Talk:Lia Thomas/Archive 2

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

Riley Gaines accusations

Closing month-long discussion as further discussion is highly unlikely to alter consensus (see WP:WHENCLOSE). There is consensus in this discussion to remove information sourced to FOX News covering the Riley Gaines accusation. There was limited discussion on other sources' coverage and so I do not prejudge the community's opinion on covering the accusation using higher-quality or alternative sourcing. Editors wishing to include the information should attempt to gain consensus on the wording and sourcing on the talk page before introducing it to the article, as it is clear such information is contentious and likely to be removed without prior consensus to include, per WP:BLP.— Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


A couple of editors have attempted to add the Riley Gaines accusations, using Fox News as the sourcing. It seems obvious to me at this Culture War topic qualifies as a political isssue, and within this domain this source should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. Therefore the sourcing seems inappropriate for the insertion of the accusation into this BLP article, where quality sourcing is expected, even required. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose inclusion - this appears to be a WP:BLP issue due to poor sourcing that has two aspects 1) this appears based on a vague allegation by someone who is simultaneously campaigning on the politically-charged topic of changing rooms, and 2) the general reliability of the sourcing. This sensationalized and politicized coverage does not appear appropriate for this BLP at this time, and the coverage also does not appear WP:DUE for this article, which is not a WP:COATRACK for every comment made about Lia Thomas. A separate subsection titled "controversy" also appears to be an inappropriate WP:STRUCTURE within this article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Nothing proposed to oppose. Trying to wrangle politics as a justification for not adding this salient, and appropriatly sourced info, is not a good look. -Roxy the dog 17:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    Are you suggesting that Fox's publication of this is not politically-motivated? That sounds to me like an EXTRAORDINARY claim. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    Are you suggesting that a woman exposing her male genitalia is politics? (I'm 67 yrs old. never in my life did I expect to write such a ludicrous sentence as that.) - Roxy the dog 17:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    What you describe is not necessarily politics, though it could be. But Riley Gaines's media campaign, complete with deadnaming and misgendering of living people, most definitely is nothing but politics. Also, if you cannot set aside your self-described "TERF" affiliations (as it seems from this expostulation that you cannot), you might want to follow your previous instincts and stay away from the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    Trans people using public bathrooms and changing rooms is certainly a hot political topic right now, similar in nature to trans people participating in sports. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    @ Sideswipe. sure. The edit was not about that, the edit was about the genital exposure that occurred! - Roxy the dog 17:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    Roxy the dog, this is a third warning about making poorly-sourced allegations against a living person as if the poorly-sourced allegations is fact. Please revise or remove these comments. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    Allegedly exposed, with the allegations coming from an individual as I've demonstrated below has a history of making similarly politically charged statements against Thomas. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    Roxy the dog, I am pretty sure you should rephrase or redact your comment, because it currently appears to make a poorly-sourced allegation against a living person. The coverage of this vague allegation is clearly made in the context of a political campaign related to locker rooms, but that seems to be a secondary problem related to the inclusion of this content per WP:BLP policy. Beccaynr (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    @ Beccaynr. Hang on a minute. What is wrong with the sourcing? Just because its FOX, and we hate FOX, we should not use it for reporting of, yes, facts? Dont be silly. I also note that nobody, including the admin who blocked me, has shown how BLP has been violated here. - Roxy the dog 17:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how carefully you've read the 2020 and 2022 Fox News RfCs, but there is no consensus that this source is reliable on controversial topics - in fact, there is consensus that it is not generally reliable on contentious, political topics - of which this is unmistakeably one. Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    I explained in my comment above that there appear to be two aspects related to the poor sourcing, not just FOX. Your comment also seems to refer to a poorly-sourced allegation as if it is a fact, which seems worse per WP:BLP policy, which also applies to article Talk pages, so I continue to encourage you to revise or redact your comment. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    Also, whether or not Fox News by itself meets BLP sourcing requirements on a contentious, political topic, you clearly violated WP:BLPUNDEL by edit-warring to insert BLP content in this article to which other editors had already objected. Newimpartial (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I also oppose inclusion, at least for now. Both the topic of trans women in sports and the topic of trans people in bathrooms are political topics. The Fox News piece is from their "Fox News Flash" breaking news team, so even if we decide a mention of this controversy is due, it's best to wait some time for other (hopefully more reliable sources) to cover it. Even if I were to accept the source as reliable, a dedicated section to this would give this recent news too much prominence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    Well, the point is made. - Roxy the dog 17:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Beccaynr. Trans people using public bathrooms and changing rooms is a political hot topic at the moment, and in the current circumstance I agree that the sourcing for this is very unsound. Gaines herself has somewhat of a history of making politically charged statements against Thomas, as well as significant contributions to the electoral campaigns of several anti-trans Republicans in the US midterms last year, and using those to advocate for arguably (depending on your point of view) discriminatory changes to sports guidelines to exclude trans women from participating in leagues aligned with their gender. I think any commentary made by Gaines needs to be assessed with this in mind when determining whether or not the sourcing is strong enough to include the current allegations. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Beccaynr. I also want to mention that though she was assigned male at birth, because she identifies as female, her body should not be categorized as male, if gendering is necessary. -TenorTwelve (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I am in favor of adding information on these allegations from Ms. Gaines. For one, if these types of allegations were made against someone like Harvey Weinstein or a Catholic Cardinal, it would be added onto Wikipedia right away. I feel like many oppose adding the allegations from Ms. Gaines on political grounds. She may be a conservative, but a sexual misconduct allegation is still a misconduct allegation. We can't chose to exclude this on account that the allegations came from a conservative and that the allegations were made against someone who is transgender. This in turn would show very real political bias and a very real political slant, which in turn would not make wikipedia objective. It would in fact make wikipedia partisan. This is why I take the position I take. I am in no way taking a political position, but a position which is rooted in referencing misconduct allegations. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It is certainly not true that WP would include similar accusations by or about a controversial figure, if those accusations were not covered in a better source than Fox News. Newimpartial (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong and obvious oppose. Politically motivated defamatory claims in a BLP can not be sourced to Fox News. This is ridiculous! Why are we even talking about this??? If there is a story here then actual reliable sources will write about it and, if it rises to a level worthy of inclusion, we should take our lead from them in covering it. What we have at the moment is worth no more than the confected "discourse" concerning the green M&M's shoes, except that this time the target is an actual real living person not a computer generated advertising mascot. If we do have reason to cover it later, based on legitimate sources, then there must be absolutely no misgendering and anybody trying to sneak that in, e.g. via gratuitous use of quotations, should be given one warning and then topic banned if they attempt it again. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
    I'm also thinking that it might be a good idea for people to watchlist Riley Gaines in case anybody tries to turn that red link blue and set up camp over there. DanielRigal (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
It seems quite simple. The fox news article obviously not political, it's nothing to do with governance or politicians. It's an article about one sportsperson accusing another sportsperson of something within a sporting situation. Fox news is an approved source for anything but science or politics. I get it, you 'don't like it' - I'm sure most of the people opposing are doing so because they are emotionally invested in this type of article. If someone really thinks that Fox News is not a reliable source, then I suggest they try to get it removed from the list of reliable sources. Miraculously majestic master of mayhem (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
If you look at the last review of the general reliability of Fox News, in 2020, it is clear that it is only considered generally reliable for routine coverage - which this clearly is not. Newimpartial (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
A woman's genitals exposed in a woman's changing room? Sounds pretty routine to me. What's unusual about it? - Roxy the dog 08:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
As per 2023 Fox News "There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science" - there's consensus. That's how Wikipedia works isn't it? Or is it "we need to rely on consensus, unless of course there's something we really don't like, they we just make arbitrary decisions to please people" Seeing as the source is reliable, I see no further reason for excluding this content. Miraculously majestic master of mayhem (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The 2022 RfC wasn't about the coverage of topics other than science and politics, so the relevant instrument for assessing consensus for that scenario is still the 2020 RfC, which concluded that overall there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News. The source is not regarded as generally reliable, and in any case, political campaigns like Riley Gaines's are most definitely political topics. Newimpartial (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The mere fact that an ultraconservative news outlet is assisting somebody with a political agenda to confect a political issue out of something that is entirely routine and uncontroversial, and which would be accepted as such if there wasn't a political motivation to misrepresent it as controversial, is in itself the demonstration that it is not just political but political all the way down. "Women gets changed" is not a News story, or even something that would receive routine coverage, absent a political and/or prurient motivation. Making it into a News story was a political act. Either we omit this entirely (my recommendation) or we cover it for what it is, politically motivated harassment (which I don't think we have any sources for). DanielRigal (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
You're right. A woman's genitals being exposed in a woman's changing room is pretty routine. It's almost like, transphobia surrounding trans women using the facilities associated with their gender aside, there's no actual story here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to refresh your understanding of the term 'political'. This isn't about politics. Miraculously majestic master of mayhem (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, the content in question is clearly part of the WP:CTOP concerning American politics, Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed, and is therefore "about politics". Newimpartial (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Newimpartial, the discussion here didn't specifically or directly address Wikipedia:Contentious topics, but I sure hope editors here are not challenging that categorization. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, people can mean various things when they say a topic is or is not "about politics". I believe the Fox News discussions at RSN and the CTOP are in fact referring to "politics" in the same sense. Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how this topic is not political, and how this sourcing can be acceptable for BLP matters. User:Roxy the dog, you know I love you like a brother (haha, a much older brother!), but I consider the addition a BLP violation given the sourcing. Anyway, I'm glad the edit warring seems to be over. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  • As others have said this is clearly political. I'd also be lery about using Fox News as the sole source for anything remotely controversial about a living person even if it's not political. Nil Einne (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I love a freshly minted local consensus in the morning, and I'd love to see this one expanded to the rest of the project - Getting rid of fox as any sort of source, a la MailyDail, would be fantastic. You guys will forgive me of course, especially you Grasshopper, if I have stayed away from here for a few days - it gives me a chance to reassess and calm down, something I should do more often. I can also see broad agreement here that Gaines has made this political, (she reminds me of Tonya Harding for some reason), but I still cannot see it that way. I also will not be retracting any of my carefully crafted comments here. -Roxy the dog 09:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Fox has questionable reliability, per RSP, and this is quite the claim against a BLP. I'd like to see heavier sourcing to justify inclusion at this point in time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 22:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Rodistron1: Just to let you know, I've reverted your recent addition of the accusations by Gaines per the consensus above. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I am writing to reaffirm my objection on WP:BLP grounds noted above, which is not limited to the sourcing being FOX News. I have also removed the disputed text again, per WP:BLPRESTORE. Beccaynr (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
    I strongly agree. Unless this picks up some significant and reliable new coverage there is nothing for us to cover here. I don't understand why anybody is trying to resurrect this settled matter. DanielRigal (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Catherine or Katherine?

