Talk:Lesbian erasure/Archive 2

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

Checking blind spots

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

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

NPOV Edit 1/19/20

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

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

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

  • I oppose these changes. It is quite evident that this is an attempt at WP:ADVOCACY and from a desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and not from following what the sources say. The IP does not understand WP:NPOV correctly. WP:NPOV states (emphasis added): in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources...Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. Regarding reliable sources, WP:RS states, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Also, Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.
  • Regarding the term TERF, this discussion concluded that the term generally required in-text attribution with regard to WP:BLP subjects, and BLP applies to any Wikipedia page. So your reference to certain people above as TERFs constitutes multiple BLP violations, and by that same principle, this edit summary is a personal attack.
  • Page protection is implemented to end edit warring and is not an endorsement of your changes. Per WP:NOCON, you will need to get consensus for your changes in order for them to actually stick. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • That's right, IP. Cool it with innuendo. Also, the status quo ante is the version that should be in place while the matter is being discussed, per WP:ONUS. El_C 02:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly agree, El C, but that is not presently the case. Rather, the IP's version is in place. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If the IP fails to discuss the dispute in a manner that is both civil and assumes good faith of other contributors, I will revert the protected page accordingly. El_C 03:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Also, I see now you were informing the IP of proper procedure more so than speaking about the page as it is presently. Yeah, they should not have edit warred. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
As I previously stated, most of the biased language which I changed was not taken from the sources: it was directly added by way of biased editing. And sure, here are some citations regarding the TERFs I listed: *Sarah Ditum - https://www.thedailybeast.com/cover-ups-and-concern-trolls-actually-its-about-ethics-in-suicide-journalism https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/03/05/journalist-insists-she-isnt-anti-trans-believes-trans-women-should-not-have-access-to-women-only-services/ *Janice Turner - https://www.dailydot.com/irl/columnist-transphobic-tweet-trans-model-charity/ This is a talk page, and the individuals I mentioned are very well-known for their transphobia: you are not arguing in good faith by attempting to police every single reference to a TERF as a "BLP violation." Also, I named nobody in particular in the edit summary in question: but yes, a nonzero number of prior editors on this page have a history of transphobia on this site. I absolutely stand by that comment. I'll continue not to name names, as it really isn't worth the effort it would take to dredge up all their relevant prior comments. Your reliance on accusing me of BLP violations is not a strong argument for reverting the article - it has no relevance to the edits I actually made, only the edit summary and my suggestions for further improvement to the page.As for your commentary on NPOV, it isn't that I don't understand: I simply disagree with you. The reason I'd like certain sources to be removed is not because they do not conform to my point of view: the reasons are that 1) opinion pieces by heterosexual TERFs have little to no relevance to an article section about cis lesbians & trans women 2) a pseudonymous opinion piece is not a reliable source in any sense, and 3) the TERF viewpoint is not nearly prevalent enough to justify the amount of weight it gets in this article. Again, let me remind you that I did not remove any sources in the edit I actually made.108.31.146.220 (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • [A] nonzero number of prior editors on this page have a history of transphobia on this site — this is now your last warning about casting aspersions, IP. El_C 02:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Regarding the IP's edits, use of "some" is WP:Weasel wording and unnecessary. Of course we don't mean "all." Transphobic and bigot is negative terminology, but I'm not opposed to using similar instead. I prefer to use "cisgender" instead of "cis" (since I prefer to use the spelled out form). The "including those who have not gotten sex reassignment surgery" piece was there and should be retained because the sources stress cisgender lesbians declining to date or have sex with trans women who still have penises or are otherwise male-bodied. Like Gina Davidson of The Scotsman is quoted stating in the section, "Is lesbianism a sexual attraction only to female bodies or is it attraction to feminine identity. Can it involve trans women who still have male bodies?" Obviously, not every trans woman has undergone sex reassignment therapy. I felt it better to state "including those who have not gotten sex reassignment surgery" instead of "including those who have penises." Per WP:SAID, I'm fine with "stated" in place of "noted," and I was going to change the text to that the next time I edited the article. Regarding adding "trans-exclusive feminist" in place of "feminist theorist Claire Heuchan", we shouldn't do that per this aforementioned RfC. I see no valid reason to cut the "that's reserved for the women. Somehow, it always is" part of a Heuchan quote. Using "Many prominent" is POV. And the IP stating "nearly all major lesbian publications" is something best supported by a source. And "nearly all major American lesbian publications" is not the same thing as "nearly all major lesbian publications." That stated, the first source for that paragraph does state "eight of the most prominent lesbian publications in the U.S., Canada, Australia and the U.K. [...]."
That any of the authors are heterosexual does not mean that their opinion cannot be included. The topic is lesbian erasure. These authors have spoken on the topic of lesbian erasure. Heterosexual authors have spoken on the topic of lesbianism, and we don't exclude those sources from the Lesbian article because the authors are heterosexual (or bisexual, for the matter). Opinions from heterosexual trans men in the Lesbian erasure article obviously aren't off-topic either, although one can argue that they are more directly connected...considering that they are believed by some people to contribute to lesbian erasure. And the Gina Davidson source isn't used for whatever opinion she has anyway. It's used to report on specific matters. And WP:BIASED aside, I don't see that she's being biased in that source.
As for the IP's disruptive behavior and claims, such as calling me "a certain TERF editor" and stating above that "it was directly added by way of biased editing", it's a double-edged sword for me. If I add pro-transgender material, I'm accused of lending undue weight to transgender views and trying to appease transgender editors. If I add material about cisgender lesbians (not all of whom can be accurately called TERFs...unless using the term more broadly than it was originally intended) feeling under attack, we get the IP arguing what they are arguing above. Knowing this (that I would receive criticism from either side when I add material) would be the case is why I add both viewpoints when I significantly expand the article. It is not true at all that "the 'discord' generally only applies to lesbians who are TERFs or conservatives." Discord between cisgender lesbians and trans women, just like discord between lesbians and bisexual women, has been documented for many years now. I've seen this (both in real life and in the literature) before the term TERF took hold, and certainly not only in relation to feminist or conservative-identified lesbians. Like Slate notes, it's just that radical feminists add gasoline to the fire with regard to the transgender topic. As has been discussed before, there are trans women who insist that it's transphobic/bigoted if a cisgender lesbian or cisgender heterosexual man does not want to date or have sex with a trans woman. Veronica Ivy (formerly Rachel McKinnon) is one of those people. And many cisgender lesbians (and cisgender heterosexual men), not just radical feminists or conservatives, object to this belief. So do many trans women (although they aren't as loud as the "you're transphobic for not wanting me as a romantic/sexual partner" crowd). That is why Ivy's tweets on this matter are now protected (though Ivy or others might claim that it's to avoid harassment over those views). Anyway, regardless of the IP's skewed viewpoints, the IP is apparently very familiar with editors here. I'll have a CU look into this. I have my suspicion as to who the IP is, but I won't note it here (at least not yet). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
By all means, a sock investigation could prove useful. Please ping me upon filing it. El_C 05:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Apart from all else, I'm not a sock for whomever you think I am: I don't have an official account, as I just don't have the time to routinely edit as much as most. I'm familiar enough with some editors here, from being on the site long enough and from the small amount of editing I've already done. As to the content of your response:
  • I suggest changing "Many prominent LGBT activists" to "Many prominent LGBT organizations" to reflect the above
  • Regarding discord in the community: of course there will always be a degree of intra-community tension among the letters of the LGBT, but as described in the slate article you linked, the scale of tension is more along the lines of simple ignorance and "cultural" misunderstandings between the groups. That's a far cry from the discord described throughout the wiki article, which almost exclusively details the discord between TERFs (both heterosexual and lesbian) and trans women: of ALL the quoted individuals in the section who have issues with trans lesbians, I challenge you to name a single one who hasn't also spread anti-trans rhetoric on separate topics. Sure, there may be "concerned lesbians" (whole other topic of debate) who are neither TERFs nor conservatives, but they are not the ones quoted in the article.
  • RE: Rachel McKinnon's twitter, I highly doubt that's the only reason she protected her tweets - she's said a lot of things and has a lot of enemies who flooded her mentions, and all we can do is speculate as to what the reason is why she locked it.
  • As to the contested phrases: "having a penis" does not equate to "male-bodied." And in any case, the surgery line is unnecessary as the same idea is stated later in the paragraph. Heuchan's phrase is just not relevant to an article on lesbian erasure, and does not significantly impact her quote. However, the surgery line is the worse of the two, and removing that one while retaining the second could be a compromise.
  • Regarding the Davidson article: she does displays a bias even in this article, to say nothing of the stuff she's published since - she uses TERF weasel words like "gender critical," gives the false impression that there are many more TERF lesbians than trans-inclusive lesbians (and entirely omits mention of large trans-inclusive lesbian movements like LwiththeT while giving quite a lot of coverage to the much smaller GettheLOut TERF group), and skews incidents like the London National Theatre one - she purports that the group in question was kicked out for their orientation instead of their transphobic placards and behavior https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/12/11/national-theatre-gender-critical-lesbians-legal-action-julia-long-posie-parker/ Oh, and she parrots the "TERF is a slur" BS. 108.31.146.220 (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe you aren't a sock. But I'll move away from that for now.
To address your accusations against me, I have a suspicion that you define "TERF" and "transphobic" very broadly -- the way a number of young people define those terms these days -- if you think that edits like this one is one a "TERF" would make. It's the same material I was thanked for adding via WP:Echo and in the #What the hell? section above. And regarding this? In addition to the "Shannon Keating of BuzzFeed argued that 'though lesbians are by no means under attack by gains in trans acceptance'" piece I added, what "TERF" is going to add the Abigail Curlew commentary, or the Author Morgan Lev Edward Holleb commentary? You'd be hard-pressed to even find one who uses the term "cisgender" when editing transgender topics. I'm also the one who expanded the 2018 open letter commentary to state "rather we are enriched by trans friends and lovers, parents, children, colleagues and siblings." Since you are so familiar with editors here, you should know that I was already put on trial as transphobic/a "TERF", and I was found not guilty. That at Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics and Talk:TERF, I have talked about and pointed to arguments from radical feminists or cisgender lesbians who disagree with transgender women on things, or noted that the biology of sexual orientation (and/or study of it) is indeed about sexual attraction to sex characteristics and not gender identity (which is not a physical entity), does not make me transphobic or a "TERF." Neither does noting that many cisgender lesbians feel like their sexual orientation is under attack because they can't force themselves to find male sex characteristics (primary or secondary) sexually attractive, and a trans woman referring to those characteristics as female does not change what those characteristics look like (without sex reassignment therapy) or are called in the scientific literature. That I, like the rest of the Wikipedia community generally does, uphold standard terminology in our biology, anatomy and sexual topic articles does not make me transphobic/a "TERF." Neither does listening to all sides. But, hey, like I've mentioned before, a number of editors assume certain things about me based on what I edit or add; these things include: "Flyer is a lesbian," "Flyer is bisexual," "Flyer is heterosexual," "Flyer is asexual," "Flyer is a LGBT POV-pusher," "Flyer is heterosexist," "Flyer likes that sexual act," "Flyer supports that mental view." All of that has been thrown my way for years, given the topics I edit. I've also been accused of lesbophobia.
There was no malice or sketchiness on my part by adding "trans women who identify as lesbians." Sources like the Gina Davidson source are literally focused on lesbian identity, and it's not cisgender lesbians who are disputed as lesbians. Before you came along, I did consider changing "trans women who identify as lesbians" to "transgender lesbians." This is because I am always reanalyzing additions I make and thinking over what is perhaps better wording. And, yes, on topics like this one, that includes what is less offensive wording or non-offensive. This is a sensitive subject, and I am very much aware of that. I accept changing "trans women who identify as lesbians" to "transgender lesbians."
I still do not agree to add "some."
"Many prominent LGBT activists" is personal POV since the source doesn't state "many." I am fine with stating "eight of the most prominent lesbian publications in the U.S., Canada, Australia and the U.K." Yes, it's from the source verbatim, but this maybe falls under WP:LIMITED.
You stated, "There IS undue weight on the TERF position within the section." I disagree. Most of the section is about sexual attraction. And the topic of cisgender lesbians not being sexually attracted to trans women is not simply or primarily a TERF POV. As this study I pointed to before is clear about, most cisgender people, including cisgender lesbians, decline to date trans women or other trans people (but trans women especially). But, yes, the author (Karen Blair) concluded that "exclusion was likely the result of factors ranging from explicit transprejudice, such as viewing trans persons as unfit, mentally ill, or subhuman, to a lack of understanding or knowledge about what it means to be a transgender man or woman." Regarding discord in the LGBT community, it's not about simple ignorance and "cultural misunderstandings between the groups" when there are trans women referring to cisgender lesbians as transphobic, bigots or similar for not accepting them as sexual partners. That's not simply about "discord between TERFs (both heterosexual and lesbian) and trans women." And suggesting that heterosexual authors shouldn't be used? It's like stating that an author or reporter has to be of a certain ethnicity or religion to report on other ethnicities or religions. And aren't you assuming that these authors are heterosexual? Janice Turner having married a man doesn't mean she's heterosexual. And there are no doubt cisgender heterosexual authors who have spoken out against the argument that trans women erase lesbians. Janice Turner is not quoted in the article anyway. And what "anti-trans rhetoric on separate topics" has Gina Davidson or African-American lesbian performance artist and writer Pippa Fleming spread?
Regarding McKinnon's Tweets, I was specifically referring to the one where she states "genital preferences" are transphobic, as if a cisgender gay man (for example) can control the fact that he is sexually aroused by penises and not by vaginas and that the penis needs to be attached to other male sex characteristics in order for him to become sexually aroused. That stated, she did apologize for stating that pansexuality is the only moral sexual orientation.
