical beliefs to the same level as Nazism where does it do this? NONAZIS was the first essay of this sort written, but we also have WP:No racists. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
A discussion about whether all of these separate pages are worth retaining would probably be worth having. NONAZIS is by far the oldest, and I'd guess is also by far the most well-known and oft-cited. TonyBallioni moved WP:NORACISTS from another user's userspace into project space in 2021 for reasons that he's probably forgotten, but I'd be interested to hear whether he thinks it's still serving any purpose (I suspect it's not). I hadn't seen WP:No Confederates, but it came only slightly after WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE, which (sensibly, in my view) attempts to discuss the wider theme. It might be the case (I don't have a firm view on this) that all of these independent essays ought to be merged into HATEISDISRUPTIVE; certainly, I tend to feel that we do not need these 'WP:No...' essays to proliferate. Girth Summit (blether) 17:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
I quite like HATEISDISRUPTIVE which is why I cite it in the essay, my only qualm with it is that it leans more philosophical than practical - essays like no queerphobes/confederates/racists/nazis mean the community has some centralized points where we lay out what's inappropriate, the relevant historical context, and related policies and procedures so we can have shared working definitions of what is meant by hate. Personally, I wrote the essay partly due to being sick of years of people consistently writing in discussions (or even wikivoice) that "gender ideology" is real, that trans kids are actually just mentally ill cis kids indoctrinated to think they're trans, or that all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists, or whatever else - mostly without repercussions as long as they stop short of actual slurs (and from my discussions with other queer editors over the years, I'm far from the only one who's sick of it). I think regardless of the merits of merging them all into hate is disruptive (to which I can certainly see benefits), I doubt it'd gain traction with the community. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Delete 149.22.84.39 (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
The user above is a vandalism-only IP. Flounder fillet (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Arbitrary break 1
The problem is that this page has about fifty "proclaimed values", and maybe five of them have anything to do with actual discrimination against LGBT editors, whereas the rest are just random progressive activist tweets being said in wikivoice. There is a very long list of "groups known for spreading misinformation about and legislatively targeting the LGBT community" -- what in the world does this have to do with editing Wikipedia? There is then the non sequitur claim that these groups "and affiliated groups" should be avoided as sources. Is the idea here that if you have good enough politics opinions, you can bypass WP:RS entirely and just write a polemic essay deciding which sources are bad? This is silly. jp×g🗯️ 22:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
random progressive activist tweets being said in wikivoice - have examples? Is the idea here that if you have good enough politics opinions, you can bypass WP:RS entirely and just write a polemic essay deciding which sources are bad - The list, since deleted, concerned multiple groups people have tried to cite as sources which are known for misinformation. Off the top of my head, here's the last time somebody tried to cite one[1] (who cited the groups dozens of times on other wikis and is a pretty good example of who the essay is talking about). These are groups which reliable sources concur are known for misinformation about the LGBT community, which is not only confirmed by a quick read of their articles but by RSN itself.[2][3][4] Which of the deleted ones do you think actually counts as anything close to a WP:RS? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Okay, here is one of the "anti-LGBT narrative"s from the essay: That cisgender or heterosexual people are "more oppressed than" or "actually oppressed, unlike" LGBT people. What does this even mean? "Pete Buttigieg is more oppressed than Malala Yousafzai"? "Ellen DeGeneres is more oppressed than Anne Frank"? Is it about aggregates across populations? How can that even be measured? Is this sentence also saying "oppression from war and famine is directly comparable to oppression from homophobia, because this is a single quantity that exists along a single axis, and also the second is worse than the first"? Is the essay saying these sentences are true? Is it saying that they're true and also somebody who disagrees with them should be removed from the project? Ignoring, for the moment, that most LGBT people are either one or the other of those things (e.g. most homosexual people are cisgender) -- the sentence just does not make sense. It's either meant to be read at face value, in which case it's utterly ludicrous, or it's meant to be read as a hashtag-like statement of vibes where the words do not actually mean what the words say, in which case it is a vague activist tweet. I understand that writing stuff that doesn't have a coherent literal meaning for the purpose of signaling political coalitional allegiances is important. However, I am opposed to an essay that goes way out of its way to emphasize "Muslims/Catholics/Presbyterians aren't welcome on Wikipedia unless they recant". jp×g🗯️ 00:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Very curious to know how one goes from "some cishet people wrongly believe they are more oppressed than queer people" to "Ellen DeGeneres is more oppressed than Anne Frank". Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[]