Lia’s public Instagram handle is “liakthomas”. I feel this greatly implies her middle name to be spelt with a K, not a C. —74.102.113.108 (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

According to this Sports Illustrated profile/interview: ‘I Am Lia’: The Trans Swimmer Dividing America Tells Her Story (Mar. 3, 2022), "She chose “Catherine” as a middle name [...] Lia Catherine Thomas began to use her name on New Year’s 2020." Beccaynr (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Ugh, seems I failed to use my username when I commented. That is a reliable source, but it seems that “liakthomas” would make more sense. But who knows, that could be from before she changed it to Catherine over Katherine if she ever did. But the SI article could also simply have a typographical error. So I don’t know. —CPGACoast (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
OR in general is a bad idea but OR from a profile name is a particularly bad idea. There could be many reasons why she chose that profile name unrelated to a preference for Katherine, including the possibility that liacthomas may have already been taken when she tried to chose it, as it is now [1] Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Categories

Since the article is in the subcategory Category:Transgender sportswomen, why does it need to be in the overarching Category:Transgender women? To me this is a clear case of WP:CATSPECIFIC. Is there a compelling reason for an exception here? Pinging @Iamreallygoodatcheckers and CountessCobra. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing the reversion was a mistake because I nearly did the same thing. I saw a plausibly correct category being removed and thought "That's not right!" but then I realised that it probably was correct just as I was reaching for the Undo link. DanielRigal (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I will admit that I'm not a guru on WP category guidelines. A reading of CATSPECIFIC would seem to suggest the removal of the category. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 04:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Are any of these sources reliable re: locker room controversy?