As for your argument that "having a penis" does not equate to "male-bodied", I am aware that some trans women refer to their penises as female. But, again, the scientific literature does not. And if you mean that a trans woman can have a penis while the other parts of her are visibly female, I get that. But "male-bodied" is not used in the article. Gina Davidson stating "Can it involve trans women who still have male bodies?" is in the article because it's part of the debate. There are lesbian-identified trans women who have not undergone any hormone therapy or surgery. And expecting a cisgender lesbian to be sexually attracted to the person in that case is part of the debate. Either "including those who have not gotten sex reassignment surgery" should be readded or "including those who have penises" should be added in its place. But I think that the previous is better. It's relevant per the sources. And so is the Heuchan quote about cisgender lesbians being referred to as "vaginophile", "vagina fetishist", "transmisogynist", and "penis demonizer" for declining to date or have sex with trans women. This is happening. She isn't making it up. But that doesn't cover the "including those who have not gotten sex reassignment surgery" aspect as clearly. And I don't think you'd prefer I include commentary from transsexual-identified woman Miranda Yardley on these aspects. (Note: I stated "transsexual-identified" because, as we know, many transgender people these days object to the term transsexual while Yardley proudly refers to herself as transsexual.) If you mean that Heuchan stating that "women have spent the last few thousand years being conditioned and coerced into having sex that involves a penis" in the next paragraph covers it, it's still not being clear that cisgender lesbians are called derogatory names for not being interested in trans women who have a penis. Furthermore, it's best not to make it seem that all trans women have a penis, and use of the "including those" piece acknowledges that trans women with a penis are not the only factor. If by "Heuchan's phrase is just not relevant to an article on lesbian erasure", you mean the "that's reserved for the women. Somehow, it always is" piece, I can agree that we don't lose much by leaving it out. But I don't agree that it's "just not relevant" to this article.
We disagree on the Davidson article. That article explores the topic in a neutral fashion and the Davidson commentary in the article relays the matter neutrally and succinctly. Your personal opinions about Davidson are irrelvant. And as seen in the TERF article, "TERF as a slur" is seriously debated. It's not just those who are called TERFs, or just conservatives, arguing that it's a slur or at least derogatory. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Alright, believe what you want, the admin will do whatever check they need to do (if they haven't already) and the results will clearly speak for themselves.
  • Regarding the edits that we've discussed, it does seem like we're getting fairly close to resolving this. To recap: we've agreed on replacing "trans women who identify as lesbians" with "trans lesbians," reverting "trans-exclusive feminist theorist" back to "feminist theorist," replacing "other negative terminology" with "other similar terminology," and replacing "cis" with "cisgender."
  • I'll also agree to "Eight of the most prominent lesbian publications in the U.S., Canada, Australia and the U.K." in place of "Many prominent LGBT activists" or "Some LGBT activists"
  • The Heuchan phrase I deleted was the "that's reserved for the women" one, not the other one you mentioned.
  • Sexual orientation is not solely based upon attraction to physical characteristics. The fallacy you make here is to assume that gender identity exists in a vacuum: it doesn't. Once publicly expressed, it determines (when it comes to gender) how one goes through the world, how one associates with others and how others associate with them, how one is treated in society, the oppression one experiences in society, and how one presents. Even without any physical transition, trans women are far more similar to cis women than cis men (and vice versa for trans men). Being attracted to (and/or dating) women or to men can very often incorporate these societal factors.
  • That said, most trans people DO physically transition with HRT (and sometimes surgery), giving them the same secondary (and primary, with surgery) sex characteristics as others of their gender.
You're correct on what we've agreed on changing, yes (except I prefer to spell out "transgender", especially on first occurrence, and this includes first use of "transgender lesbians"). But keep in mind disagreement from others, such as Crossroads and Pyxis Solitary.
Regarding your argument that "sexual orientation is not solely based upon attraction to physical characteristics", this isn't the place to debate the topic of sexual orientation, but I specifically stated "the biology of sexual orientation (and/or study of it) is indeed about sexual attraction to sex characteristics and not gender identity (which is not a physical entity)." That is true. I focused on the biology of sexual orientation, not the fact that sexual orientation may be defined as "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes." One cannot see another's gender identity, regardless of whether or not that person's gender identity is stated. A person's gender identity cannot be seen or measured. Scientists aren't out there measuring attraction to gender identities when it comes to the actual sexual orientations that are studied by scientists. And I state "actual" because pansexuality, for example, usually is not mentioned in the scientific literature and it is commonly subsumed under bisexuality by academic sources. What cisgender lesbians mean when they argue that expecting them to find a male body sexually attractive because the person who has that body identifies as female/a woman is a form of conversion therapy is that if it were that easy to find the male body sexually attractive, they wouldn't be lesbians and conversion therapy would be considered legitimate. Of course, gender identification isn't used as a tool for conversion therapy, but, with the history of the practice, it wouldn't have been out of the realm of possibilities if the "doctors" had thought of it. And, in that case, if one were to state that lesbians should be able to tell whose stated gender identity is valid, how could they? A person's gender identity is internal. Cisgender lesbians who actually have been subjected to conversion therapy are clear that they were expected to find the male body sexually attractive and could not. Whether one wants to call a trans woman's body before hormone therapy or surgery male or female, it is indistinguishable from the body of a cisgender male.
You stated, "Once publicly expressed, it determines (when it comes to gender) how one goes through the world, how one associates with others and how others associate with them, how one is treated in society, the oppression one experiences in society, and how one presents." But, except for "how one goes through the world," that's not the case with trans women who do not want to pass. But that is different in the case of trans women who do not want to/make no attempt to pass, which affects how they go through the world and how others see and interact with them. And so many trans women note that it's difficult to obtain what you just described the kind of experience they want because they can't pass. And, as is known by those very familiar with transgender issues, passing for trans women is a lot harder than it is for trans men.
As for "even without any physical transition, trans women are far more similar to cis women than cis men (and vice versa for trans men)", that is debated and not just by radical feminists and conservatives. When it comes to brain studies, for example, it's the brains of trans women who are sexually attracted to men that have been found to be similar to those of cisgender women, not the brains of trans women who are sexually attracted to women. But both groups of trans women have their own brain phenotypes. The brains of cisgender gay men have also been found to be similar to cisgender heterosexual women's, and the brains of cisgender lesbians have been found to be similar to the brains of cisgender heterosexual men, which has made some scientists wonder if they are seeing homosexuality in the brain with regard to trans women who are sexually attracted to men and trans men who are sexually attracted to women. I used the term "cisgender" just now, but that term wasn't used for this research back then. To many transgender activists, this "homosexuality in the brain" viewpoint comes across as, or simply is, transphobic, but it's the scientists' job to keep politics out of their research unless specifically or additionally studying that aspect. But, yes, that cisgender women and transgender women have more in common than trans women and cisgender men do has been argued by authors. To what extent (and when applied to what group of trans women) is more so debated.
As for transgender people physically transitioning with hormone therapy, that is often not enough for a cisgender person to want to date and/or have sex with a transgender person. Like I stated before, to many people, genitals do matter when it comes to their sexual orientation. This has been well-documented among cisgender gay men. I am aware of what the Karen Blair study I cited states since I mentioned its conclusion to you, but there are things it didn't consider, which is why it's been somewhat criticized in the media (yes, by the sources you would expect to criticize it). You speak of "a blanket dating exclusion of trans people of the desired gender(s) constitut[ing] transphobia just as much as a blanket dating exclusion of any other marginalized group within the desired gender(s) constitutes bigotry related to the relevant axis of marginalization." But to reiterate what I stated in the previous discussion I just linked to in this paragraph, it should be fine for a cisgender person to not want to date/have sex with a transgender person. That is what people are arguing. No one should feel obligated to date/have sex with any type of person. Human sexuality is complex. People find different aspects sexually attractive. That obviously includes genitals as well. And the vagina and a trans woman's neovagina are different. People can't control who they are sexually attracted to or what features (and on whom) they are sexually attracted to. People can't force themselves to be sexually attracted to certain people. Whether or not one thinks that the attraction is biological and/or socialized, it's their attraction. As you likely know, some men are specifically sexually attracted to transgender women, and they are shamed for it, including by transgender women who feel that they are being fetishized. But these men can't control the fact that they are specifically sexually attracted to transgender women, which research (such as this 2016 "The Role of the Illusion in the Construction of Erotic Desire: Narratives from Heterosexual Men Who Have Occasional Sex with Transgender Women" source, from Culture, Health & Sexuality) acknowledges is somewhat due to specific features that distinguish transgender women from cisgender women (except for transgender women who pass and have gotten bottom surgery). It is what it is.
Also (and I've stated this elsewhere on Wikipedia), sexual attraction with regard to sexual orientation, being sexually attracted to certain sex characteristics, is not the same thing as (or even very similar to) racial preferences with regard to dating...such as a white person not being sexually attracted to a black person. One is substantially (or completely, going by enough researchers) culturally influenced (often because of societal views on skin color), while the other has a lot more to do with innate attraction (as scientists generally believe). Yes, there are some social aspects as to why many cisgender people do not find transgender people sexually attractive. But a cisgender gay man not being sexually attracted to a transgender man who has not undergone sex reassignment therapy and does not pass as a male/man is not about societal influence. We have more than enough scientific research to tell us that this is the case. That stated, even when it comes to racial or ethnicity preferences with regard to dating, there are studies indicating that people are generally attracted to people who look like them. Call that racist or whatever, but it is what it is.
Glad that you won't defend those statements by McKinnon.
With regard to the "History teaches us that predatory men will abuse trans rights" source, is Davidson not speaking of cases like the Jessica Yaniv case? I haven't yet read the whole source, but Davidson writes, "The argument is not that transwomen are a risk, but that predatory men will use any tool available to them." Many or most in the transgender community doubt that Yaniv is truly transgender; they believe that Yaniv is a man using the transgender movement. Yes, one can state that a case such as Yaniv's is rare. But that doesn't stop the possibility of it happening. Obviously. Regardless of whether one considers the quoted authors transphobic, it is valid to include their commentary on lesbian erasure. Whether certain views about cisgender lesbians not wanting to date or have sex with trans women is transphobic or not is part of the debate. We aren't going to cut these women's views or remove reporting on cisgender lesbians' experiences. These are real issues they are reporting on, and the material is not restricted to "TERF logic", and this sexual attraction debate is not WP:Fringe.
As for Heuchan stating that cisgender lesbians are called "vaginophile", "vagina fetishist", "transmisogynist", and "penis demonizer" for declining to date or have sex with trans women, and commenting on cisgender lesbians otherwise being shamed for their sexuality, it doesn't seem accurate to state that it's exaggerated online. I've seen a lot of it with my own two eyes. And this Heuchan source used in the article is focused on the online discourse. Whether it's exaggerated online or not, however, is something left for sources to document. We can always revisit that when sources specifically analyze that. As for you noting that "there is a difference between pointing out systemic transphobia and how that very often seeps into dating (this is the argument that's actually used most of the time), versus demanding that any individual dates someone", I agree and (as mentioned before) included the Abigail Curlew commentary on that matter. As for "there's also a huge difference between someone simply having a 'genital preference,' versus loudly and repeatedly declaring that they'd never date a trans woman", having a "genital preference" and not wanting to date a trans woman is the same for many cisgender lesbians. They are arguing that they have the right to feel that way and shouldn't be shamed for it. They are arguing that it's not just a feeling.
In any case, I think we should cease the WP:Not a forum aspect of our comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Except the sources don't actually use the biased language used in the previous version - and the edits I made were mostly independent of sourced quotations (I mostly edited out the inaccurate, transphobic wording and biases a certain TERF editor previously introduced to the article)" - 19 January 2020‎ summary by 108.31.146.220.
    The twisted, biased language of the 19 January 2020 edit is not supported by sources:
    "Trans-exclusive feminist theorist Claire Heuchan...." This is name-calling POV.
    "Many prominent LGBT activists...." This is POV. The Reuters source states "some feminists and lesbians disagree, making the distinction between natal and trans women."
    "A spokesperson for Get the L Out said they were concerned about the rights of trans lesbians being supported over the rights of cisgender lesbians to choose their sexual partners." Again, POV. What the BBC source published is: "A Get The L Out spokeswoman said...The GBT community today, by supporting the rights of males who "identify as lesbians" (also called "transwomen") over the rights of lesbians to choose their sexual partners (on the basis of their sex, not how they "identify") is in fact enforcing heterosexuality on lesbians."
    Changing "trans women who identify as lesbians" to "trans lesbian" is POV language by 108.31.146.220.
    Changing "rights of trans women who identify as lesbians" to "rights of trans lesbians" is POV language.
    Between the "biases a certain TERF editor" summary and the substitution of text with POV wording and language, it seems to me that editor 108.31.146.220 is an activist editor targeting articles he does not approve of because he WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Nope, not so fast, Crossroads. There is no "3 to 1 consensus" against changes. Flyer22 & I are currently having a discussion about which individual changes within the edit to keep. Her comment was not an absolute "oppose." -sche has also chimed in with another detailed view on how the article should be edited. Full reversion would be entirely counterproductive, and contrary to what's currently being hammered out. It's funny how you accuse me of being "the only edit warrior," when you were as involved in it as I - while being much less involved in actually negotiating changes afterwards.108.31.146.220 (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
IP, you were the only edit warrior because you were the only one edit warring - repeatedly changing the page back to how you wanted it. I reverted one time only. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done. El_C 19:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Section break