The quote you've posted is not from the essay, so I couldn't "go from" it to anything; the only thing I could "go from" was the actual words that were written there (which I quoted directly). jp×g🗯️ 02:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[]
The claim being referenced is the idea that people are oppressed for being cisgender/heterosexual (moreso than being LGBT), and not about all pairs of individuals. In a similar way, Nazis believe that white people are "more oppressed" than other races because they are "becoming minorities" in their "own country" (by racist "one-drop" rules). If this is unclear perhaps it can be reworded. — Bilorv (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[]
@JPxG I updated the text to try and clarify, but Bilorv put it well. This is not a dig at intersectionality, I know plenty of cishet people more oppressed than Ellen Degeneres, and as a brown trans girl to be frank I spend 25% of my time complaining about nonsense from white affluent LGBT people who think they've single-handedly discovered oppression since coming out, but there are people who sincerely argue that LGBT people overall are a privileged group who hold societal power over cisgender heterosexual people as a whole. Not that there are rich/privileged LGBT people better off than most (which is obvious and true for any minority), but that LGBT people as a whole are systematically treated better than non-LGBT people, which is ridiculous (ie, the argument that if you account for race/gender/class, then an LGBT person is more privileged than a cis-het one). If you look at WP:No racists, they list the belief Their race is the most oppressed, often justified by convoluted logic, rather than actual examples of oppression as an example.
However, I am opposed to an essay that goes way out of its way to emphasize "Muslims/Catholics/Presbyterians aren't welcome on Wikipedia unless they recant". Religion is not an excuse to be an ass. One can be religious without being queerphobic, and it's silly and frankly insulting to frame "don't be an asshole to this minority" as religious persecution. One can be queerphobic regardless of religion, one can treat people with respect regardless of religion, so this essay has fuck all to do with religion. Also, I'm not as devout as I should be (sorry grandma if you ever see this), but y'know I'm a Muslim right? I've managed to 1) edit 2) not be queerphobic while 3) not recanting...
P.S. for better comparisons in future, Anne Frank was bisexual, and the majority of transgender people are also LGB. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Thanks, I appreciate that you have edited the essay to say something more accurate. jp×g🗯️ 02:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[]
No problem! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
"However, I am opposed to an essay that goes way out of its way to emphasize "Muslims/Catholics/Presbyterians aren't welcome on Wikipedia unless they recant" So am I, thank god no-one here proposed such an essay. C'mon man, you're being patently ridiculous. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Funny you should point this out, as precisely that point of groups known for spreading misinformation.. was just a week ago the center of such a focus in light of the Cass Review, there was a discussion of some sources from the UK that contribute to it, directly linked to LGBT topic on the Talk:Cass Review#Don't use sources by The Telegraph and The Times, which has now led to an RFC prep to discuss the limiting of them as RS for transgender topics due to their regular coverage spreading of misinformation. This is not just a theoretical topic, but the lived reality of people trying to uphold Wikipedia's values and trying to improve LGBT content on Wikipedia and the uphill battle that it often represents. As you can see from there, editors are now collaborating to collect the evidence and will subsequently bring it for discussion, following the processes we have in place for such discussions.
The focus of the essay is not just on editors, but also the content of LGBT topics and how editors often have to fight an uphill battle against people trying to spread misinformation in such articles. Raladic (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Well, my lived reality is that I've spent several years participating in a collaborate attempt to write a free encyclopedia -- and I've had many colleagues in this effort, from all walks of life. All of us were able to behave as colleagues, not because we all shared a completely identical set of beliefs about intersectional oppression, but because we agreed to basic standards of civility. It's really not that hard to understand: to be a Wikipedian you have to treat other editors with respect.