I think we should cover this, but in an absolutely WP:NPOV way, based on these more reliable sources:

  • D'ADDONA, DAN (9 March 2022). "Lia Thomas Teammate: Situation is 'Unfair' and NCAA is 'Discriminating Against Cisgender Women'; Locker Room Discomfort". Swimming World News. Retrieved 21 March 2023.

A Penn teammate of Lia Thomas has spoken out about the fairness of transgender swimming, specifically Thomas. The swimmer spoke to News Nation on the condition of anonymity and her on-air interview had her likeness and voice changed to keep that anonymity since Penn and the Ivy League have kept their athletes from speaking about the controversy surrounding Lia Thomas....Thomas’ teammate reiterated, and the article did as well, that she supports Lia Thomas’ transition, but feels that her competing in women’s swimming is “unfair.”...Another issue that was broached in the interview was the locker room situation with Thomas, who although she has transitioned to being female hormonally and identified as a woman, still has male body parts, according to the report. “It is definitely uncomfortable and has been expressed to our coach and members of the athletic department that people are uncomfortable with it,” the teammate said. “We were basically told to, ‘suck it up.’”

Former collegiate swimmer Riley Gaines is calling on the NCAA to establish separate locker rooms for transgender student-athletes, citing an encounter with former University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas last year. Gaines, a women's sports advocate and All-American swimmer, shared the experience with Fox News's "America Reports" Wednesday. She says that while competing for the University of Kentucky, she and her teammates were forced to share a locker room with Thomas.

Her moves have been minutely tracked by the U.K.’s Daily Mail, including once with cruel detail about her habits in the women’s locker room provided by an anonymous teammate. The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal have also written about her. The attention directed at Thomas has widened to the rest of her team, which has become bitterly divided. Mike Schnur, Penn’s men’s and women’s coach, has received a litany of hateful emails. During a training trip early this year in Florida, the school’s swimmers were asked by coaches not to wear their school gear lest they make themselves targets.

I was a journalism intern for Swimming World before. When the Lia Thomas situation happened, I reached out to the editor-in-chief at Swimming World to ask if I could write something. He agreed because he wanted an article written by somebody in the trans community. I wanted to publish it because, while I know I can’t necessarily change the minds of people who are transphobic, I wanted to give them a bit of the information on where the legislation comes from and remind them that it’s not right to take it out on Lia. Dawn Ennis, a journalist and a trans woman, also reached out to me. She wanted to interview me about my perspectives as a trans athlete because she’d seen what I’d done for Swimming World, and she wrote the Forbes article afterward.

Complaints from anonymous teammates about losing opportunities and sharing a locker room with Thomas surfaced in stories. "I knew that there were going to be people that didn't want Lia to swim or didn't think that it was fair, but I definitely was not expecting people to be speaking out like they were," sophomore Hadley DeBruyn told ESPN. "I think that that is what shocked me the most." The Penn swimmers' opposing viewpoints were expressed formally in dueling letters issued in February. On Feb. 1, an unsigned statement was issued by Penn athletics on behalf of "several members of the women's swimming and diving team" that supported Thomas being part of their team. Two days later, three-time Olympic gold medalist and Title IX advocate Nancy Hogshead-Makar sent a letter to the Ivy League and its schools' presidents and athletic directors on behalf of 16 anonymous Penn swimmers and their families, urging the Ivy League not to take legal action should the NCAA rule Thomas ineligible for the national championships. And on Feb. 10, 310 members of the swimming community, including representatives from each of the Power 5 conferences and five of Thomas' teammates, signed a letter to the NCAA organized by Athlete Ally and Harvard alum and transgender athlete Schuyler Bailar that expressed support for Thomas.

I think my NPOV mention would be something like this:

In 2022 and 2023, an anonymous former teammate and a former competitive swimmer at the University of Kentuck, respectively, expressed concern to media outlets at having been exposed to Thomas' genitalia in the locker room while at swimming competitions. Harvard alum and transgender athlete Schuyler Bailar wrote a letter to the NCAA cosigned by 310 members of the swimming community including representatives from each of the Power 5 conferences and five of Thomas' teammates, expressing support for Thomas.