  • (e/c) Looking at the changes under discussion: 1) The addition of "some" to "Discord between some cisgender lesbians and transgender women" is more accurate, since it is not all cisgender lesbians (or trans women); we already make regular use qualifiers like this elsewhere in the article and in other articles. 2) "Trans women who identify as lesbians" is more verbose than "trans lesbians", but also perhaps clearer on first mention. I would be fine with dropping it on subsequent mentions. 3+4) The addition of "cisgender" to the sentence about "the rights of trans [women who identify as] lesbians being supported over the rights of cisgender lesbians" is necessary for accuracy and clarity; likewise the addition of "cis" or "cisgender" to "lesbians who do not consider trans women..."; in sentences like these which are specifically and repeatedly discussing trans and cis lesbians, it's needlessly confusing and..POV to insist editorially that one of those groups be referred to by the unqualified term. However, the addition of it to the parenthetical MacDonald quote seems unnecessary and possibly inaccurate (would e.g. the trans woman the quote mentions at the end not have similar objections to calling trans lesbians transphobic?). 5) Regarding whether to refer to transhobic as "negative" terminology: meh, it certainly seems like just referring to "...similar terminology" avoids making a value judgement of the terms in wikivoice. How do sources (not jut those presently cited, but in general) refer to the terminology? 6) Whether "...including those who have not gotten sex reassignment surgery..." should be included or dropped seems like a question that would be answered by sources; if they frequently mention that, it seems fine for our article to mention it. No? 7) The change from "noted" to "stated" should be reinstated per WP:CLAIM; I'll just "so-fix-it" that whenever protection expires. 8) I wouldn't drop "– that's reserved for the women" from the Heuchan quote as the IP did, as it seems like part of her point/view, and it's worth including that part if we've decided her view is due. 9) The addition of "some" to "the sexual attraction debate matters so much to [some] lesbians" would be an improvement if the statement were being made in wikivoice, but since it's accurately presented as only the view of one (1) straight woman about lesbians, meh; probably that straight woman does think all lesbians are a monolith. 10) Whether to say "Some LGBT activists", "Many prominent LGBT activists", or the wording mention above ("eight of the most prominent lesbian publications in the U.S., Canada, Australia and the U.K.") is meh, since we're (appropriately, at least in the first and third cases, whether or not in the second case) qualifying that it's not all of them (as we should also be doing in the aforementioned cases like 3+4 above); the initial wording of "some LGBT activists" seems fine and concise. 11) The addition of "cis" to the "trans women are pressuring" sentence seems unnecessary as Lyell's view, which the sentence is summarizing, seems to be that the claim of trans women pressuring lesbians is scaremongering, not that only the claim of pressuring cis lesbians is scaremongering. 12) It would be beneficial to break some of these changes up and discuss them individually so discussions of them don't become walls of text like this... -sche (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Per above, I still don't agree to the WP:Weasel wording "some." It's completely unnecessary and only serves to urge someone to add the annoying Template:Who tag. The text is speaking on what discord there is between cisgender lesbians and transgender women. It's not implying that the discord is there between all cisgender lesbians and transgender women. Similarly, when speaking on the discord between lesbians and bisexual women, sources don't state "some." It goes without saying that the sources don't mean that all lesbians and bisexual women just don't get along. As has been stated in discussions about qualifiers like "some" and "many" before, not using these qualifiers doesn't mean we mean "all." Our readers have enough common sense to understand that we don't mean "all", especially when material such as "In a 2018 open letter opposing this use, twelve editors and publishers of eight lesbian publications stated, 'We do not think supporting trans women erases our lesbian identities; rather we are enriched by trans friends and lovers, parents, children, colleagues and siblings.' " is included. Furthermore, I have yet to see any source state that this particular debate about cisgender lesbians' sexual orientation -- who they should and shouldn't be sexually attracted to -- only matters to some cisgender lesbians. And if we are going to adhere to the WP:Claim section of WP:Words to watch, we should also adhere to the WP:Weasel wording section of WP:Words to watch. I don't like use of "some" for "Some LGBT activists have opposed use of the term lesbian erasure", which might earn a Template:Which tag if "publications" is used, either. But since the term "LGBT" is used, it's obviously not the case that this applies to all people who fall under the "L." And we can change the text to note "eight of the most prominent lesbian publications in the U.S., Canada, Australia and the U.K." or similar. I've stated that I'm okay with changing "trans women who identify as lesbians" to "transgender lesbians", but I'm not sure how Crossroads feels about that. And we can see above that Pyxis Solitary disagrees with the suggested change. I have no issue with consistent use of "cisgender." I noted above that transphobic and bigot is negative terminology. It obviously is. No one is using these terms in a positive way. And the literature overwhelmingly treats transphobia and bigotry (and the terms transphobic and bigot) as negative things. And so the sources are using them in that way as well. But I noted that I could compromise by using "or similar terminology" instead. I noted above why "including those who have not gotten sex reassignment surgery" should be retained; I stand by that. I agreed to go with "stated" instead of "noted" and was clear that I was going to make that change before the IP showed up. But it's not just some claim. "TERF" is being used broadly like that. Agreed about the Heuchan. Again, I don't think we should be assuming the authors' sexual orientations. If Ditum has stated that she's heterosexual, that's different, but it still wouldn't mean that her sexual orientation is relevant with regard to the content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
On the topic of pressuring lesbians, I do think it's clear that Lyell is speaking of cisgender lesbians specifically, but I'm indifferent on the suggestion to add "cisgender" for that part. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm okay with changing "trans women who identify as lesbians" to "transgender lesbians" This would be a good change, yes. This sentence is especially egregious: trans women who identify as lesbians being supported over the rights of lesbians. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I largely agree with Flyer22 Reborn's reply, both the points of agreement and the criticisms, but I have some further comments. (1) The suggested compromise "eight of the most prominent lesbian publications in the U.S., Canada, Australia and the U.K." comes across as WP:Puffery and POV, and 'many LGBT activists' is POV and OR. "Some LGBT activists" is best. (2) Changing "trans women who identify as lesbians" to "transgender lesbians" is not needed. The former is clearer. (3) The phrase "trans women who identify as lesbians being supported over the rights of lesbians" is attributed to Get the L Out, and the wording had already been toned down from the source, where the spokesperson refers to trans women as "males". But, "cisgender" could be added. (4) It is not needed to add "cisgender" to "lesbians who do not consider trans women..." because the sources don't say "cisgender". (5) Changing "noted" to "stated" is good. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I would be fine with directly quoting Get the L Out's hate speech where they call trans women "males". That would be preferable to the sentence as it is now. If not the sentence should refer to cis lesbians and trans lesbians in the same way. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to underline, I think the key issue here is the language used in wikivoice versus what is quoted. Just because a source uses certain language (and in the case of the BBC source, they attribute the language to the activists, using scare quotes even), doesn't mean WP can use the same language without violating POV. So either quoting "Get the L Out" or paraphrasing in ordinary language (i.e., "trans lesbians") would be best, but not the WEASELly compromise that was in the status quo ante text. Newimpartial (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Crossroads, for (like Pyxis Solitary did above) noting that the "identify as" wording for that part came from the source, and for noting that I toned down the language others would find offensive. I don't see how stating (even with quotes) "the rights of males who 'identify as lesbians' (also called 'transwomen') being supported over the rights of lesbians" instead of "the rights of trans women who identify as lesbians being supported over the rights of lesbians" is preferable (even though, yes, "cisgender" is absent from the wording I used). And since it is Get the L Out, attributing "transgender lesbians" to them very much contrasts their viewpoint. It's not something they state or would ever state without using scare quotes or otherwise making it clear that they disagree that trans women can be lesbians. They wouldn't use the word cisgender either, but I think it's preferable to use that word than to attribute "transgender lesbians" to them, or quote them by stating "males who 'identify as lesbians' (also called 'transwomen')." So, like you noted, that text can instead state "trans women who identify as lesbians being supported over the rights of cisgender lesbians."
As for the first and only other "trans women who identify as lesbians" text, I understand what Crossroads means about it being clearer. Many laypeople are confused about sexual orientation with regard to transgender people. In the lead of the Trans man article, we currently state "most trans men identify as heterosexual (meaning they are sexually attracted to women)." The parenthetical wasn't there until an editor suggested it be added so that the text is clearer for readers. I didn't think it was needed and I still question its inclusion, but I conceded.
And going back to use of "some," I do think it's best to use "some" for the first sentence paragraph of the "In relation to butch lesbians and transgender men" section. Why that is should be obvious. I'm not always against use of "some"; I only object when it's unnecessary or plays down a matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The "identify as" wording came directly from the hate group, not from the author of the article. Neither the direct quote from Get the L out nor the "trans women who identify as lesbians" wording is good to use in wikivoice, as Newimpartial mentioned. And as is clear in the article, Get the L out is not being directly quoted - their "concerns" are just being described. Their "concerns" relate to trans lesbians and cis lesbians - but we don't have to replicate any part of the derogatory and false terminology they use when talking about trans lesbians (calling them "male," claiming trans lesbians are a separate group from lesbians as a whole, etc).
And again, "trans women who identify as lesbians" contrasted with "cisgender lesbians" carries the direct implication that trans lesbians are not as legitimate as cis lesbians, or aren't lesbians at all. This implication is false, and this is clearly established by Wikipedia's own definitions:
  • A trans woman is "a woman who was assigned male at birth"
  • A lesbian is "a homosexual woman."
  • Homosexuality is "romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender."
  • Following directly from the above, trans lesbians are women who are exclusively romantically and/or sexually attracted to other women.
  • Therefore, trans lesbians are lesbians.
So despite Pyxis's predictable claim, "trans lesbians" is not POV whatsoever. As an aside, it's pretty ironic that she of all people would call me an "activist editor."
As to clarity in the first sentence, the section title in big letters "In relation to transgender women" provides all clarity necessary. Due to this, "trans lesbians" can be used in the first sentence without any misunderstandings.
As for "some," "some" is listed at the very beginning at the section about trans men. There is no reason it should be there when it's not also in the transgender women section. Unless you want to try to argue that the lesbian community as a whole has a lot more "discord" with trans women than with trans men, there really should be a "some" in the first sentence of each section. But again, if all other changes are worked out, then solely for the sake of compromise I won't contest the lack of "some" in the trans women section. It should really be there, both for the sake of consistency and accuracy, but there doesn't seem to be much point in arguing back and forth about it much more.108.31.146.220 (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I toned down the language others would find offensive. What extremist anti-trans groups have to say about trans women is offensive to anyone with a heart. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@WanderingWanda: What extremist anti-trans groups have to say about trans women is offensive to anyone with a heart. Yes. Point? -Crossroads- (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, again, Crossroads, for addressing more of WanderingWanda's "have to paint Flyer as transphobic, and now without a heart" jabbing. As you know, this type of thing was discussed on El C's talk page. I'll be sure to jot down this latest occurence with the other notes. I wonder how I knew that WanderingWanda was going to latch onto "others." Anyway, my use of "others" is simple: I don't edit Wikipedia based on what I do or don't find offensive. And when I do take offensiveness into mind, such as with regard to WP:Offensive material, it's always about what others will or might think. Use of "others" in this regard is typical for me. I'm certainly not going to state "what I find offensive" or "what I and others find offensive." As many know, I do what I can to keep my personal feelings out of my editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
IP, stating "some discord" when it's unnecessary (as it is in this case) is different than stating "some lesbians, radical feminists, authors, or commentators" and "some younger lesbians" as to not imply "all." And regarding your second use of "some" that was in the article, to repeat what I mentioned above, "I have yet to see any source state that this particular debate about cisgender lesbians' sexual orientation -- who they should and shouldn't be sexually attracted to -- only matters to some cisgender lesbians." But, yes, I see no need for us to keep debating the use of "some." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not about affirming that trans women can be lesbians just as much as cis women. It's about what is clear to readers and conveying attributed POVs. As -sche noted above, ""Trans women who identify as lesbians" is more verbose than "trans lesbians", but also perhaps clearer on first mention". It is clearer. Some readers are not going to be immersed in LGBT discourse like those of us editing this article; they may not know right off what "trans lesbians" means. As for the later occurrence, it makes no sense to say "A spokesperson for Get the L Out said they were concerned about the rights of trans lesbians being supported over..." when they would never refer to "trans lesbians".
I see no need to debate this further. Everyone has explained their position and there is clearly no consensus for almost all of these changes. If this keeps going, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT will start to apply. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not about affirming that trans women can be lesbians just as much as cis women.
Sure it's about that. If the article calls cis lesbians "cis lesbians" and trans lesbians "trans women who identify as lesbians" many readers will, regardless of intent, view that as a dogwhistle and an attempt to paint trans lesbians as not-really-lesbians. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
There's no wording that's going to be clear to 100% of readers, but the dogwhistle interpretation is not arrived at easily as you think, and on balance per the points discussed above, the current wording is better. It's not as though putting "trans lesbians" will magically convince someone to accept trans women as lesbians if they didn't already, and vice versa. Anyway not interested in debating wording with you endlessly. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
If everyone approaches things in the spirit of co-operation and consensus then I believe we can arrive at wording that most people can agree to. I think it will be easier to work on this and the many other problems with the article once page protection is lifted. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Homosexuality is "romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender." Activist wordage by activist editors on Wikipedia does not change the definition of homosexuality. Sex and gender are not one and the same. Excluding cases of intersex embryos, sex is what a human baby is born as -- gender is the social and cultural role imposed on the sex. The definition of "homosexuality" is same-sex attraction, same-sex desire.
Oxford Dictionary - homosexuality: "The quality or characteristic of being sexually attracted solely to people of one's own sex."
Cambridge Dictionary - homosexuality: "the quality or fact of being sexually attracted to people of the same sex as you".
Merriam-Webster Dictionary - homosexuality: "sexual attraction or the tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex : the quality or state of being homosexual".
Vocabulary.com - homosexuality: "a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex".
New England Journal of Medicine - Homosexuality: "same-sex behavior", "same-sex partners", "same-sex lover". Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