There is not a requirement that all editors profess a specific set of factual claims regarding feminist theory, or viral news stories about schoolkids pissing in litter boxes, or any of the things in the long list of things that this essay asserts to be homophobic beliefs which are not welcome here. jp×g🗯️ 00:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[]
I've had many colleagues in this effort, from all walks of life. All of us were able to behave as colleagues - How many of them have repeatedly said the majority of people like you (trans youth) are mentally ill and indoctrinated by a cult? And keep trying to put it in wikivoice? How many times have you seen editors say your opinion should be invalidated because you're openly LGBT? Without repercussions naturally. to be a Wikipedian you have to treat other editors with respect 100% agree - it is simply my unfortunate experience and that of many LGBT editors that to be a Wikipedian, you have to put up with a baseline level of accepted queerphobia, while being extremely careful about ever calling it out because you're more likely to get in trouble than the person saying "LGBT editors shouldn't edit LGBT articles and LGBT magazines are inherently unreliable on all LGBT topics".
I leave you with a Baldwin quote I think of often We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression, and denial of my humanity, and right to exist. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[]
It is not my experience that this happens on Wikipedia; it is my experience that people who do this are generally quite swiftly reverted and blocked. "editors say your opinion should be invalidated because you're openly LGBT? Without repercussions naturally" -- if this is a genuine description of an event happening on Wikipedia (i.e. people are actually saying this, and not doing some other thing which you are summarizing as saying this), please let me know who is doing it, and I can block them immediately on the basis of the twenty-two year old policy against personal attacks. jp×g🗯️ 19:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[]
When the MFD runs it's course and I have some time, I'll send you a list because I recall a few examples off the top of my head (just regarding the "LGBT editors/authors/publications are inherently biased on LGBT topics" arguments). If personal attacks also covers "the majority of transgender youth are actually just mentally ill and/or gay and that makes them think they're trans" - be prepared to block many more. And as I was typing this, I can recall a few more editors who have vociferously argued that it's not conversion therapy when done on the basis of gender identity instead of sexual orientation and tried to edit articles to reflect that belief and ignore the RS about what is and isn't conversion therapy. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Keep in namespace largely based on the points of what others have said, especially Bilorv Snokalok (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Arbitrary break 2
Comparison of support and opposition to past proposals based on affiliation with the WikiProject
Discussion Group Support Oppose
Count Percent Count Percent
RFC: Names of deceased trans people Members 9 82% 2 18%
Non-members 32 52% 30 48%
Both 41 56% 32 44%
RFC: MOS:GENDERID and the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons Members 10 83% 2 17%
Non-members 26 37% 45 63%
Both 36 43% 47 57%
Applying the same analysis to this discussion, we can see how this CANVASSing can - and may still - result in a false consensus; editors uninvolved with the project are strongly in favour of deleting, redirecting, or moving to user space, while editors involved with the project are unanimously in favour of keeping.
Comparison of !votes on this proposal based on affiliation with the WikiProject
Group Keep Delete / Redirect / Userfy
Count Percent Count Percent
Members 9 100% 0 0%
Non-members 8 36% 14 64%
Both 17 54% 14 46%
BilledMammal (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Interesting argument. It contains several presumptions I disagree with. (1) Active members of WP:LGBT and editors who watch WT:LGBT are not the same groups, and may differ quite substantially. (2) If the active members of WP:LGBT were found to hold different views on average than the broader community, you have assumed that is the result of partisanship and not due to any other cause. If members of WP:MEDICINE were demonstrated to have significantly different views on a topic than the broader community, I might at least consider some other factor, such as subject matter expertise, as a potential cause. (3) You assume your non-members group is representative of the broader community. Given that it is composed of editors interested enough in LGBT issues to respond to LGBT-related RFCs but excluding any who choose to be active members of WP:LGBT, that is a rather dubious assumption. (4) You have entirely glossed over the difference of opinions within your binary groups. I, for example, am an active member of WP:LGBT, disagree quite strongly with the essay at issue, but believe WP:ESSAY does not support deleting essays just because we disagree with them.
If you want to make the argument that WP:CANVASS should be amended to prevent notifying certain WikiProjects on their topics of interest - which would have the practical effect of nearly entirely shuttering affected WikiProjects - this is not the venue for such a monumental change.--Trystan (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
(1) That is why I included editors who have participated on the WikiProject talk page. It doesn't perfectly capture who is engaged with the WikiProject, but it is close enough given the scale of the disparity in !voting patterns.
(2) and (4) The reasons their opinions differ are not relevant to whether they are partisan; see this ArbCom ruling which discusses how participation needs to be representative, and an influx of biased or partisan editors disrupt that and produce a false consensus.