Thoughts? I would put this under "Swimming career"— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  • I think we need to be very careful about BLP content that is based on "an anonymous teammate" in WP:DAILYMAIL e.g. "Her moves have been minutely tracked by the U.K.’s Daily Mail, including once with cruel detail about her habits in the women’s locker room provided by an anonymous teammate" (Sports Illustrated), an anonymous teammate expressing they were "definitely uncomfortable" but not stating they were "exposed to Thomas' genitalia" (Swimming World), churnalism of the Gaines WP:FOXNEWS interview about Gaines' politicized allegation of "an encounter" (KATV), although quoted above as "forced to share a locker room with Thomas" (the quote above omits the WP:BLPCRIME statements made by Gaines in the churnalism source), an interview in a college newspaper that does not discuss the allegation (Oberlin Review), and ESPN coverage from last year that mentions "complaints from anonymous teammates about... sharing a locker room with Thomas surfaced in stories."
So per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, the sources do not appear to support inclusion of what appears to still be a poorly-sourced and contentious allegation about exposure to genitalia in the locker room. Beccaynr (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
What if we keep most of Shibbolethink's proposal but for a change to "expressed concern to media outlets at having to share locker rooms with Thomas." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
If complaints about sharing a locker room with Thomas are included, I think per WP:BLP, we should not include sources that churn or otherwise rely on the FOX News interview with Gaines or complaints sourced to WP:DAILYMAIL. That seems to leave us with the 2022 ESPN source because it appears to be independent, reliable, and offering secondary coverage. Another related question is how to manage the tendency of this article to serve as a WP:COATRACK for various political issues that are not directly related to Thomas, and I think the amount of included content should be according to the weight of independent/reliable/secondary coverage.
tl;dr - qualified yes, use the 2022 ESPN source per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Beccaynr (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Firefangledfeathers revision. Yes, this has been covered by the sources cited above and likely has enough weight for the two sentences above (with the modification). Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 19:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Is it DUE in a BLP to mention that an athelete gets changed in a locker room? Feels like common sense to me that she would put on a swim suit before swimming. Other people's opinions on this would be a better fit for their own articles. Filiforme1312 (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This should be covered here. One of the complainers is Gaines, and not anonymous; just because it's political does not mean it should not be mentioned here. It should be mentioned both here and at the controversy's page, wherever that is. Just figure out which good sources to use, then word it right and attribute the opinions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Per WP:BLP, at least for now, we seem to be discouraged from including specific reference to Gaines, e.g. from the overview: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. We are generally discouraged from having BLPs include allegations of potentially criminal conduct, and Gaines has recently made more than a complaint about sharing a locker room - this is a negative and contentious claim about a living person that Gaines directly associates with criminal conduct. That there have been complaints about sharing a locker room has been covered neutrally by an independent and reliable secondary source in 2022; due to the recent BLP issues related to statements by Gaines, it seems better to adhere to how BLPs must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy, because according to policy, we must get this article right. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I do think we can reword the proposal to be less specific about the complainants being anonymous, and thereby include Gaines, at least in spirit. I also don't think the exact timing of the complaints matters much, and I cut some other detail. How about

Some of Thomas' former teammates and opponents have expressed concern to media outlets at at having to share locker rooms with Thomas. Harvard alumnus and transgender athlete Schuyler Bailar wrote a letter to the NCAA cosigned by 310 members of the swimming community and five of Thomas' teammates, expressing support for Thomas.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
100% support this proposal by FFF. I would modify just slightly for style to:

Some former teammates and opponents have expressed concern to media outlets at at having to share locker rooms with Thomas. Harvard alumnus and transgender athlete Schuyler Bailar wrote a letter to the NCAA cosigned by 310 members of the swimming community and five of Thomas' teammates, expressing support for Thomas.

— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
What about the issue of there not currently appearing to be sufficient sources to support the inclusion of "opponents"? The multiple sources that appear to be usable and available at this time are from early 2022 and focus only on teammates. Beccaynr (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I understand the hesitance with Fox News stuff, but I think the fact that it's been covered by so many other sources which appear to be more reliable probably makes it DUE here. I'm not saying we should mention Gaines by name, or give her claims any prominence. but I think the sourcing we have is good enough for the two words "and opponents". — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Which other sources? In my comments in this discussion, I have reviewed the sources, and there does not appear to be support for mentioning "and opponents", but please let me know if I have missed something. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Beccaynr, I appreciate your cautious approach to BLP, but we do have WP:Public figure, and the demands of BLP are met when the negative claims are properly-sourced. Our caution should not slide into censorship or protectionism. Keep in mind that Gaines is not concerned about her impact as she is very public about these claims and complaints, so we do not need to be more careful than she is. She is not a child or non-notable family member of some famous individual. She is a famous adult sports star in her own right. Don't be too careful or more careful than our policies allow. I would add that she is both a victim and an aggressor/aggressive activist who needs no protection. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I was just writing a reply that considers the potential for Thomas to be considered a public figure. Per that part of the policy, If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out, so it appears we need better sourcing to include Gaines, even obliquely, at this time. I also think we can continue to follow the sources and whether more develop. The allegations do not yet appear to be widely covered in the way that the BLP public figure section seems to expect, and in a way that would allow us to write neutral and balanced content.
Also, content related to the Schuyler Bailar letter is already included in the second graf of the Public debate section of the article - this would seem to be where to add (per the ESPN source) that teammate complaints/concerns included sharing a locker room. ESPN does not appear to support including opponents, and most of the sources listed above that include the words "locker room" and "Lia Thomas" (not all report concerns) are dated in early 2022, except for the 2023 FOX News churnalism. So overall, I favor caution, but also recognize the potential for sourcing to develop. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Beccaynr, that's an excellent response. I agree. There is no rush, and we do require good RS for such content. My personal rule of thumb is two or more RS for mildly negative content (rumors and such like), and three or more for strongly negative content (potentially serious libel or criminal accusations). So let's see how this develops and add it if and when more sources cover it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@Valjean: uhm, are you sure you can call someone an "aggressor" like that? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The victim/aggressor angle would be in the eyes of the beholder. Most progressives, and all those who support Thomas, see Gaines as the aggressor, and others see her as a victim. I can see it from both POV. No one should be forced to unwillingly see the genitals of another person, especially the opposite sex, and it's hard to avoid in a locker room. On the beach, one can just look the other way or go to a different beach if one is a shy American in Europe. In that sense, she can be seen as a victim, and she seems to see herself that way, and her supporters do too. That's why I included both POV in my comment. Do you understand both POV? I didn't want to take sides. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Its not appropriate on a blp to allege she was forced to see someone's genitals. Getting changed in a locker room with other women is part of joining a team, which she did willingly. Filiforme1312 (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
"Forced" does not mean "physically forced" in this situation. Use a bit of common sense. Not every country, especially the USA, is accustomed to mixed bathing facilities. For many years I lived in a country where students bathed in the same room until their early teens. That was the culture, and very different than American culture. In most of the world, including the USA, when entering the toilets and bathing facilities in gyms, people look at the traditional Mens or Ladies signs on the doors and choose which door to enter, expecting that the only type of genitals they will see are like their own. They get shocked and offended if they see otherwise. Fortunately, in this case, the police were not called, but I can imagine that could happen in some conservative Southern states.
The modern world of trans situations is changing how that all works. Traditions are being changed, and in this case it led to a controversy. One would think that Thomas, who has not fully transitioned, would have been more discrete, but what do I know? Unfortunately, Gaines is using it to activate against trans rights. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Im a cis woman and I've been to events with unisex shared bathrooms for pretty much my entire adult life in the US. The American Sociological Association has had them for 20 years now.
It also just feels kinda COATRACK. If we're going to tack on people being grumpy about her doing normal mundane things, we should set the bar pretty high for inclusion, especially if the implication is that those things are made inherently predatory or sexual because she is trans. She probably dried off with a towel too. Is there someone with an opinion on that? Seems like any trans BLP theres potential to put this sort of commentary on every little aspect of their life. Filiforme1312 (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Moralizing about our subject's lack of "discreetness" combined with insensitive allusion to her genitals is also not what talk pages are for. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Small comment: I'd encourage the editors to consider if the controversy is necessary to include in this article or if it is better suited to include as part of an article about bathroom transphobia. Are we covering this information best by including it as part of her biography or as part of a wider-picture article? Note: I have no opinion on whether this information is worth inclusion, but I think giving some more thought to how this section fits within the wider trans topic area on wiki might be a good part of this discussion. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 09:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate this perspective @Ixtal, but my personal view is that if this occupies a lot of consciousness of the sources on Thomas, then we should also mention it per WP:RSUW. This absolutely does not require us to omit it from any other articles, and indeed I would agree a short mention of this might be DUE in a bathroom transphobia article. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. I think it belongs in both places. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I support the proposal by User:Firefangledfeathers. It is good enough for now and can be tweaked as new sources appear. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