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

I don't do queer theory, and it's queer practitioners and their enablers that are the ones desperately trying to change common sense. Homosexuality is merely the noun for homosexual, and a homosexual is sexually and romantically attracted to their same sex. This is not gender identity b.s., this is science. You can say you're a human green monkey, but there are no human green monkeys except for the one you invented. Fringe POV ... that predictable cliché from you has become old and stale. Besides, what you think is irrelevant. What goes into an article is not. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Per reliable sources - including demographers, medical doctors and psychologists, some of whom are in fact scientists - gender identity is not BS, and the position that it is is most certainly FRINGE marginal to informed discussion of the topic. This has nothing to do with "queer theory" although, as an aside, I will be happy when the last self-avowed "homosexual" is dead and buried and only we queers, fags, dykes and non-binary people remain.
Which has nothing to do with the straw man assertion that people should be attracted to all those bearing a certain gender identity without distinguishing among them based on actual factors of attraction, which is a nonsense argument. Nobody needs to believe in reductionist "biological sex" to accept that primary, secondary and tertiary sexual characteristics matter to attraction. Newimpartial (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Newimpartial says: I will be happy when the last self-avowed "homosexual" is dead and buried. Yikes!
to accept that primary...sexual characteristics matter to attraction. Maybe you could tell that to Veronica Ivy, Riley J. Dennis, Drew DeVeaux, etc. etc. Maybe you and others of like mind will advocate that such extremists should be denounced by the movement, at least because that nonsense has damaged the cause. Lots of people engage in the motte and bailey fallacy on this matter. Retreating into the "motte" of "oh, sex characteristics matter, we just think you should do soul-searching about bias absorbed from society" won't be able to hide that offensive and scientifically ignorant things do get said, nor that trying to guilt people over their sexuality makes one no better than the Christian Right. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe you could tell that to Veronica Ivy, Riley J. Dennis, Drew DeVeaux, etc. etc....Maybe you and others of like mind will advocate that such extremists should be denounced by the movement I ridicule them publicly and privately. What more would you like for me to do? Newimpartial (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
That's genuinely a good thing. Now if only those individuals' fellow activists in general did so. And, the examples I gave disprove your claim that the idea that people should be attracted to all those bearing a certain gender identity without distinguishing among them based on actual factors of attraction is a straw man assertion. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, for consistency, you may want to ridicule the editor who defended the inclusion of material that was a bunch of opinion pieces about how cis gay men need to consider trans men as partners, specifically mentioning their genitals. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
"I will be happy when the last self-avowed "homosexual" is dead and buried and only we queers, fags, dykes and non-binary people remain." Well, there are those who think the best that could happen to the world is for "queers, fags, dykes and non-binary people" to be dead. Be careful what you wish for, because you may find the result to be a circular firing squad. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 22:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, the demographers tell us that one of these sets of identities is growing and the other is, er, not, so unless I hear about your lot forming "homosexual" queerphobic militias, I'm prepared to take my chances. Newimpartial (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I see no need to debate the definition of "lesbian" (or "homosexual", for that matter) here. As I've made clear before, with sources such as this 1998 "Lesbian Health: Current Assessment and Directions for the Future" source (from National Academies Press, page 22) and this 2014 (reprint) "Lesbian Women and Sexual Health: The Social Construction of Risk and Susceptibility" source (from Routledge, page 32), "lesbian" isn't defined consistently among women who identify as lesbian or among academics and medical professionals. It means different things to different women. But the most common definition for it is "a homosexual woman." Obviously, with regard to the transgender topic, people are going to define "homosexual" differently. The literature about lesbians, just like the literature about women, is overwhelmingly about cisgender women, however.
As for Get the L Out, I stand by my argument that we should not attribute "trans lesbians" to them. It is not appropriate use of WP:In-text attribution since they so vehemently disagree with calling trans women lesbians. So I think we should go with "trans women who identify as lesbians being supported over the rights of cisgender lesbians." For those who disagree with that, the other option is to quote them directly. As for attributing "cisgender" to them, I mentioned above that I consider that less of an issue.
On a side note: I find it very troubling that anyone would state "I will be happy when the last self-avowed 'homosexual' is dead and buried and only we queers, fags, dykes and non-binary people remain." Regardless of if the comment was more so or only about the term/identity "homosexual" (which many gay and lesbian people reject, using "gay" or "lesbian" instead), that's not any better than Veronica Ivy (formerly Rachel McKinnon) stating that pansexuality is the only moral sexual orientation. In fact, it's worse, because it can be argued as wanting to erase homosexuality, which is something people have tried to do for years. It speaks to the very topic of lesbian erasure. There are always going to be people of one sex who are sexually attracted to their same sex and do not want to be sexual with the opposite sex (or "other sex" if you prefer that term), regardless of whatever identity that person has. That statement also comes across as not believing in homosexuality or believing that everyone can be interested in whatever sex if they just try hard enough. And how could Pyxis Solitary not take that statement as you wishing that she was dead? Jeez. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Of course the literature about women is overwhelmingly about cis women, considering cis women consist of the vast majority of women: pretty sure everyone can agree that trans women and intersex women are a relatively small minority by comparison. But that doesn't have any relevance to, well, any of the arguments at hand, so why even discuss it?
With regards to Get the L Out, I have a great 4th option that hasn't been mentioned yet: remove that quote entirely. Get the L Out is a small, fringe hate group whose main reason for existing is to promote transphobia. While it certainly makes sense to include the group in the article as an example of a TERF group, they are already quoted earlier in the paragraph, their exact mission and goals are stated, and their 2018 antics at Pride in London are also described: the group is not significant enough to warrant a second quote (nor are they anything close to a reliable source), their opinion of trans lesbians holds no weight, and said opinion does not deserve publication here. Trans lesbians do not suddenly become an amorphous group that "identify as lesbians" -- as has already been established, they are lesbians regardless of the opinion of extremist detractors. This wiki should reflect that at all points.
Here's a good corollary to this situation - let's say there was a page about discord between Atheists and Christians (who knows, there may already be), and there was a paragraph about extremists like the Westboro Baptist Church. An editor may see fit to mention the WBC's view that atheists aren't really atheists, but are instead just people who hate god. If the decision is made to not directly quote a WBC spokesperson, their view on the topic should be described as "The WBC believes that Atheists do not truly lack belief in god, but that they simply choose to hate him." NOT as "The WBC thinks that people who identify as Atheists actually believe in God & call themselves Atheists because they hate Him." The belief of the WBC does not suddenly mean that Atheists should be treated as just "identifying as atheists" by wikipedia. Just as the belief of GTLO does not suddenly mean that trans lesbians should be treated as just "identifying as lesbians" - especially when the same treatment is not equally being applied to cis lesbians.108.31.146.220 (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
My point was that the literature about lesbians is overwhelmingly about cisgender lesbians. And it's not just "Oh, cisgender lesbians are covered a lot more." It's that when lesbians are talked about and studied in the literature, what you'd refer to as "cisgender bodies" are the focus and so is cisgender lesbian sexuality, such as sexual practices and STI transmission...because researchers are not going by identities as much as they are going by the bodies and the acts. Going by the acts is also important in the case of studying STI transmission, such as researchers knowing that lesbian sexual activity (because there is the absence of penile penetration unless considering lesbian-identified women who have sex with men or trans women who have a penis) is a significantly lower risk for STI transmission than male-female and male-male sexual activity. Some may object to certain acts being categorized as heterosexual, homosexual, gay, or lesbian, but that's the research. Rarely are trans women mentioned with regard to lesbian research. The wording "transgender lesbians" or "trans lesbians" are terms more so found in media and political sources. Even in the aforementioned research on their brains, they are not referred to as lesbians, transgender lesbians, or as trans lesbians. Anyone upset with me for stating this can go ahead and Google "transgender lesbians" or "trans lesbians", or study the lesbian literature. Don't forget to look on Google Books and Google Scholar as well. The literature might change on this, but it has not thus far.
The wording I used for the "A spokesperson" sentence is appropriate WP:In-text attribution. Per WP:In-text attribution, it is not considered to be something stated in Wikipedia's voice. And the text doesn't state "believes that" or "thinks that." It states "said." Anyway, I'm fine with removing the "A spokesperson" sentence and thought about removing it as a solution as well. I only added it -- after discussion in the #In relation to transgender men section above -- so that the paragraph is clear that "Get the L Out" has a focus on trans women. But the "which has a focus on trans women" piece I added along with that sentence takes care of that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Changed "that trans women who identify as lesbians erase what it means to be a lesbian" to "that trans women can be lesbians without erasing what it means to be a lesbian." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM Crossroads -talk- 07:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Glad we can agree about removing that sentence. As to lesbians in academic literature, again, of COURSE the focus will usually be on cisgender lesbians and cis bodies given their relative numbers compared to trans lesbians. And as far as discussion of sexual acts and risks, they are comparable between cis lesbians and trans lesbians: most trans lesbians are just as uninterested in PiV sex than cis lesbians, and there's nothing to indicate that general patterns of sexual behavior in lesbian couples with at least one trans woman are significantly different from lesbian couples where both partners are cis.
And while they may be uncommon, pieces of academic literature about trans lesbians is certainly not nonexistent. Here are three pieces I found that specifically relate to trans lesbians - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10894160.2015.959876 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10894160.2015.1076236 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10894160.2015.1076237?src=recsys
  • The above studies directly contradict your claim that "trans lesbians" is not used in academic literature. In addition, it's used by large scientific organizations like the APA, among others: 'For example, a transgender woman, or a person who is assigned male at birth and transitions to female, who is attracted to other women would be identified as a lesbian or gay woman.' https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender
Your statement much further up that "some scientists wonder if they are seeing homosexuality in the brain with regard to trans women who are sexually attracted to men and trans men who are sexually attracted to women" and your further claims in your most recent comment fail to mention a very important point: which scientists exactly, and how many? The answer is pretty much just Ray Blanchard and his acolytes (Cantor, Bailey, Lawrence, Dreger), whose ideas on trans people go directly against scientific consensus. Blanchard's hypothesis that straight trans women are just gay men, and that all lesbian/bi/asexual trans women transition due to a paraphilia has been pretty clearly debunked: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00918369.2010.486241 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00918360903005212 (would post more but researchgate is down for some reason). Blanchard himself spends his time nowadays tweeting even stranger conspiracy theories about trans women https://www.dailydot.com/irl/transphobic-doctor-twitter-anime-makes-people-trans/ and spreading a whole lot of transphobia like this >> https://twitter.com/blanchardphd/status/1056219179399962631. The terminology he uses in and outside of studies when referring to trans women (i.e. calling straight trans women "homosexual transsexuals") reflects his personal bigotry, not scientific terminology. The one brain study you linked heavily relies on Blanchard throughout, and is fatally flawed in its discussions and conclusions as a result. Just wanted to clear all that up - and honestly I'm surprised you've decided to keep bringing this topic up: not only is it not really relevant to the article, it's a very weak hill to die on.108.31.146.220 (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Nowhere did I state that "'trans lesbians' is not used in academic literature." I stated, "Rarely are trans women mentioned with regard to lesbian research. The wording 'transgender lesbians' or 'trans lesbians' are terms more so found in media and political sources. Even in the aforementioned research on their brains, they are not referred to as lesbians, transgender lesbians, or as trans lesbians." It's not like I didn't see that "Elder Transgender Lesbians: Exploring the Intersection of Age, Lesbian Sexual Identity, and Transgender Identity" source before making that statement. And the APA source you cited does not state "transgender lesbians" or "trans lesbians" either. Notice "The wording" in my comment? As for your "whose ideas on trans people go directly against scientific consensus", I don't know what scientific consensus you are speaking of. But when it comes to the brain studies, the review (literature review) I've pointed to more than once now is clear: It found support for the predictions of Blanchard's typology that androphilic and gynephilic trans women have different brain phenotypes. It stated that although Cantor seems to be right that Blanchard's predictions have been validated by two independent structural neuroimaging studies, there is "still only one study on nonhomosexual MtFs; to fully confirm the hypothesis, more independent studies on nonhomosexual MtFs are needed. A much better verification of the hypothesis could be supplied by a specifically designed study including homosexual and nonhomosexual MtFs." The review stated that "confirming Blanchard's prediction still needs a specifically designed comparison of homosexual MtF, homosexual male, and heterosexual male and female people." That review, not study, passes WP:MEDRS. Your argument that it "relies on Blanchard throughout, and is fatally flawed in its discussions and conclusions as a result" is what is fatally flawed. Do not point me to WP:Primary sources or activist sources and argue what is scientific consensus or what has been debunked based on those sources. You stated "keep bringing this topic up"? I mentioned transgender brain studies in response to you arguing "even without any physical transition, trans women are far more similar to cis women than cis men (and vice versa for trans men)." Similarity with regard to brains is one aspect of that debate. I mentioned brain studies again with regard to how researchers categorize trans women who are sexually attracted to women. That is not just a "Cantor, Bailey, Lawrence, Dreger" thing. And the brain study aspect is relevant to my points when responding to you. As for the rest, including unsourced statements like "most trans lesbians are just as uninterested in PiV sex than cis lesbians," I'm not debating any of that on this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The source I cited says that a "transgender woman...who is attracted to other women would be identified as a lesbian or a gay woman." Exact same message as "trans lesbian," just with more explanation since it's part of a FAQ. Why split hairs over exact wording when the definition, message, and connotations are identical? Pointless.
The statement about sexual acts and risks was in direct response to your (similarly unsourced) assertion that the academic literature on lesbian sexuality is specifically about cisgender lesbian sexuality. My point is that the acts, risks, and practices (and omitted practices) you mentioned are not necessarily any different when there's a trans lesbian involved than when there are two cis lesbians. So when those topics are mentioned in the literature, that is not proof that they are referring solely to cisgender lesbians.
The literature review in question is indeed flawed for a variety of reasons:
  • Throughout the review, the authors treat Blanchard's fringe ideology as fact, and interpret all findings in direct light of that fallacious assumption. As an example, they discount results from all previous brain structure studies where trans women were not segregated by sexual orientation: "The study of mixed samples implicitly assumes that transsexuals are a homogeneous group. This is far from the truth with respect to the onset of GD and sexual orientation (Blanchard, 1989a, 1989b)."
  • Views all studies, results, and analysis only through a lens of an arbitrary binary of orientation based on whether trans women are exclusively attracted to men or not (vice versa for trans men). Instead of analyzing straight vs bi vs lesbian vs asexual trans women, it's just straight trans women vs all non-straight trans women. In a review focused around alleged differences in trans peoples' brains by orientation, it's ridiculous that they would lump everyone who's not 100% straight into the same category.
  • Ignores VERY important confounding variables like age: the sole study of non-straight trans women had a significantly higher average age than the studies of straight trans women. Years or decades more of prolonged androgen exposure is a much more straightforward explanation of any differences found between the brains of trans women of different orientations.
  • Does not compare apples to apples: the specific factors studied in straight trans womens' brains are different factors than were studied in non-straight trans women's brains. Saying "one brain is feminized and one is not" is meaningless when the areas in the brain being studied are not the same between groups.
I posted no "activist sources," so settle down about that. But the primary source of Blanchard's twitter is directly relevant here: his bigoted views on trans people are obvious, and present a major conflict of interest in the stuff he's published - his bias is present throughout his work. And it isn't like I used his twitter as a source in an article. 108.31.146.220 (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
You commented, "The statement about sexual acts and risks was in direct response to your (similarly unsourced) assertion that the academic literature on lesbian sexuality is specifically about cisgender lesbian sexuality." And yet you've also acknowledged "As to lesbians in academic literature, again, of COURSE the focus will usually be on cisgender lesbians and cis bodies given their relative numbers compared to trans lesbians." and "And while they may be uncommon, pieces of academic literature about trans lesbians is certainly not nonexistent." Clearly, I do not need to cite a source noting what the literature is overwhelmingly about. I noted what it is overwhelmingly about because it is overwhelmingly about that. Something such as "most trans lesbians are just as uninterested in PiV sex than cis lesbians" does require a source. So do assertions such as "the acts, risks, and practices (and omitted practices) [I] mentioned are not necessarily any different when there's a trans lesbian involved than when there are two cis lesbians." And I don't mean Autostraddle. As for "not proof that they are referring solely to cisgender lesbians"? When sources are about trans women, it's noted. It's not something that is ignored. Unless the trans women pass and the researchers don't know that they are trans, the sources are not speaking on trans women in their content that does not note that trans women are included or considered.