(3) This is why I limited my sample to CENT-listed discussions at the Village Pump. These are, virtually by definition, representative of the broader community - or as representative as we can get. I've also now added rows that combine the two groups together (although this value should be taken with a large degree of skepticism, as WikiProject LGBT was notified of all three discussions and thus participation will not be representative); you will see there is still a significant difference in opinion between members of the WikiProject and the broader community.
If you want to make the argument that WP:CANVASS should be amended to prevent notifying certain WikiProjects on their topics of interest The current situation is that CANVASS already forbids notifying WikiProjects of discussions they are partisan on. Most WikiProjects are not partisan, and notifying them is encouraged - no one is making the argument that a general ban on notifying WikiProjects on their topic of interest is either necessary or desirable. BilledMammal (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Not only is notifying any Wikiproject not canvassing per WP:APPNOTE, any public notification in a central on-Wiki space is not canvassing. Read WP:VOTESTACK more carefully: it is clearly only about selective notification.
This is regardless of whether Wikiproject members are partisan. The experiment is flawed to begin with because people listed as members of WP:LGBT are not the only people who are able to read it or watchlist it. Since a notification of any Wikiproject, or in fact any noticeboard whatsoever, could be read or watchlisted by any Wikipedian, it's not a selective notification.
To do a selective notification on-wiki, you basically need to ping people. Or at least approach them on their talk page directly. Loki (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
I've already addressed the APPNOTE argument; APPNOTE explicitly rejects the notion that the listed examples are exceptions to INAPPNOTE.
To do a selective notification on-wiki, you basically need to ping people. Or, as ArbCom has made clear, you provide a notice in a forum mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience. It doesn't matter that a different audience could, in theory, join the forum; if they don't, and in this case they didn't as my analysis has proven, then notifying the forum is a CANVASS violation. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
By the very definition of most Wikiprojects, they have members that have some vested interest in the topic at the center of that Wikiproject and pages related to it, whether its medical people being interested in WP:MEDICINE, people interested in trains following WP:TRAINS or here, people interested in topics related to LGBT issues following WP:LGBT.
Essays don't usually have Wikiprojects associated with them as Talk page projects, but it is very normal procedure to inform the Wikiprojects most closely linked to a topic, which for LGBT related issues is most commonly WP:LGBT as the name suggests.
It is absurd to say that we should stop notifying a group that has shown interest in a topic when that is the very purpose of Wikiprojects.
You should also re-read WP:CANVASS as only WP:APPNOTE on appropriate notification calls out The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion., whereas WP:INAPPNOTE makes no specific mention that informing the Wikiproject that has interest in the topic under discussion is inappropriate (as that would be in direct contradiction of the first line of APPNOTE).
So really you should take this to RFC if you believe that WP:CANVASS should be re-written to say that the Wikiproject most closely related to a topic under discussion should not be informed in the future, as that is the current consensus of the guideline as written.
WP:LGBT is the project with interest in the topic of queerphobia, that is unequivocal fact and thus falls under APPNOTE. Raladic (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Being a interested in a topic and being partisan on a topic are not the same thing, and it is a strawman to equate the two and make arguments on that basis. I've already addressed the rest of your points and I won't repeat myself. BilledMammal (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Not to add even more text to this discussion, but I don't see how a rudimentary bias analysis you performed on one talk page after the alleged canvassing already happened is going to prove that this person did it intentionally, or that notifying a wikiproject obviously and immediately relevant to the discussion ISN'T what WP:APPNOTE explicitly endorses, or that the notified wikiproject is indeed inappropriately biased, or even that the wiki-project is biased at all. In short, I agree with the others that the correct venue for this is a future RFC, as opposed to making aspersions towards a single editor. To go even further, I think you are, at the core, making a false balance argument here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
I've already addressed the APPNOTE argument, and I've presented strong evidence that the WikiProject is partisan/biased.
As for the rest:
  • prove that this person did it intentionally - I'm not alleging that they did. However, it's important for the closer to be aware that canvassing - even unintentional canvassing - took place, and for the editor to be aware that they should not issue such notifications in the future.