As somebody who was previously against inclusion I am also now willing to support this. I do understand why some people are still uneasy about it, and I do think that we may have trouble with people coming in and trying to expand it in inappropriate ways, but I think the sourcing is good enough and that Firefangledfeathers has found a wording that successfully avoids sensationalism or offence. DanielRigal (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
As discussed below, the KATV source is produced by The National Desk, and further discussion may be needed about whether any source produced by this media outlet should be included in this article. I am opposed to its inclusion at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Riley Gaines accusations Part II

As far as I understand, Riley Gaines' statement is not included because Gaines published it in media unsuitable for Wikipedia. No one disputes that she made that statement, so why should it no be included? Here's a link to a video on a sports site that might be suitable: Video. Gaines says: Although the NCAA claimed it acted in the name of inclusion, its policies excluded female athletes. Best Minoo (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes see the section above. I don't think we need to describe her by name or give her a lot of prominence. but I agree that we clearly have sourcing reliable enough for the above mention. Fox News really isn't reliable for this stuff, but the other sources which describe it are reliable enough to say "the accusation/concern happened". E.g. KATV. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
As noted above, the KATV source appears to be churnalism of Fox News, not independent third-party reporting, so it does not appear reliable enough to support inclusion of the allegations in the article, and also as discussed above, the WP:BLPPUBLIC section of WP:BLP policy also states, If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Beccaynr (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
That's not how we do it here. When a RS includes mention from an unreliable source, we can still use it because the RS is the source we use. That's how we document fringe topics here. (Yes, there are border cases, so one must use a bit of common sense, but there is no doubt about the accuracy of the information.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

We have more than enough reliable sources for coverage, including Gaines name:

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Our reliable sources guideline says Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. And the context of sources offered in the list above include:
We could take The National Desk to RSN, but for now, the format section of its Wikipedia article seems to raise concerns about its general reliability and suitability as a source. Overall, we don't yet seem to have the sources needed, and as we had previously discussed, waiting for further sources to develop could help us comply with BLP policy and write neutral and balanced content. Beccaynr (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
What about the current FFF-me draft above (Some former teammates and opponents have expressed concern to media outlets at having to share locker rooms with Thomas. Harvard alumnus and transgender athlete Schuyler Bailar wrote a letter to the NCAA cosigned by 310 members of the swimming community and five of Thomas' teammates, expressing support for Thomas.) do you consider not to be "neutral and balanced content"?
Or is your concern at this point only the KATV sourcing? Because right now, we have every responding editor (as far as I can tell) except you saying this is probably enough for such a short and abbreviated mention. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
My concern is that it will create BLP violations. As discussed above, the proposed text would be added in the second graf of the Public debate section of the article, near where the Schuyler Bailar letter is already discussed, and the indepedent, reliable, and secondary source that appears available for content related to some teammates expressing concerns about sharing a locker room is the 2022 ESPN source (and to stay true to this source, added content should likely include text about concerns expressed by some teammates to the media).
To add "some opponents", this needs to be sourced. For this, we currently only have the WP:BLPGOSSIP statements by Gaines mostly published in unacceptable sources. Gaines is making two sets of allegations: 1) an unspecified number of her teammates objected to sharing a locker room with Thomas, and 2) Thomas engaged what Gaines considers to be potentially criminal conduct. It appears The Patriot News is a viable local news source for the allegations of criminal conduct by Gaines against public figure Thomas, but one source is not sufficient to add text that includes the allegation per the WP:PUBLICFIGURE section of BLP policy.
So we do not appear to have sufficient support to add "opponents" in the plural, and there may be BLP issues with trying to make claims about a broad group of people on Gaines' team based on her allegations about them that are mostly published in tabloid and other unacceptable sources. If we try to add "opponent" in the singular as an oblique reference to Gaines, this still needs to be sourced, which means in the references section, e.g. if the Patriot News source is used, the text "All-American swimmer says Lia Thomas exposed ‘male genitalia,’ calls for separate locker rooms" is added to the article in the references section - the headline is content.
The RSN discussion is pending about the history of bias and inaccuracy of the Sinclair Broadcast Group, the parent company of the recently created The National Desk (which is published by KATV and NBC3 above), including the similarity of The National Desk reporting on similar issues by the generally unreliable and biased WP:POSTMIL. That discussion is ongoing, and we can continue to discuss whether sources that use language widely understood to be derogatory and disparaging to transgender people are suitable to use in this article - the point remains that introducing headlines adds content in the article, and this can violate BLP policy.
Also, it seems a bit WP:SYNTHy to try to reverse engineer a poorly-supported WP:BLPCRIME/WP:BLPGOSSIP allegation made in 2023 into text discussing "concerns about sharing a locker room with Thomas" with a source stating the concerns were otherwise made 'by some teammates to the media in 2022'. However, as I have said, I think it is possible further sources could develop to support inclusion, and other discussion has happened on this Talk page about content potentially being included elsewhere (I would add: pending the development of independent, reliable and secondary sources, and according to BLP and other core content policies). Beccaynr (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay, so it seems a version that would be best formulated to allay your concerns would be: Some former teammates have expressed concern to media outlets at having to share locker rooms with Thomas. Harvard alumnus and transgender athlete Schuyler Bailar wrote a letter to the NCAA cosigned by 310 members of the swimming community and five of Thomas' teammates, expressing support for Thomas. and to remove duplicated content about the Bailar letter. Is that accurate? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I think the second graf should be reviewed for how the context of how the letter is discussed. I think we may be misusing the source and running astray of WP:DUE if we overemphasize the locker room aspect in a way the ESPN source does not, and if we do not situate the timeframe of the concerns being expressed to the media.
The only mention in the ESPN source is "Complaints from anonymous teammates about losing opportunities and sharing a locker room with Thomas surfaced in stories" and an anonymous Penn parent is also quoted for opposition to sharing a locker room. This source more extensively discusses the letters. I have not yet re-reviewed all of the sources in this graf that also discuss the letters to determine whether there are other mentions of locker room concerns by anonymous teammates, but this might helpful.
I think we need to be careful about crafting text that makes it seem, contrary to the sources and currently sourced text of the article, as if anonymous teammates only expressed concerns about a locker room, and this is what caused the Schuyler Bailar letter to be written. Beccaynr (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Is there a way to word the Gaines complaint that does not imply it's transphobic? Her complaint was very specific, and without mentioning the stated reason, it comes across as transphobia, a BLP violation against Gaines. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
This is about her gentialia again, isn't it? No, it's not a BLP violation to summarize a statement that many would consider transphobic in a way that comes across as transphobia. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The more detail we use to describe the complaint the more transphobic it is going to make Gaines sound. The proposed wording is about as kind to Gaines as it is possible to be, short of not covering it at all. DanielRigal (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
@Valjean@DanielRigal I think it's fine, permissible, and charitable to the source if we say something like "concerns about being exposed to Thomas' genitalia in the locker room". It's what Gaines was complaining about, in a bout NPOV of wording as is possible. If it sounds transphobic, it's because that's our POV as the reader. That's my 2 cents anyway. Of course I agree it is. And I agree we should also, to the extent possible, not commit BLP vios against Gaines. But this is what she's given us to work with, we're backed into that corner... This is the sentiment she wanted to express to these media sources, so it's the sentiment we describe in our text. I think we commit BLP vios against Thomas if we say "male genitalia" so I also don't think we should say that. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
If we do decide to mention her privates, I'd suggest using "seeing" instead of "being exposed to". I think the former is more plain, while the latter has an inherent negative connotation. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Ah yes that is better. I agree "seeing" is more NPOV. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that is a better solution. Any mention of the complaint made by Gaines must be specific, otherwise, we violate BLP by making it appear the complaint is purely transphobic. She would have complained if ANYONE with male genitalia had revealed them in the "women's" (Am I now going to be assaulted again for using the wrong terminology?) locker room, regardless if it was a straight male, gay male, or trans woman. (I have no idea what the sign on the door there says, whether it is "Women", "Ladies", a symbol of a figure with a dress, etc.) The whole point of the complaint was "wrong genitalia in wrong location." That normally gets a male (wrong term again?) arrested for indecent exposure. The transgender article needs a section dealing with the issue of trans persons (with original genitalia) in locker rooms (and similar situations). This can't be the only instance of controversy over exposure of "wrong genitals in the wrong place" or "dicks in the ladies' room". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd just like to reiterate that the more detail we use the more obvious the transphobic nature of the complaint becomes. While it is a violation of Lia Thomas's dignity for us to talk about her genitals it doesn't necessarily make her sound bad to a fair minded reader. If anything, it provokes sympathy for her and possibly also contempt for Wikipedia for writing about her in that way. What it definitely does do is lay Gaines' position utterly bare. It makes her sound far worse than she would using Firefangledfeathers' suggested wording. On other forums I might suggest that that such a call-out was well deserved but not here on Wikipedia. So the question before us is whether we really want to go to the trouble of harming both people in this dumb "controversy" or whether we want to just go with the perfectly good suggestion that we already have? DanielRigal (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi DanielRigal, I am wondering if you have any feedback on the analysis I made above about the sourcing needed to support the proposed text, the apparent WP:BLP violations required to create it, and the likely synth involved? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Not really. The sourcing looked OK to me on a cursory inspection at the outset. Since then, I've been arguing for the best wording on the assumption that the best of the proposed sources were OK even if some of the others were not and should not be used. If you think that all the sourcing is bad enough to render them all unusable then I'm neutral on that as I have not dug into it in detail. So... Let me clarifiy my position as this: If we have valid sources to support inclusion then we should go with Firefangledfeathers' suggestion and leave all the prurinet stuff about genitals out of it. If we don't then, obviously, this is all moot and we don't include it at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you - I am also focused on the sources, and with the various BLP issues being raised, have been examining the quality and number of sources needed per policy to support inclusion of content. This is challenging, and I appreciate the thoughtful discussion happening about what is possible at this time. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
It all hangs on sourcing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
My view here is essentially the same as DR's. I'm following the RSN discussion and will chime in if I have anything useful to say. I'm happy to see consensus there guide our content decision here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Transition status