You are free to believe what you want to believe about the literature, but that 2016 review about the research on transgender brains thus far is clear. And so is WP:MEDRS about the type of biomedical sources that are reliable. What literature review do you have that contradicts that 2016 literature review? Primary sources or sources from years before 2016 and that have been challenged do not cut it. Brain studies like this aforementioned one were not done by Blanchard, and they also indicate that the brains of cisgender gay men are similar to the brains of cisgender heterosexual women and that the brains of cisgender lesbians are similar to the brains of cisgender heterosexual men. If we take gender identity away and only go by sexual attraction regarding these brain studies, we can see that the brains of cisgender gay men, cisgender heterosexual women, and trans women who are sexually attracted to men are similar, but that the brain structure of gay men and trans women who are sexually attracted to men is still significantly removed from that of cisgender women. We can see that the brains of cisgender lesbian women, cisgender heterosexual men, and trans men who are sexually attracted to women are similar, but that the brain structure of cisgender heterosexual men is still significantly removed from that of cisgender women and trans men. Whatever one wants to label the sexual attraction, researchers (not just Cantor, Bailey, Lawrence, and Dreger) believe that they are seeing sexual attraction in the brain. And the brain research thus far indicates that trans women who are sexually attracted to men have different brains than trans women who are sexually attracted to women. The review doesn't state that Blanchard is right to use terminology such as "homosexual transsexual"; in fact, it notes, "Blanchard, taking into account the sex chromosomes at birth, has named androphilic MtFs homosexual and gynephilic MtFs nonhomosexual (Blanchard, 1989a, 1989b). However, Gooren had reservations about the use of the terms 'homo'- and 'nonhomosexual' because MtFs do not view themselves as homosexuals, considering themselves women in their sexual interaction with men (Gooren, 2006)." The review is clear that with regard to brain analyses, Blanchard appears to be correct about there being two different types of trans women. No WP:MEDRS-compliant source calls that fringe with respect to brain studies. The review does not speak on supporting all of Blanchard's views on this topic. Your "Does not compare apples to apples" argument is your take, but similar can be stated when speaking of those going around, without context, stating that trans women and trans men have brains that correspond to their gender identity.
Autogynephilia? As much as many in the transgender community object to the concept of autogynephilia, it is in the DSM-5.
Activist sources? I noted that I do not want to be pointed to activist sources...because some tend to point to Serano (as just one, but the main, example) when arguing against what researchers state.
We should wrap up this discussion. We clearly have differing views (regarding the research or whatever), and this aspect of our discussion does not directly relate to the article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Updated post to fix typo. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
There's plenty I'd very much like to contest about the above comment (starting with the "autogynephilia" DSM claim: it is mentioned only with regards to crossdressers, not trans women whatsoever), but I fully agree that this discussion has veered well away from the article, so isn't necessarily worth continuing. Especially in light of the new, large, and unrelated edits that were made to the article today, it seems wise to end this thread. 108.31.146.220 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The DSM-5 gives "habitual fetishistic transvestism developing into autogynephilia" as a risk or predisposing factor for the development of gender dysphoria. Some people assigned male at birth who are stated to have autogynephilia and are diagnosed with late-onset gender dysphoria do go on to identify as women. But, yes, let's focus on more related matters now. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Updated post to tweak it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
You left out the first part of the sentence: "Additional predisposing factors under consideration" << this indicates that it has not been established as a predisposing factor, but is being discussed as a possibility (by Blanchard and co.). And the section on Transvestic Disorder (under "differential diagnosis") makes very clear that it is entirely separate from gender dysphoria, and states earlier in the section that it does not occur concurrently: "The development of gender dysphoria is usually accompanied by a (self-reported reduction or elimination of sexual arousal in association with cross-dressing."108.31.146.220 (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The paper version differs somewhat from the online version. This is an excerpt from the online version: "Adolescent and adult natal males with early-onset gender dysphoria are almost always sexually attracted to men (androphilic). Adolescents and adults with late-onset gender dysphoria frequently engage in transvestic behavior with sexual excitement. The majority of these individuals are gynephilic or sexually attracted to other posttransition natal males with late-onset gender dysphoria. A substantial percentage of adult males with late-onset gender dysphoria cohabit with or are married to natal females. After gender transition, many self-identify as lesbian. Among adult natal males with gender dysphoria, the early-onset group seeks out clinical care for hormone treatment and reassignment surgery at an earlier age than does the late-onset group. The late-onset group may have more fluctuations in the degree of gender dysphoria and be more ambivalent about and less likely satisfied after gender reassignment surgery." Regardless of what the paper or online version states, reliable academic sources have interpreted the DSM-5 as stating that "habitual fetishistic transvestism developing into autogynephilia" is a risk or predisposing factor for the development of gender dysphoria. Reliable academic sources note that some people assigned male at birth who are stated to have autogynephilia and are diagnosed with late-onset gender dysphoria do go on to identify as women (and often as lesbian). I see no need to debate this as well. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I see. Apparently you have to pay for the full online version, so all I can see is the print version. And of course, my comments were based on the print version. That's...very disappointing that all that nonsense is included in the online version - they really do go all-out on Blanchard's ideology there, it seems. Not entirely surprising on second thought, given that conversion therapist Kenneth Zucker was in charge of the team changing the Gender Dysphoria section. To contrast with that though, in addition to the studies refuting Blanchard's typology, the WPATH has intentionally excluded "autogynephilia" completely in its standards of care - it was included in the 1998 5th version, but removed (much to the chagrin of Blanchard and Zucker) in SOC6 and SOC7.108.31.146.220 (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, I wasn't stating that the online version I quoted is from the same area as the book version we looked at on Google Books. I noted that the "paper version differs somewhat from the online version" because I remember that the first printed version of the DSM-5 has a few differences than the online version, and that includes its error with regard to pedophilia. I haven't yet compared the "adolescent and adult natal males with gender dysphoria" entry for the paper version to the online version word for word. I might do that later (without reporting on it here since it's off-topic). But both do have the "adolescent and adult natal males with gender dysphoria" entries. I quoted the online version to make clear what the DSM-5 states about "transvestic behavior with sexual excitement" in relation to gender dysphoria.
Some other sources commenting on this are the following: This 2014 "The Psychobiology of Transsexualism and Transgenderism: A New View Based on Scientific Evidence" source, from ABC-CLIO, pages 10 and 11, states, "The DSM-V also continues to include transvestic fetishism and autogynephilia as causes of TSTG that provides the basis for pathologization of TSTG by opponents." The source uses "TSTG" to mean "transsexualism and transgenderism" and "transsexual and transgender." This 2014 "Adult Psychopathology and Diagnosis" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 574, states, "Transvestic disorder can be associated with gender dysphoria and a desire to transition to the female gender role, particularly when it is associated with autogynephilia (sexual arousal in response to the idea or image of onself as a wom[a]n; Blanchard, 2005, 2010b; Lawrence 2013)." Sure, the source cites Blanchard and Lawrence, but this source is not a primary source. It's taking the time to look at the literature on the matter. This 2014 "The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry, Sixth Edition" source, from American Psychiatric Pub, page 903, states, "Identified separately from fetishistic disorder and gender dysphoria, transvestic disorder involves cross-dressing, in most cases producing sexual arousal (American Psychiatric Association 2013). In the DSM-5 criteria (Box 26-8), several specifiers have been added and others removed. The 'with gender dysphoria' specifier has been removed to decrease the overlap between this diagnosis and that of gender dysphoria. The specifier 'with fetishism' has been added to identify individuals who experience arousal in response to the garments, materials, or fabrics, and the specifier 'with autogynephilia' has been added to indicate when the cross-dressing is accompanied by sexually arousing thoughts or images of the self as female (Blanchard 2010b). [...] Transvestic disorder may begin in childhood or adulthood, may be temporary or chronic, and may lead to gender dysphoria in some cases (it is often at this point that the individual seeks treatment)." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The Bevan source is diametrically opposed to Blanchard's ideology, repeatedly calling it a "myth." With regards to its statement on the DSM, it does somewhat overstate what the DSM says: while the latter (again, led by conversion therapist Zucker) unfortunately does pander to Blanchard's ideology quite a bit, nowhere does it state that transvestic disorder causes gender dysphoria, only that it can precede it. The latter two sources (both textbooks) both cite either only Blanchard (third source), or Blanchard and Lawrence (second source). If those are the only sources cited, they haven't taken the time to look at all the literature on the matter: they looked at Blanchard and Lawrence's writings on their pet theory, without looking at any of the subsequent studies and reviews refuting it (by Veale, Nuttbrock, Moser, etc). Given that your 2nd and 3rd sources are wide-ranging textbooks, it isn't surprising that they didn't look into the topic further, and instead just cited Blanchard without question. The 3rd source differs a bit from the DSM in that in the former, sexual arousal is not stated as necessary for transvestic disorder: "Identified separately from fetishistic disorder and gender dysphoria, transvestic disorder involves cross-dressing, in most cases producing sexual arousal." It states that the "with fetishism" specifier is the part that necessitates the sexual arousal. Following from that, their statement that transvestic disorder "may lead to gender dysphoria in some cases" does not mean that the cases which "may lead to gender dysphoria" are the cases with the "fetishism" and/or "autogynephilia" specifiers. And this makes sense: closeted trans people (especially older trans people who may have a lot to lose by coming out) may start off wearing clothes traditionally incongruous with their assigned sex at birth as a way of privately exploring or expressing their identity. Doesn't mean that there's necessarily anything sexual about it, just means that identity exploration can, in some cases, begin through easily accessible, low-risk avenues such as clothes.108.31.146.220 (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
It seems you are stating that transvestic disorder can occur without sexual arousal. Even with the above American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry, Sixth Edition source relaying "in most cases producing sexual arousal" rather than relaying "producing sexual arousal" without use of "most cases," I'm not aware of sources stating that. Going back to the printed version of the DSM-5, we can see that it states, "Transvestic disorder. Transvestic disorder occurs in heterosexual (or bisexual) adolescent and adult males (rarely in females) for whom cross-dressing behavior generates sexual excitement and causes distress and/or impairment without drawing their primary gender into question. It is occasionally accompanied by gender dysphoria. An individual with transvestic disorder who also has clinically significant gender dysphoria can be given both diagnoses. In many cases of late onset gender dysphoria in gynephilic natal males, transvestic behavior with sexual excitement is a precursor." This 2015 "Psychopathology: Foundations for a Contemporary Understanding" source, from Routledge, page 249, states, "Transvestic disorder: Recurrent and intense sexual arousal from cross-dressing, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors." This 2017 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender" source, from SAGE Publications, states, "Since the installation of the updated DSM-5, transvestic fetishism is no longer a stand-alone diagnosis under paraphilic disorder and is now typically referenced as a transvestic disorder (DSM-5, 302.3), which must be specified with fetishism if the person has strong erotic reactions to articles of clothing and fabrics; otherwise, transvestic disorder without the inclusion of fetishism is a clinical preoccupation and urge to cross-dress for sexual arousal and gratification. Thus, according to a modern psychological perspective, transvestic fetishism is not exclusively a sexual preoccupation with cross-dressing but more an interest in opposite-gendered garments (e.g., lacy underwear, stockings, high heels)."
On a side note: I know that you feel strongly about Zucker and some people have characterized his practices as conversion therapy for transgender people, but keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. Zucker does not consider himself a conversion therapist and others do not consider his practices to resemble the conversion therapy that gay men and lesbians have gone through. Below, you described conversion therapy as "think electroshock, drugs, lobotomy, 'corrective' rape, and religious abuse used under the pretense of 'therapy'." Zucker has engaged in none of that. The drugs used for conversion therapy on gay men and lesbians were nausea-inducing drugs during presentation of same-sex erotic images. Since we wouldn't call Zucker a conversion therapist in Wikipedia's voice in a Wikipedia article, we shouldn't do so on a talk page. Also, there is no need to point me to articles that compare Zucker to a conversion therapist (or his practices to conversion therapy) or outright call him one (or his practices that). I'm aware of them (and linked to an article on the debate in this paragraph). Our WP:BLP policy still stands. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
RE: The American Psychiatric Publishing textbook vs other sources, it does seem that in this case the textbook IS the odd one out (but it's worth noting that what the textbook DOES say doesn't support your previous contention). As I said above, it's not surprising that a wide-ranging textbook like that wouldn't necessarily research, define, or comment on everything in depth.
As far as what exactly the "with fetishism" signifier refers to ("strong erotic reactions to [gendered] articles of clothing and fabrics"), that's an interesting point. If that's the case, then "transvestic disorder with fetishism" can just mean arousal in response to the clothing itself, in the same sense that some people have fetishes around wearing or just interacting with other specific types of clothing like silk or latex. This means that it isn't necessarily a reaction to anything related to gender (except for how the clothing itself is seen as feminine), much less anything close to Blanchard's concepts. And given that things like lingerie are highly associated with sexuality in our society, it isn't too far of a reach that some amount of people may find the lingerie itself to be arousing, even when not on a person. And this isn't limited to any discussion about trans people or dysphoria, but it's interesting that "transvestic fetishism" can refer to several different types of fetishes, grouped into one diagnosis.
Especially in the past, many trans women were misdiagnosed with whatever iteration of transvestism was on the books, rather than whatever iteration of gender dysphoria was on the books. And often this wasn't even because of any cross-gender arousal, but because they didn't fit gatekeepers' mold for what a "true" transsexual woman should be (for example, not conforming to enough archaic gender roles, not being exclusively attracted to men, etc). When considering some of the sources above, it's important to consider these historical misdiagnoses of trans women, and the residual influence of that on more recent diagnostic manuals.
Most importantly, none of these sources say that any sort of cross-gender arousal causes gender dysphoria nor is the motivation for trans women to transition.
-------------------------------------
When it comes to Zucker, he has openly admitted that he tries to change the gender identity of trans kids. There is ample evidence that makes the "conversion therapist" claim fall well within WP:BLP. And while it would likely lead to a weekslong war on the talk page, it should absolutely be listed in his article. Here are some of his direct quotes and reporting of his interview answers:
This is conversion therapy. No, it isn't one of the (relatively) more egregious methods that has been utilized on LGBT youth, but it is still trans conversion therapy ("psychological attempts to change a person’s gender identity from transgender to cisgender" per the study below), and he has harmed trans kids by practicing it. It's entirely consistent with the statement on the conversion therapy wiki article that "More recent clinical techniques [of conversion therapy] used in the United States have been limited to counseling, visualization, social skills training, psychoanalytic therapy, and spiritual interventions such as "prayer and group support and pressure", though there are some reports of aversive treatments through unlicensed practice as late as the early 2000s." Still applies even though Zucker is Canadian.
A recent study was done on conversion therapy done to trans people, and showed the many harms it inflicts on trans people, just as it does to cis LGB people.
Zucker's attempted defense that it somehow isn't conversion therapy because it's done to trans kids and not cis LGB kids is very weak, considering the current position held by the institutions (not just articles in the media) below that the phrase "conversion therapy" also applies to trans people.
I'm not sure what you mean by "but it's worth noting that what the textbook DOES say doesn't support your previous contention." Either way, I've provided enough academic sources to support things I've stated. If by "doesn't support your previous contention", you mean "most importantly, none of these sources say that any sort of cross-gender arousal causes gender dysphoria nor is the motivation for trans women to transition.", I never used the word "cause." I never stated "motivation for trans women to transition." I stated, "The DSM-5 gives 'habitual fetishistic transvestism developing into autogynephilia' as a risk or predisposing factor for the development of gender dysphoria. Some people assigned male at birth who are stated to have autogynephilia and are diagnosed with late-onset gender dysphoria do go on to identify as women." I stated, "Regardless of what the paper or online version states, reliable academic sources have interpreted the DSM-5 as stating that 'habitual fetishistic transvestism developing into autogynephilia' is a risk or predisposing factor for the development of gender dysphoria. Reliable academic sources note that some people assigned male at birth who are stated to have autogynephilia and are diagnosed with late-onset gender dysphoria do go on to identify as women (and often as lesbian)." I then produced a snippet from the online version of the DSM-5 supporting my "some people assigned male at birth who are stated to have autogynephilia and are diagnosed with late-onset gender dysphoria do go on to identify as women (and often as lesbian)" comment. The DSM-5 clearly states, "Adolescents and adults with late-onset gender dysphoria frequently engage in transvestic behavior with sexual excitement. The majority of these individuals are gynephilic or sexually attracted to other posttransition natal males with late-onset gender dysphoria. A substantial percentage of adult males with late-onset gender dysphoria cohabit with or are married to natal females. After gender transition, many self-identify as lesbian." While that snippet from the DSM-5 doesn't use "autogynephilia" by name, it's clear from sources I've listed that "transvestic behavior with sexual excitement" is a reference to transvestic disorder, which includes the "with fetishism" and "with autogynephilia" specifiers. Like the "Adult Psychopathology and Diagnosis" source, page 574, states, "Specifiers for this disorder are with fetishism or with autogynephilia (sexual arousal related to thoughts or images of self as female)." The "American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry, Sixth Edition" source (also quoted above) states "transvestic disorder may begin in childhood or adulthood, may be temporary or chronic, and may lead to gender dysphoria in some cases." Use of "may lead to gender dysphoria" is what I meant by "predisposing factor for the development of gender dysphoria." That source clearly states "lead to." I noted that the DSM-5 also states, "In many cases of late onset gender dysphoria in gynephilic natal males, transvestic behavior with sexual excitement is a precursor." Now one can debate what "predisposing factor" means, but I think it's clear what I was stating. I was not stating that "habitual fetishistic transvestism developing into autogynephilia" is automatically a predisposing factor/automatically leads to gender dysphoria. And the reason I did not state that is because, excluding the "Psychobiology of Transsexualism and Transgenderism: A New View Based on Scientific Evidence" source stating that "The DSM-V also continues to include transvestic fetishism and autogynephilia as causes of TSTG that provides the basis for pathologization of TSTG by opponents.", academic sources don't state that.