  • the notified wikiproject is indeed inappropriately biased - The reason a group is biased or partisan isn't relevant to CANVASS
BilledMammal (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
And we have already addressed your arguments about each of these points multiple times, so I don't think there's any point in repeating why what you're saying doesn't match policy. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
You actually haven’t; you just keep repeating that APPNOTE allows this, without any attempt to explain why APPNOTE’s instruction not to send notices that violate INAPPNOTE doesn’t apply to APPNOTE’s examples.
I might write an essay on this, if only to give us an entire talk page to discuss on. BilledMammal (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
I strongly encourage you to write said essay. The Wikiproject pinging very obviously constitutes canvassing, and even your rudimentary analysis has demonstrated the partisan nature and ramifications of such conduct on this website. I would be very interested in seeing a more comprehensive discussion and analysis of this subject. Users with partisan agendas brigading various areas of this site is an underexamined dynamic of Wikipedia's inner functions. Clique behavior tends to lead to canvassing and other forms of brigading, as your MOS:GENDERID example all but confirms. Durchbruchmüller 20:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
That suggest that you can never actually contact a Wikiprojects, because you cannot know in advance which of the project page's followers will participate in the discussion, and if they end up leaning in one direction (or even before they do), you will be accused of canvassing, That's an unworkable angle. The Wikiproject is not a private or closed forum, A look through the long talk page history will show that it is not a source of constant agreement. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Arbitrary break 3
Read through the arguments again. If you surmised that it is a don't like it argument you misread. Most of the arguments are - we already have guides for this. We do not need to spell out every marginalized group in an essay, guideline or policy. We protect these groups already to the point where this group has arbitration remedies. Lightburst (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Discussion here has swung me towards the Keep poisition. It is clear that we need this essay and that it is better as a stand alone document, building on and supporting the others, rather than being rolled into them. Things that had might have seemed too obvious to require detailed and explict documentation clearly do. I'm unsure that the title is optimal but that is a discussion for another day. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
No essay, no policy, nothing short of a block, is going to stop a determined troll acting in intentional bad faith. What policies and essays can do is guide those who are willing to be guided. In particular, setting out a list of unacceptable tropes and behaviours serves three purposes. First, it helps editors to hold the line against POV pushing, particularly if they are not very familiar with the POVs in question and need some guidance. Secondly, it can serve to discourage casual trolling by showing the trolls that we have already heard their spiel, recognise it for what it is, and are entirely unimpressed by it. Thirdly, it helps to give our LGBT editors confidence that we have their backs and that we will not tollerate people seeking to use Wikipedia against them or their communities. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Again, I fail to see what this essay does that isn't already covered by existing policies and essays. WP:HID already discusses all the root issues this essay attempts to expound on, but better. Your final point just confirms the suspicion I expressed that this article is some sort of opiate being served to those in the LGBT camp. Nowhere in Wikipedia's mission statement is it listed that the project is meant to coddle specific groups because they feel victimized. If this essay remains up, it opens the door to a near infinite numbering of "No 'x'-phobe" essays being written ad nauseam. This is made tenfold worse by how this essay attempts to misconstrue perfectly valid viewpoints, that can be held in good faith, as being not compatible with Wikipedia. It will simply encourage people to uncritically accept any material labeled as "queer". Durchbruchmüller 02:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
We need a wide range of good editors to write an encyclopaedia. The POV pushers want to push the good editors out and damage the quality of Wikipedia. If we do not stand behind our good editors then why should they volunteer their time with us? Protecting editors from abuse, and protecting Wikipedia from being abused, is not "codling" any more than taking a strong line against racism is "codling" our BAME editors. It is protecting Wikipedia. Nobody is "misconstru(ing) perfectly valid viewpoints, that can be held in good faith" here. This is about detecting and dealing with intentional POV pushing and trolling. DanielRigal (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia currently has a plenty diverse range of editors on it. And I agree, POV pushers do want to push the good editors out and damage the quality of Wikipedia, however the push is coming from the opposite direction you believe it is. Editors are already protected from abuse as well as a user-operated website is able to, and it already made abundantly clear what sorts of behavior are permissable. You say: Nobody is "misconstru(ing) perfectly valid viewpoints, that can be held in good faith" here yet the essay lists:
•That being LGBT is a conscious choice
•That LGBT children cannot know their identities
•gender dysphoria [is] the result of mental illness