Unless I'm missing something, Thomas has only been in hormone therapy and not fully transitioned (physical/surgical), but the article does not make this plain. It should make plain that Thomas is still equipped with male genitalia, hence all the controversy over her locker room exposure(s). The locker room controversy makes no sense without this important information. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It makes no sense with it either so it really doesn't add anything. The whole point of the fake "controversy" is to trick people like us into talking about it, as if it was legitimate to invade anybody's privacy like that. We are not going to talk about any individual's genitals in a BLP unless that individual has chosen to talk about them publicly themself. It's not just a matter of her dignity, it is also a matter of ours. This is an encyclopaedia. We have to resist being spun here. (Besides, "fully transitioned" is not really a thing.) DanielRigal (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Referring to having had bottom surgery as having "fully transitioned" is plainly offensive. Please don't do that in the future. There is also absolutely no need to "make plain" which genitalia Thomas is equipped with. Obviously, if the locker room stuff is includedd, that will have to be mentioned in that context, but outside of that, people's private parts are none of our business. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
You're both forgetting our editorial standards and PAG here. It is the coverage in RS that determines whether or not we cover something, not our opinions, sensibilities, feelings, or likes and dislikes. I do agree that the subject would be covered if the locker room stuff is included.
Maddy, I understand that you are strongly emotional about this, but please tone it down. You're getting very personal, making comments that are borderline personal attacks, and exhibiting a battlefield attitude on this subject. Try to remain calm and AGF. No one is trying to offend anyone, so don't be so easily offended. (You mention that you are new here and asked for advice, so that's some advice from an editor who's been here since 2003.)
The question of "fully transitioned" or not is not an unreasonable topic, especially in the context of public nudity in a mixed setting where many are uncomfortable with the situation and did not give their permission for the situation to even happen. How you and I might feel if it happened to us is really neither here nor there, but we do have a controversy, and Daniel, it is not "fake". It is only fake to those on one side of the debate, but certainly not to those on the other side or to RS.
Our job is to document it, not take sides. Wikipedia is not censored, and censorship isn't always about "naughty words" and naked flesh. It is also about deleting information or keeping out what we don't like. We do not do that here. We literally document every type of topic, no exceptions, if RS have covered it. If someone comes here searching for a topic and they do not find that we cover it, even tangentially, then we have failed in our mission. There must not be any holes in our coverage. We are supposed to document "the sum total of human knowledge", so let RS, not feelings, dictate what we include. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
You're getting very personal, making comments that are borderline personal attacks, and exhibiting a battlefield attitude on this subject. – I do not see it that way. Saying that certain terms you are using are offensive and asking you to not use them is not a personal attack. If you want to continue this argument, please do so on my talk page, AE, or ANI. It is easy for a cis person to tell a trans one what they are allowed to be offended by. Where did I ask for your "advice", by the way? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
It is easy for a cis person to tell a trans one what they are allowed to be offended by. - On Wikipedia, we treat each others with respect and AGF. "Trans" editors don't get any extra privileges compared to "cis" editors; implying so is to be offensive to the entire cis group of editors. I agree with Valjean that your original comment came across as offensive to them. Please don't do that here. Rodistron1 (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
There is nothing inappropriate about informing editors that certain language is offensive. It is not an additional privilege as all editors may do so. Filiforme1312 (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I think Madeline is trying to help you remain in the bounds of what's acceptable at GENSEX topics. Don't take it personally. Wikipedia is not censored, but civility is expected in the talk pages. Your implication that a trans woman is only "fully transitioned" after a surgery is not only offensive, but it goes against the standards most reliable sources have on this topic. That's not a battleground mentality, that's just informing other editors of some basic terminology and etiquette on the topic. Friendly advice, if you will. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 13:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Before accusing Valjean of that, you need to provide a RS saying that "fully transitioned" is indeed an offensive term, otherwise it'd appear that only a handful of editors like you and Madeline desire to enforce "what's acceptable" here (which goes without saying is contrary to the goals of Wikipedia). Rodistron1 (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Why do we need to describe someone's genitals in a BLP? Filiforme1312 (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
If there is any mention of locker rooms, we should not reference her genitalia and her body should not be categorized as “male.” -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