As for Zucker, it is already noted in his Wikipedia article that some have compared Zucker's practices to conversion therapy, and it gives his side on the matter as well. Same goes for the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health article. But if you think that his Wikipedia article or the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health article should call him a conversion therapist in Wikipedia's voice, you are mistaken. Doing that would absolutely be a WP:BLP violation. I was clear that "Also, there is no need to point me to articles that compare Zucker to a conversion therapist (or his practices to conversion therapy) or outright call him one (or his practices that). I'm aware of them (and linked to an article on the debate in this paragraph)." But you went on about conversion therapy anyway. Maybe it was more so to point me to how the term conversion therapy can be used. Regardless, I'm not getting into some long debate about Zucker. In fact, this is likely my last response to you since this discussion has significantly moved past its on-topic aspect and can go on for weeks or longer. But I will state that your "Zucker's attempted defense that it somehow isn't conversion therapy because it's done to trans kids and not cis LGB kids is very weak" comment misrepresents what Zucker and his defenders state. Zucker and his defenders state that because most prepubescent children with gender dysphoria will cease to want to be the opposite sex by puberty/adolescence, he encourages prepubescent children to feel comfortable with their assigned sex. They argue that if the child still wants to be the other sex by puberty/adolescence, Zucker is not against then looking to assist the child in socially and medically transitioning. This is in the source I pointed to on this matter. And please don't bring up activist arguments about how the prospective studies are wrong, or even non-activist sources noting that the reliability of the studies have been questioned. I'm aware of the arguments. But whether or not one goes with the 80% figure, or a figure little below that, the research thus far still shows that most prepubescent children with gender dysphoria will cease to want to be the opposite sex by puberty/adolescence. It is what various WP:MEDRS-compliant sources continue to state/support. It is not an aspect that is at all treated as fringe (see WP:Fringe) or junk science by the vast majority of the literature. Also, I am aware that, in recent years, the term conversion therapy has expanded to include gender identity change efforts, but it's still not the standard meaning of that term. The "more recent clinical techniques used in the United States have been limited to counseling, visualization, social skills training, psychoanalytic therapy, and spiritual interventions such as 'prayer and group support and pressure' " piece in the lead of the Conversion therapy article is about sexual orientation. The vast majority of sources extending the term conversion therapy to gender identity relate to media material. Academic sources on that aspect are severely lacking, and some sources (like the study you pointed to) use the term gender identity conversion efforts or similar because the term conversion therapy is so wrapped up in sexual orientation. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Alright then, this will be my last response too. The claims about desistance rates (especially the 80% number) with regards to childhood gender dysphoria are indeed unsupported, as they only reflect studies done on a previous diagnosis ("gender identity disorder" in children) with significantly different diagnostic criteria. Unlike the gender dysphoria diagnosis in the DSM-V, the GIDc diagnosis did not require that the child express a "repeatedly stated desire to be, or insistence that he or she is, the other sex" to be diagnosed: and all other diagnostic criteria only relate to nonconformity to gender roles. https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/pn.38.14.0032 The fact that many gender-nonconforming cis kids (who weren't trans to begin with) were put in those studies is a reflection of the poor diagnostic criteria for GIDc, not evidence that most trans kids desist upon reaching puberty. In many of the studies done on "desistance rates" (again, all reflecting the former diagnosis), some of the kids involved had not even been diagnosed with GIDc: they were just kids who had been evaluated at the gender clinics in question, regardless of diagnosis. These are facts (go and read the studies yourself), not "activist arguments" as you portray.
In any case, Zucker (in his own words) viewed being trans as a distinctly negative outcome, and specifically worked to prevent that outcome by attempting to change the gender identity of the kids he saw to be the same as their assigned sex at birth. This remains true even if only 20% of his patients were trans. It remains true even if only 2% of his patients were trans. He engaged in conversion therapy, no two ways about it.
Efforts to change someone's gender identity have become included within the standard meaning of conversion therapy. As I showed, many of the sources which reflect this are not just from the media: they are legal and medical sources (and there are more where those came from, I just listed a few major ones). I'm aware that the early 2000s source using the "more recent clinical techniques" sentence was referring to sexual orientation at the time: I included it to show that some of the exact same methods being described therein are the ones Zucker and others have used on trans kids.
The real question is, just how many sources do you need before you accept that conversion therapy (and all the harms that come along with it) applies to trans kids as much as LGB kids? There is a reason that a sizable number of editors on the Conversion Therapy wiki have argued in favor of including anti-trans conversion therapy within the article. How many more need to come along before you stop reverting them all? They aren't POV edits, they reflect current reliable sources. 108.31.146.220 (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
IP, I don't think your above post is going to be your last post in this section after this post of mine, but I can agree to let you have the last word. I don't see why I would need to read the studies when I'm already very familiar with the literature and stated "please don't bring up activist arguments about how the prospective studies are wrong, or even non-activist sources noting that the reliability of the studies have been questioned. I'm aware of the arguments. But whether or not one goes with the 80% figure, or a figure little below that, the research thus far still shows that most prepubescent children with gender dysphoria will cease to want to be the opposite sex by puberty/adolescence." So, again, I know of all the arguments (yes, including activist arguments) and rebuttals...like the ones James Cantor made in this PsyPost source. And both the gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria diagnoses, which are somewhat different (but are otherwise treated as synonymous in the literature), have both been about discontent with one's assigned sex. If a child assigned male at birth says they feel like a girl and they are discontent/distressed about their sex assignment, or if they are distressed about their assigned sex even without stating that they feel like the opposite sex, that is gender dysphoria, regardless of if anyone wants to classify that person as transgender, which is a very broad term these days. That is not simply gender nonconformity. But while it is very common for gay men and lesbians to report having been gender nonconforming as children, it is also very common for them to report having felt like the opposite sex as children. With regard to feeling like the opposite sex, researchers (not just the usual group associated with this topic) attribute it in part to how heteronormative society is and that gender norms can make a child uncomfortable in their own skin; it can make an effeminate boy feel that he should be a girl because he likes "girl things." It can make a girl who is a tomboy feel like she should be a boy because she likes "boy things." It's tougher on the boys because being a tomboy is far more accepted in society than being an effeminate boy is. One argument that exists is that if society had less strict gender divisions, or rather if there was no gender binary (in terms of "boys/men are supposed to dress and behave this way" and "girls/women are supposed to dress and behave this way"), gender dysphoria may not or would not exist. Obviously, that many gay men and lesbians report having felt like the opposite sex as children doesn't negate the fact that some children persist in their feelings that they should be/are the opposite sex -- that their sex assignment is wrong.
Anyway, regarding the studies on children who had gender dysphoria, you can see Cantor (in 2017) rebutting aspects of the "they're flawed" arguments in the source I cited in the first paragraph of this post. After analyzing the studies, he comments: "The state of the science is made clear simply by listing the results of the studies on the topic. Despite coming from a variety of countries and from a variety of labs, using a variety of methods, all spanning four decades, every single study without exception has come to the identical conclusion. This is not a matter of scientists disagreeing with one another over relative strengths and weaknesses across a set of conflicting reports. The disagreement is not even some people advocating for one set of studies with other people advocating for different set of studies: Rather, activists are rejecting the unanimous conclusion of every single study ever conducted on the question in favour of a conclusion supported by not one." The article ends with another paragraph, where he argues to not exaggerate the results.
As for "efforts to change someone's gender identity have become included within the standard meaning of conversion therapy", you and I won't be agreeing on the standard definition of conversion therapy. And as for your sources and your "there is a reason that a sizable number of editors on the Conversion Therapy wiki have argued in favor of including anti-trans conversion therapy within the article. How many more need to come along before you stop reverting them all? They aren't POV edits, they reflect current reliable sources." argument? An editor logging in to comment after commenting as one or more IPs, an IP editor who was disruptive and was eventually blocked as IPs and as accounts, and a now-blocked COI editor do not equate to "a sizable number of editors." But I understand your comment. And I stand by what I stated on that talk page, which does not include me stating "keep out all gender identity material at all costs." I've clearly been open to gender identity conversion efforts material being covered lower in that article (just not in the lead) and a "Gender identity conversion efforts" article being created. Regarding the academic literature, WP:MEDRS is clear about why primary sources are discouraged for topics such as this. When it comes to research, replicability is a big deal with regard to reliability. WP:MEDPRI states, "Primary sources should not be cited with intent of 'debunking', contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources. [...] Primary sources should not be aggregated or presented without context in order to undermine proportionate representation of opinion in a field. [...] Findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as original, primary research is reported, before the scientific community has analyzed and commented on the results. Therefore, such sources should generally be entirely omitted ('see recentism')." Cantor has also spoken on the gender identity conversion efforts research, in this 2019 "Transgender and Gender Diverse Children and Adolescents: Fact-Checking of AAP Policy" source, stating in part, "The AAP statement was also remarkable in what it left out—namely, the actual outcomes research on GD children. In total, there have been 11 follow-up studies of GD children, of which AAP cited one (Wallien & Cohen-Kettenis, 2008), doing so without actually mentioning the outcome data it contained. The literature on outcomes was neither reviewed, summarized, nor subjected to meta-analysis to be considered in the aggregate—It was merely disappeared. (The list of all existing studies appears in the appendix.) As they make clear, every follow-up study of GD children, without exception, found the same thing: Over puberty, the majority of GD children cease to want to transition. AAP is, of course, free to establish whatever policy it likes on whatever basis it likes. But any assertion that their policy is based on evidence is demonstrably false, as detailed below. [...] AAP's claims struck me as odd because there are no studies of conversion therapy for gender identity. Studies of conversion therapy have been limited to sexual orientation, and, moreover, to the sexual orientation of adults, not to gender identity and not of children in any case. The article AAP cited to support their claim (reference number 38) is indeed a classic and well-known review, but it is a review of sexual orientation research only. Neither gender identity, nor even children, received a single mention in it. Indeed, the narrower scope of that article should be clear to anyone reading even just its title: 'The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy' [italics added]." Perhaps Cantor wrote this article without being aware of this study you cited being written around the same time. I could ask him, but it does focus on adults. Anyway, I conclude my arguments in this section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
That's not true though, is it? The DSM-IV & DSM-V diagnoses are not both about "discontent about one's assigned sex." That's the case for the DSM-V, but it was fully possible to meet full diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV through simple gender nonconformity. To summarize each necessary criterion: cross-gender friend selection, stereotypical games/pastimes, roles in make-believe play, and clothing selection. aversion to same-gender toys, games, activities, and clothes. If these criteria were met, as is common in gender non-conforming cis kids, there was no need to also have a "repeatedly stated desire to be, or insistence that he or she is, the other sex" nor physical dysphoria. This is not the case in the DSM-V: the "repeatedly stated desire to be, or insistence that he or she is, the other sex" criterion is now necessary for diagnosis. Although, it's worth a mention that there are still too many additional criteria focusing on gender roles, and not enough relating to physical and societal dysphoria (this could potentially still present a smaller issue in future studies). Even Zucker himself, despite the myriad harms he has done, has recognized that the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria conflates gender role nonconformity with gender dysphoria.
Yes, we live in a heteronormative society. We also live in a very cisnormative society. You mention cis LGB people who 'were uncomfortable in their own skin" as children and may have briefly desired to be the other gender. Yet there are also countless trans people who were & are brutally repressed as children, and/or were totally unaware that transition was an option for most of their lives (and thus transitioned far later than they otherwise would have).
With regards to your statement: "One argument that exists is that if society had less strict gender divisions, or rather if there was no gender binary (in terms of "boys/men are supposed to dress and behave this way" and "girls/women are supposed to dress and behave this way"), gender dysphoria may not or would not exist."
No. Absolutely not. Trans people and gender dysphoria would absolutely still exist regardless of the gender roles or lack thereof in society. Even in the complete absence of gender roles, both physical dysphoria and dysphoria related to societal perception as a man or a woman would still exist. People would still routinely transition. When you spread transphobic tropes like the one quoted above, don't be surprised when people here think you're transphobic.
When it comes to Cantor's statement, all of the studies he relies on have been done using the previous flawed diagnostic criteria which mixes in gender nonconforming cis kids who were never trans to begin with. And many of these studies either counted all nonresponders to the follow-ups as "desisters," included many kids who didn't even meet the flimsy former criteria, or made both of these major errors. Oh, and some of the studies were conducted at centers like Zucker's where anti-trans conversion therapy was the norm. How many of those reported "desisters" just had their identities repressed by these abusive therapies until well after the follow-up?
As far as the conversion therapy article and how anti-trans conversion therapy should be included in it, I may well create a section for it in the article at some point. No plans to do it immediately, but in the next few months if someone else doesn't beat me to it. In addition to the future section on it, it definitely should be mentioned in the lede paragraph. If not in the first sentence, then maybe in a later sentence saying something along the lines of "in recent years, the meaning of 'conversion therapy' has evolved to include psychological and religious efforts to change gender identity and expression." We shall see! 108.31.146.220 (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
She said it was an argument that exists, which the IP quoted, so there is no basis for accusations of transphobia merely for noting that a POV exists. And that is still different from saying people would never be trans in that hypothetical, as stating that people have to have dysphoria to be trans is often considered transphobic. Crossroads -talk- 07:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Even Flyer, who likes to go on wearying five-hundred-billion-word-long off-topic rants, has noted that this isn't a discussion forum, and I think we'd all be a bit happier if we tried to keep that in mind. Myself included. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Newimpartial, your bit about demographers screams for a [citation needed]. You also included dyke in your manifesto, and dyke = lesbian = homosexual woman, anyway. Also, if you wish to abolish homosexuality, do you wish to abolish heterosexuality as well? Might be a tough sell to the electorate, or tough to recruit enough fighters to your revolutionary front.
WanderingWanda, enough with the snipes at Flyer. There appears to be some special grudge there, but I'm feeling left out. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
So let's see what we have here, WanderingWanda. You focus on me above in your typical "Flyer is a bad person" fashion. And you now take another jab at me with ridiculousness? And you wonder why I and others call you obsessed with me? Once again, I ignore you and once again you keep jabbing until I respond. There was no need whatsoever for you to mention me to invoke WP:Not a forum. At least El C can see more examples of what I and others noted before. El C, you might want to extend full-protection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Crossroads, where I live, most self-avowed dykes are both women-loving-women and accept trans lesbians as lesbians, and don't see any tension between the two, just as most fags around here are dick-loving queers. All are what a 1950s psychiatrist would have termed "homosexual", but none of them would choose that identity unless it is forced upon them. As far as the demographers point goes, wherever sexual identities are subject to focus groups or self-declaration surveys, "gay", "lesbian" and "queer" win out (with "dyke" and "fag" for the most political) while "homosexual" doesn't register as a self-identify. Tautologies about "gay", "lesbian" and "dyke" equaling "homosexual" and therefore being somehow about sex, not gender are belied by how homosocial spaces run by "gays" and "lesbians" are actually managed around here, where gender not private parts is the basis for how people treat one another. But YMMV of course. Newimpartial (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
"homosexual" doesn't register as a self-identify.;  homosocial spaces run by "gays" and "lesbians". ROFL!
You might be mistaking tolerance for acceptance.
Older lesbians can stand on their own, but younger lesbians who don't agree with the gender-kumbaya crowd don't have enough life experience to handle the repercussions; so it's better to go along with what little society you have than to be barred and excluded from it. Anyone who attends a meeting at an LGBTXYZ community center, who wants to participate in Pride events, or any LGBTXYZ function whatsoever, and dares to criticize gender ideology will find themselves shunned.
"Homosexual" has become a dirty word because organizations, such as GLAAD, decided that it was -- and drones have bought into it. Many homos like myself have taken back the word because what it means is unambiguous, and we don't give a F about the verbal weaponry used by "anti-gay extremists". Until lesbians reclaimed it, "Dyke" was used by homophobes and misogynists as a slur and insult against lesbians and any female who defied the patriarchy, but today that weapon has lost its power in many societies worldwide. Like the swing of a pendulum, the more lesbians and gay men use "homosexual", the more the word will lose the stigma that was placed on it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my own, personal objection to "homosexual" isn't that it is subject to stigma, it's that the term is sterile and carries a hangover of bad metaphysics. Also, I have no idea what a "gender-kumbaya crowd" might be, though it sounds like a Canada Day chill room TBH. Newimpartial (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, it seems surprising that you don't see how a position that will get you "shunned" in feminist and LGBT2Q communities just might be what we like to call a FRINGE position? Like, legit? And calling those who disagree with you "drones" is not likely to win over those "who don't have enough life experience" to your perspective. Just a thought. Newimpartial (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Spoken like someone who's taken without thought of what he's taking comes from. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 19:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't like the direction of this conversation. Less innuendo and less personalizing from both sides is expected. El_C 19:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I just want to thank everyone, as despite the absolutely daunting walls of text above and the tone they started to take, the current text that's been worked out looks pretty good with regard to the specific issues the OP raised, IMO, apart perhaps from the material discussed in the section below, which I'll comment on in that section later. -sche (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Final warning to participants about imminent ARBGG sanctions