•That transgender healthcare is unsafe and should be banned or otherwise made inaccessible for adults and/or youth
all views that are perfectly valid and can be held without some sort of inherent hatred of queer people, as being "queerphobic", and implying anyone who believes these things isn't allowed on Wikipedia. This essay is a bunch of hogwash, and a sad exercise in attempting to pigeonhole vast swathes of people as "queerphobes". Durchbruchmüller 03:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Oh dear. You really think that that list of debunked conspiracy theories is "perfectly valid"? I think you just demonstrated why this essay is needed far better than any of its advocates ever could. You've convinced me. I'm switching my !vote to Keep. DanielRigal (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
I can't help but laugh at the absurdity of your reply. If you earnestly think that anyone who believes something as common as sex changes should be inaccessible for youths is party to some "debunked conspiracy theory", then you've spent far too much time in your ideological echo-chamber. Someone who believes an individual who is too young to legally purchase a beer is also too young to undergo a sex change is not "queerphobic" by proxy, like you and this essay are trying to insinuate. Attempting to foist this ideology into projectspace does not improve Wikipedia, it merely divides its userbase further, and appears to be a concerted effort to expand the boundaries of what is considered 'wrongthink' on this site. No need to grandstand and announce your vote change either, as if the whole project holds its breath to see what DanielRigal casts their vote for. Durchbruchmüller 19:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
By sex changes are you referring to bottom surgery, which are basically impossible to get as a minor unless your parents are very supportive and rich? And are certainly not routine anywhere in the world as basically all health orgs tend to recommend hormones only until the age of majority except in rare circumstances (if you're actually unaware: guidelines for transgender health are based on age and pubertal stage). Or are you referring to things like social transition per your comment that LGBT children cannot know their identities is a perfectly valid viewpoint? Or are you commenting about things like hormone replacement therapy and think that transgender minors should be forced to go through an incongruent puberty? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
By "sex change" I meant, as an umbrella term, any medical procedure administered to change ones sexual perception of themselves, be it surgical, administration of drugs, etc. So yes, these are most certainly becoming more and more routine in the developed nations, particularly European and North American ones. I also made reference to LGBT children cannot know their identities as being an example of a good faith viewpoint being vilified by the essay. No one questions and lambasts parents who tell their underage children "no" when they ask to get a tattoo, as the parent is just looking out for what they believe is in the best interest of their child, and they believe the child does not yet have the life experience to grasp the permanence of such a choice. Likewise, a parent may refuse to allow their child to be administered hormones (or some similar treatment), because they do not believe it to be in that child's best interest. That does not automatically make that parent a hateful "queerphobe". That I'm even having to articulate this so exhaustively shows how far the POV of so many of this site's users has been skewed. Durchbruchmüller 20:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
By "sex change" I meant, as an umbrella term, any medical procedure administered to change ones sexual perception of themselves, be it surgical, administration of drugs, etc. So - you believe transgender minors should be forced through an incongruent puberty? That's what happens when transgender youth are denied medical care - I'm not going to sugarcoat that as anything other than medical abuse.
Likewise, a parent may refuse to allow their child to be administered hormones (or some similar treatment), because they do not believe it to be in that child's best interest. - That is only ever because they do not believe their child is actually transgender. I have never once met, read anything written by, or heard anything about any parent who believes their child is trans and denies them medical care. The only reason to deny it is, as you said, worries about permanence of such a choice - which you're only worried about if you think your kid isn't actually trans. It is 100% queerphobia (and, often results in needing to spend more on medical care years later to undue the damage of the incongruent puberty).
permanence of such a choice - the amazing double standard by which permanent pubertal changes are ok if the trans kid very explicitly doesn't want them, but obviously not ok if the trans kid explicitly does (because they might change their mind and apparently only trans puberty has permanent changes...) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
I'm not saying I believe anything myself on the matter, I'm simply holding that up as an example of how someone who believes in not administering children hormones is not necessarily a hateful "queerphobe" by default, contrary to what this essay is postulating. You can think whatever you want about it, I've already made point clear. I daresay however, the vast majority of the world would disagree with your assertion not giving a child puberty blockers when requested constitutes "abuse". Durchbruchmüller 21:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Merging all "WP:NO ____" into WP:HID
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:No_queerphobes&oldid=1222075927"