"Transitioning is a personal decision specific to the individual, so how a person goes about transitioning can change over time and vary from person to person. There are three main types of transitions someone could go through: social, legal, and physical."[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valjean (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Per the WP:MEDCASE guideline, which also references WP:BLP policy, Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the editor making the claim. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. This guideline may be something to consider when assessing whether sufficient sources are available to support inclusion of personal medical information. Beccaynr (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with DanielRigal that We are not going to talk about any individual's genitals in a BLP unless that individual has chosen to talk about them publicly themself. BLP's don't own their biographies or dictate what we write about them and it's not our job to protect their feelings or the feelings of readers (WP:CENSORED); our job is to document what reliable sources say about the subject. Moving to the actual dispute, I'm not convinced yet that we need to say in plain language that Thomas has male genitalia. It's certainly not basic biographic information like what college someone went to or what city they were raised in. Sure it might could be mentioned in the context of the locker room allegations, like Maddy mentioned. Otherwise, I'd like to see reliable sourcing emphasizing the lack of bottom surgery or mentioning Thomas' genitals for it to be plainly mentioned in the prose. As of the time of this comment, such sourcing hasn't been provided. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 19:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The Foundation's resolution on BLPs would disagree with this. What genitalia a person has would very clearly fall under point 2, Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information. There's no good reason why we should include this in any BLP, let alone one for a trans person. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
It would need to be established that her genitals are a relevant to the understanding of the subject or the controversy. As I said above, I'm not convinced that is the case at this time. Yes, generally we shouldn't just be mentioning someone's genitals in a BLP, but there are circumstances where there could be a "good reason" to and I believe this possibly could be among them based on my understanding of the locker room controversy. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 20:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
While I am willing to consider that there might be some very rare exceptions to my general position, I am pretty certain that this isn't one. We need to bear in mind that the people who keep talking about trans people's genitals as "controversial" do not do so in good faith. They do it to other, degrade, humiliate and dehumanise their targets by seeking to provoke a response of visceral disgust. It's the same reason that certain people liked to talk about Jewish people's noses. They seek to normalise this discourse to the point where we don't recognise it for what it is. As such, we have to set a pretty high bar when deciding whether to include such matters. We already have a good suggestion for how to cover it without sensationalism and I think we should drop this and just go with that. DanielRigal (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The differences between talking about male genitalia in places designated as safe spaces for women should be readily apparent as significantly more complicated and a world apart from discussing noses. 162.203.147.11 (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely not. If the proposed “locker room controversy” material is added at all, anything more specific than share a locker room is undue and an unnecessary violation of privacy. Wikipedia does not have an editorial obligation to echo a source’s fixation with trans people’s genitals, even if that source was definitively high-quality (the prior discussion seems to complicate this). In as strong terms possible, I disagree with Valjean’s implication that Wikipedia has some obligation answer to invasive questions like “does this BLP subject currently have a penis” any more than “what is her deadname” or “what is her home address”.
It is not a prescribed style guideline, but I believe participants in this discussion could benefit from reading The Radical Copyeditor’s Style Guide, particularly section 2.7. At any rate, male genitalia is unacceptable in Wikivoice. If we were to discuss Thomas’s body at all (which the article should not do) correct form would simply be her genitals. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 23:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
+1 to everything RoxySaunders said. At best, such content is unencyclopedic tabloid-style gossip. At worst, it's a gross violation of privacy that creates real harm to living subjects and brings the project into disrepute. Any mention of anyone's genitals violates the spirit of (if not the letter) both enwiki's local BLP policy and, as Sideswipe9th mentioned, WMF policy. Even if we don't take into account the extremely dubious ethics of including such information, mentioning Thomas' transition status would very likely attract hostile external scrutiny and, perhaps, WMF intervention. I'm strongly opposed to any specific mention of Thomas' anatomy or transition status, and I intend to take this to BLPN if someone adds it. — SamX [talk · contribs] 02:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Valjean's arguments make sense to me. The mention of "male genitalia" (or "her genitalia") should however only be mentioned in the context of the locker room controversy for which we have reliable sources now. Rodistron1 (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
  • If several reliable sources point to a controversy that the reliable sources said specifically arose from someone's genitals (not just whether someone is transgender), then I would think that this would be an appropriate occasion to write about genitals. starship.paint (exalt) 04:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
    I disagree. For example, plenty of reliable sources reported on Adam Levine's alleged affair with Summer Stroh, but it's not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. This situation is substantially similar, since the genesis of these claims are unverifiable rumors and gossip. We don't have a mandate to report everything that gets churned out by the 24-hour news cycle, especially with BLPs. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
    … and we also have articles such as Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy which refers to Janet Jackson's right breast—adorned by a sun-shaped nipple shield. I’m not saying breasts are genitals, just pointing out that this was needed to understand the controversy. starship.paint (exalt) 04:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
    This had decent RS to support it. I don't see any possibility of a consensus being reached on the talk page to include her genitals in this BLP. Filiforme1312 (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
    Of course, if no one can produce the multiple RS, it shouldn’t be included. starship.paint (exalt) 04:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
    Https://cbsaustin.com/amp/news/nation-world/lia-thomas-exposed-male-genitalia-in-womens-locker-room-at-swim-meet-ex-swimmer-says
    https://www.pennlive.com/news/2023/02/all-american-swimmer-says-lia-thomas-exposed-male-genitalia-calls-for-separate-locker-rooms.html
    https://torontosun.com/news/world/all-american-swimmer-speaks-out-against-ncaa-about-being-exposed-to-transgender-swimmers-genitalia 162.203.147.11 (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
    Those sources are just re-reporting Fox and TMZ so no, they're not reliable. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 05:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
    That's not quite right: these sites are reporting on the interview Gaines gave to Fox news. They're obviously reliable for establishing both what Gaines said in that interview and meet the criteria for notability. 162.203.147.11 (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Either start an RFC about it or this discussion will go nowhere. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 08:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
    I understand some editors seek this type of contentious discussion that goes in circles and repeats every few months but if y'all are genuinely here to improve the encyclopedic coverage of this topic just start RFCs once it is clear there is significant disagreement. Contentious topics need the structure that RFCs offer and the solid foundation of a formal close to move. I will start an RFC seeing how no one has done so. I realize I should have done so rather than posting my comment above. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
    Hi Ixtal, should the previous article Talk discussions be closed with a statement noting an RfC has started (example)? I think this could be helpful for keeping further discussion focused, and I have listed what I think are the prior related article Talk discussions in the RfC discussion section. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
    Sure, feel free to close if you wish to do so Beccaynr. This tool will make it easier to do if you aren't using it already. I would hesitate to close the conversations myself, however, and I do not want to seem like I'm forcing people to discuss the issue the way I want them to. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 17:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you, Ixtal, but I should probably not be the one to close the related discussions, even though it seems essentially administrative, because I am involved in the previous discussions, as well as the RfC discussion. I was thinking that with your start of the RfC, there is a logic with you closing related discussions, but I respect your hesitation, and now I am wondering where/how/who else we can ask to help keep the discussion focused on the pending RfC. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

RSN: The National Desk and Sinclair Broadcast Group

Hi everyone, I have added a post at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard: The National Desk and Sinclair Broadcast Group. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

New related article

The article Riley Gaines was recently created. Editors active here may be interested in contributing there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks fine at the moment but I'm sure it will attract at least some bad actors seeking to use it disruptively. I think it would be wise for people to watchlist it, even if they have no interest in actively editing it. DanielRigal (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Emma Weyant would likely similarly benefit from watchlisting. Beccaynr (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Aside from being an American competitive swimmer, is there an obvious or not so obvious link between Thomas, Gaines, and Weyant that I'm missing? Or is the sort of disruption just seen at Weyant's article spreading to all competitive swimmer articles? Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Weyant took second to Thomas in an NCAA title race. Florida governor Ron DeSantis "declared" Weyant the winner. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Aaah. Seeing that now. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

If anyone else is interested, I have also been working on the puberty blocker article. It’s also relevant to anti-trans legislation. If you do wish to participate I would encourage familiarizing yourself with WP:MEDRS -TenorTwelve (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lia_Thomas/Archive_2&oldid=1181990774"