Per my above (terse) caution, I will elborate somewhat. I am not happy with what I'm seeing on this talk page. Although much hyperbole and personalizing seems to get lost in walls of text, I still intend to enforce ARBGG here with greater vigor from now on. This warning is the last one before actual sanctions are applied, including but not limited to an all-encompassing GG topic ban to some of the participants. In fact, I'm on the fence whether sanctions ought to be implemented right now, but I'll err on the side of leniency, I suppose. Anyway, focus on content, write in matter-of-fact tone that is devoid of innuendo. Try to communicate more and provoke less. Please tread lightly from now on, everyone. El_C 19:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Restored material

I restored all of this. And this is why: A bit of material was removed as WP:Undue or as though it's not on-topic when it is. The material is on-topic and falls under the definition of lesbian erasure, depending on how it is being defined by sources. I have interpreted WP:Synthesis very strictly in the past, but I've also considered the other side of that debate. WP:Synthesis has been debated times before as not meaning that things that obviously fall under the definition of a topic should be excluded because the exact phrasing is not mentioned in the source. Matters like these are a case-by-case thing. In the case of homosexuality, for example, we don't exclude material that is clearly about homosexuality from the Homosexuality article because the source doesn't use the term homosexuality or homosexual. If the material is about same-sex attraction, it may or may not be included depending on how WP:Due it is.

The "not sexually attracted to trans women means you're transphobic" aspect is a part of the topic of lesbian erasure, as noted in sources. The "Abigail Curlew" piece is speaking on the "not sexually attracted to trans women means you're transphobic" aspect and is providing her take on it from a transgender perspective.

Regarding this edit? The "In relation to butch lesbians and transgender men" text is not just about trans men; it is also about butch lesbians. So if anything, the title should be "Butch lesbians and transgender men." Also, "In relation to" perhaps sounds less POV than just titling the sections "Trans men" and "Trans women."

Regarding this? No, the "A number of lesbians note that they were tomboys or experienced gender dysphoria as a child. Some younger lesbians report having felt conflicted about whether to transition or that they felt pressured to transition and later detransitioned." piece is not WP:Undue. It is directly relevant to that paragraph and corresponds to the argument against destransitioners being proof of anything in the Katie Herzog paragraph. We aren't going to include Herzog's argument without including this aspect. Many lesbians point to the fact that they felt that they should have been boys growing up. Relevant.

Regarding this removal of "conversion therapy" and the Miranda Yardley source? The Turner source clearly speaks on conversion therapy. And in any case, it's simple enough to find another source asserting the conversion therapy argument. Yardley is clearly speaking on an aspect that has been argued to fall under the topic of lesbian erasure. The very "Girl Dick, the Cotton Ceiling and the Cultural War on Lesbians, Girls and Women" source by Yardley was protested against by the eight lesbian publications mentioned in the trans woman section as being against the notion of lesbian erasure with regard transgender activism. The "Not in our name" letter has been reported on by The Advocate as commenting on lesbian erasure with regard to articles such as the "Girl Dick, the Cotton Ceiling and the Cultural War on Lesbians" one produced by AfterEllen. Yardley clearly states things such as "Here, in the United Kingdom, we have in Stonewall's Ruth Hunt and Diva Magazine's Linda Riley two women who are willing to compromise the integrity of what it means to be a homosexual human female, a lesbian." Furthermore, the Yardley source is used to support the related "cotton ceiling" aspect in the article. I could have easily quoted Yardley in the article, with commentary from The Advocate or a similar source about lesbian erasure, but I did not. Yardley is only used as a reference in the article.

Regarding this? Author Morgan Lev Edward Holleb's commentary is clearly related to the topic, which speaks on trans exclusionary radical feminists' thoughts with regard to lesbian erasure, including the argument of erasing biological differences. When Holleb speaks on erasure, Holleb is speaking on all of that. Holleb is speaking on trans exclusionary radical feminists, lesbian sexual attraction, and the notion that transgender people are erasing cisgender people. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support inclusion - to get out in front of whatever may happen next, and regardless of the conflicts I have had with Flyer 22 over various issues in the past, I strongly support the inclusion of all of these topics within the article as being aspects of "lesbian erasure" and as being, by and large, DUE in terms of what the available reliable sources as a whole have to say about the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support restoration with one exception Wow, after a weeklong talkpage war over relatively minor edits...people are back for more, in a big way. Guess it's because page protection was lifted? As to the content of the edits and reversions: I agree with *reverting* all edits made by Pyxis and Wanda today, except for the removal of the Yardley source and the "conversion therapy" phrasing. The Holleb and Curlew sources are both directly relevant and relatively high-quality. The (paraphrasing) "I was vaguely masculine back in my day, I bet I would've been forced/pressured to transition if I were a kid today!!!!" point associated with Herzog's citation is at best a weak canard used to fight against allowing young trans people to transition. But in this case, after the giant talk page war above, in this case I think it's best to choose battles and not contest its restoration. The Yardley source, however, is particularly low-quality (even among the other various transphobic authors cited in the page), and is just a noxious screed against trans lesbians with no real salient points. The claim about "conversion therapy" is objectively false: neither trans lesbians nor anyone advocating for them is practicing actual conversion therapy on cis lesbians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy Arguments about how our society's institutional transphobia affects dating preferences and blanket dating exclusions of minority groups, or even the few like McKinnon who extend that to "genital preference," do not even come close to the horrors inflicted on LGBT+ youth by conversion therapists (think electroshock, drugs, lobotomy, "corrective" rape, and religious abuse used under the pretense of "therapy"). What makes this claim/comparison particularly offensive is that many trans people have had actual conversion therapy inflicted upon them, which has caused unspeakable harm. And it's just painfully ironic that some of the same people who advance this noxious argument actually support conversion therapy on trans kids https://www.salon.com/2019/07/28/the-heritage-foundation-has-been-promoting-discredited-and-harmful-conversion-therapy-for-years_partner/ 108.31.146.220 (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion, obviously, as the person who was doing the snipping. Yes, I am concerned about WP:SYNTHESIS here. If you start saying, "well this source doesn't *directly* talk about lesbian erasure, but..." where will it end? Is the article going to start talking about Ray Blanchard and brain scan studies?
I especially oppose the inclusion of this sentence, where the article suddenly shifts from relaying opinions to giving a one-sided statement in Wikivoice about the complex subject of detransition: some younger lesbians report having felt conflicted about whether to transition or that they felt pressured to transition and later detransitioned. Nowhere else is an opinion statement backed up by a Wikivoice statement-of-fact like this. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of all per Flyer22 Frozen and Newimpartial. Sources do not need to use the exact phrase "lesbian erasure", as long as they are about the topic. These sources are. As an example, the Curlew (Vice) source is rebutting the claim that there is an assault on the rights of lesbians and cis-women, an attack on the lesbian community, which is clearly on topic. Yes, it takes editorial discretion to determine which sources are on topic, and which are irrelevant such that their use is synthesis; but this is no different from needing editorial discretion to determine which sources are reliable or due. I see no need to remove the "conversion therapy" bit or the Yardley piece. We are reporting, not endorsing, these POVs, and it is WP:Undue not to report them. As for the phrase that WanderingWanda objects to, I don't see the issue with Wikivoice. The sources comment on it, so it is due, and some lesbians are reporting this. That they are reporting that is not contested anywhere that I can see. Note that WanderingWanda's bit about "where will it end?" is just a case of the slippery slope fallacy. I also note that their out-of-the-blue mentioning of Blanchard and of brain studies appears to be a snipe at Flyer22 Frozen and her talking about that with the IP in the previous section. However, she did say that stuff was not really related to the article anyway. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is what used to be the "In the LGBT community" section that existed: on 16:43, 6 December 2019. This is what it became with the Flyer22 Reborn/Frozen edit of 02:38, 20 December 2019. This is what that former section is now.
    This article is not about lesbians and transgender women, and the trans material has sucked the oxygen out of the room. The overload of trans-related content dwarfs everything else about lesbian erasure. At this point, the article has become owned, and any bold editing has become "permit needed". Where this article stands now, not only will new editors with different ideas find themselves hitting an editing wall, but readers are probably wondering what this article is really about. Support or oppose ... it doesn't really matter because that bus went off the cliff long ago. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The article is supposed to reflect the discussion on lesbian erasure out there in the world. I suppose one could make the argument that the current version of the article is a bit presentist and that more 1970s and 90s material should be added for BALANCE, but I don't think anyone has cause to dispute that issues related to Trans men and Trans women are at the forefront of "lesbian erasure" discussions over the last two decades. Newimpartial (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
As seen at Talk:Lesbian erasure/Archive 1#Enough with the trans this and trans that and #What the hell?, Pyxis Solitary has been responded to before on their "too much trans material" argument. I'm not going to significantly repeat myself on that, but I will again note that I am looking at the few academic sources that address lesbian erasure and am looking to add non-trans material. I'm not going to rush myself. And because most of the sources for this topic are media sources (opinion pieces and such), editing this article isn't like when I edit a rich academic article or a medical article (which is also why I'm caught up on quoting authors). And I am always reassessing, which includes thinking about what to cut and what not to cut. For this topic, there aren't a lot of quality sources to choose from. So if cutting means cutting content that should be included and can't be replaced with one or more better sources, I am cautious of that. This is an article to be very cautious at.
As is clear, I also expanded the "Language and lesbian spaces" section, which doesn't just consist of trans material. Yes, it includes trans material, but that's because sources focus on it. And as seen here, here, here and here, I obviously disagree with the WP:OWN accusation. That I expanded the article significantly more than others thus far does not equate to "owning." Neither does me having reverted a few times. This shows how many times I've reverted and what I reverted. The reverts are barely more than the number of times Crossroads has reverted. Pyxis Solitary has also reverted a few times, and the vast majority of their edits to the article remain. Until this latest revert, my reverts consisted of fixing the lead, reverting an instance of WP:Drive-by tagging, and other relatively minor issues. In this latest case, because what I reverted is not a minor matter, I took the matter to the talk page, which is what we are supposed to do. This is echoed by Pyxis Solitary reverting an IP and stating, "Discuss in Talk page." This contrasts me reverting Pyxis Solitary here on a formatting disagreement and stating, "Revert. Discus on the talk page. The language material mainly concerns the LGBT community." and Pyxis Solitary replying, "Nope. No discussion from me. This article has been manipulated by the need to assuage snowflake editors." Editing with others doesn't mean agreeing with everything they add, remove, or otherwise change, obviously. Abiding by WP:OWN doesn't mean "Agree with edits others' make. If you don't agree, just ignore the matter." As is clear by WP:BOLD and WP:BRD, we revert and/or bring matters to the talk page to discuss if we'd rather not just ignore what we disagree with. We are supposed to avoid WP:Edit wars, and that goes double for an article that falls under WP:Discretionary sanctions...such as this one. If I hadn't reverted the edits being discussed in this section, someone else would have, as is clear by this discussion. But maybe I should have let someone else revert and then replied afterward. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
"I will again note that I am looking at the few academic sources that address lesbian erasure and am looking to add non-trans material. I'm not going to rush myself." Since when are editors expected to sit and wait until a singular editor finds time to deal with an article? You stepped in it, you opened the can of worms, you need to finish what you started.
Pyxis Solitary reverting an IP and stating, "Discuss in Talk page." Yup. Because the edit was first reverted by Crossroads, followed by IP editor re-reverting it. It was a disruptive POV edit by IP that included altering a quotation. Nothing you point to changes the record which is that you took over this article and changed the focus to trans-related matters. It's one thing to include coverage of trans men and trans women in relation to lesbian erasure, but 1,106 words (so far) about trans women alone is excessive and careens the article. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh Pyxis, just save it...my edit was in no way disruptive, it led to marked improvements in the page, and it at least lessened (though didn't totally remove) the bias towards TERF ideology present in the article. Oh, and you need to stop calling literally every editor and edit you don't personally like an "activist." You fit that bill far more than most people who have commented here thus far.108.31.146.220 (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the issue with how much of the article is about in relation to trans issues. Most sources are about that as far as I can tell. Apparently this article was once used for a DYK, and that was about the trans aspect as well. Also, I don't think that Flyer was saying we need to wait for her to add stuff on other aspects. If you want to do so now, and have something to add, then fine. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
You make it sound like I took over the article by being the one to significantly expand it. I didn't. I've already addressed your WP:Own claims, but, sure, I'll state more: I'm not stating that editors have to wait for me to do anything. My point on "not going to rush myself" is that I've been expanding aspects at my own pace. I'm under no obligation to expand non-trans material at the same time. I wonder what "can of worms" I am supposed to have opened when I'm not the one who created the article and was against the article being created from the start (at least it being created without first trying to expand the Queer erasure article). At that time, I stated that "the primary focus of the lead and overall article should not be on transgender women. Keep WP:Recentism in mind." But back then, I was more optimistic about the literature speaking more on non-trans aspects than it actually does. And while the trans material is not just about trans women (but also about trans men and non-binary people), sources on this topic are still mostly covering trans material. I wonder what it is I supposedly "need to finish." Adding more non-trans material? As has been stated by me and others, the vast majority of the sources on the topic are about "trans-related matters." The focus of the article was trans-related from the beginning, including at the time of the "Did you know?" listing. That the literature is like this is a fact and is out of my control. Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the literature with WP:Due weight. And I'm not going to half-ass an article because someone wants to keep the transgender material to a minimum. In fact, going by your comments seen at Talk:Lesbian erasure/Archive 1#Enough with the trans this and trans that, it seems you would prefer we cover no transgender content. And, well, that's just not going to happen. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
"going by your comments seen at Talk:Lesbian erasure/Archive 1#Enough with the trans this and trans that, it seems you would prefer we cover no transgender content." You keep bringing up my comment from 12 November 2019. But since you're stuck in time, and now can't seem to see the forest for the trees, I repeat what I said on 31 January 2020: "It's one thing to include coverage of trans men and trans women in relation to lesbian erasure, but 1,106 words (so far) about trans women alone is excessive and careens the article." So, the sum of your statement "it seems you would prefer we cover no transgender content" is complete nonsense. Don't forget that I know the motive for overloading the trans-related section. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I keep bringing it up because it's relevant. You state that I "can't seem to see the forest for the trees", but I think that applies to you because you are so caught up in wanting to keep the transgender material to a minimum, which would leave out important detail that should be covered. Given what you've stated, I fail to see how commenting that "it seems you would prefer we cover no transgender content" is complete nonsense. Whether one feels you would rather that be the case or not, it would do this article a disservice by not covering trans material at all. It's simple: Most of the literature on lesbian erasure at this point in time is about the transgender aspect, including discussion of the decline of lesbian spaces and the word lesbian being used less because of inclusivity. Non-binary people fall under the transgender umbrella; they are part of the inclusivity debate. So, yes, the article is going to be significantly/mostly about lesbian erasure in relation to trans people. To repeat: "Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the literature with WP:Due weight." Yes, I'm aware that you think my expanding the article with transgender material the way I have is due to a "need to assuage snowflake editors." And that belief is incorrect. Making sure that material that is considered anti-trans by some editors doesn't unduly occupy more space than material that is considered pro-trans by some editors is a matter of considering balance. I've expanded the material the way I have because it is WP:Due. As seen in this and this discussion, it is clear that I wasn't even considering adding much material on trans men. But having looked further into the topic, I saw that a section about butch lesbians and trans men was needed/is WP:Due. There has been no overloading of trans-related material. The sections cover all of the relevant points. We had a similar debate at the Lesbian article when I was clear that the way that researchers and lesbian-identified people use the term lesbian is not consistent and that some trans women also use the label, and it is due to cover that material in the Lesbian article. I am always like this -- covering what is WP:Due. I also stated back then, "Regardless of how one personally feels about the subject, we do have to follow the literature and with WP:Due weight." I see no need for us to keep sniping at each other or how that helps anything. And, yes, we have been sniping at each other in this section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment There are a lot of books that seem to mention "lesbian erasure" on Google books, a great many of them predating the current trans trend. I think the thing to do here is balance the article according to that and fill out the non-trans-related sections accordingly. I do think it is important to keep WP:DUE weighting here and we should prefer published books to any news sources. I have only given a basic examination of the "In relation to transgender women" section but it seems on topic and well-sourced. I disagree that it dwarfs the rest of the article, and again, we need to determine what is DUE here by looking at the sources - as Flyer22 Frozen and Newimpartial indicate, I would rather see the rest of the article expanded than this section diminished. On the question of SYNTH, I have not looked closely at all of the particular sources or statements that are in dispute, but I see what WanderingWanda is saying about that sources that do not mention "lesbian erasure" may be tangential to this article. However, there are limits to this interpretation of SYNTH. If a source speaks to a topic mentioned by another source that does specifically mention lesbian erasure, and does not draw any inferences other than reporting that another RS has a view on the topic, I don't think this is SYNTH by my understanding. As far as the section headings I think "in relation to" is implicit and do prefer the shorter versions. This is hardly worth disputing either way though. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I always look on Google Books. I've looked there, and there isn't as much material on lesbian erasure (predating the current trend or commenting on it) as it might seem. A lot of or most of it equates to passing mentions. And a good portion of what is there is already currently addressed in the article. But like I stated, I am looking to expand those sections as well. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

neglects and scrutinizes?

At some point in the last year, the line "the traditional academic canon often neglects and scrutinizes lesbians" was added. Can we clarify this? To neglect is to "give little attention or respect to" or little care to, to scrutinize is to "examine in detail with careful or critical attention"; how can something be neglected and scrutinized? What is this trying to say? -sche (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Erasure in feminism

The first major lesbian erasure I'm aware of (other than erasure by society in general since forever) occurred shortly after the beginning of second wave feminism in the United States, which quickly coalesced around white, heterosexual, middle-class and upper middle class women. (And it goes without saying that they were all cis, of course; a term and a concern that wasn't on anybody's radar.) After a period of struggle within the movement in which lesbian women and their concerns were consistently ignored, outvoted, or swept under the rug in favor of the values of straight white women, some lesbians left the movement or branched off to create spaces more open to their views. imho no article on the topic of 'Lesbian erasure' can ignore the topic of lesbian erasure within feminism. This is covered reasonably well at Lesbian feminism, and there is good content available at several other articles, including Radical feminism, Radical lesbianism, and History of lesbianism in the United States, and I was going to ping several editors of good content at those articles, but unfortunately they've all ceased editing, except Carbon Caryatid, who added good content to History of lesbianism in the United States#Lesbians and feminism. Of the top editors at Second wave feminism, only Classicfilms is still around; hope you can help here, or suggest others who might. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I worked on a few articles that are part of the feminism series (second, third, women's colleges) awhile ago, but this is generally not my area of expertise. Thanks for asking.-Classicfilms (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-02

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mdesai6 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Izzbellv (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Dlapis.

— Assignment last updated by Marimend (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lesbian_erasure/Archive_2&oldid=1150652253"