Talk:"We're being pressured into sex by some trans women"

'Gold star lesbian' comment
Genuinely not meaning to be snarky here, but can anyone explain the relevance of including the fact that the article referred to Cade as a 'gold star lesbian'? I removed that part from the comment as it seemed like unnecessary detail (at least, without an explanation of why 'gold star lesbian' is problematic). Another editor undid the edit, citing 'insufficiently explained removal of criticism of the article as homophobic'. But there is no mention of 'gold star lesbian' being 'homophobic' in the body of the article. I've encountered many critiques of the term 'gold star lesbian' in my time, but the idea that it's 'homophobic' seems to me like a niche opinion? And I don't understand it as a rationale for including content that makes no reference to said homophobia. Lemonpip (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The text says ... that has been criticised for connoting that she is a more "authentic" lesbian than lesbians who have previously had sex with men, which is the criticism i gives of the term. I don't know whether you read that I adapted the text slightly based on your criticism/removal to address it when I reintroduced it (before you removed it a second time). The idea is that it's homophobic because it is used to maliciously exclude some lesbians. Its importance should be obvious: the BBC are uncritically using terms that are, you seem to agree, widely criticised within the LGBT community. However, any other criticism would be synthesis. A productive action might be to create a section or article on gold star lesbian (which is currently a redirect barely mentioned at its target) so interested readers could get more context on the term. gold star lesbian, our current link, could also be expanded a bit (see for instance the usage notes at TERF for how Wiktionary covers contested terms). — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but the Independent article doesn't mention homophobia? I don't think the significance is obvious, and I say that as someone who has more knowledge than I'd like to have about the so-called 'lesbian/bi/pan wars'. I'm not against the idea of a 'gold star lesbian' article. But I think if the bit about the piece using the term 'gold star lesbian' is included there needs to be a more substantial explanation. I think sometimes when you've been reading a lot about a particular topic things can appear 'obvious' when they actually aren't. Lemonpip (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Looked at the revision history again - maybe I'm too hung up on the 'homophobic' thing. But I still maintain it's a bit of a weird thing to include in the article. If I'm in the minority with that opinion though I won't push it. Lemonpip (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think ...that has been criticised for connoting that she is a more "authentic" lesbian than lesbians who have previously had sex with men pretty much covers it. It is this hierarchy of lesbian authenticity that is problematiced in the RS. Newimpartial (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering whether there might be any scope for a short article about this phrase and the debates around it? I've heard it used both humorously and seriously and I'm not sure which came first and what the more common usage is. I had always assumed that it was a semi-joke that some people took a bit too seriously but, now that I think about it, I realise that I have no basis for that assumption. Maybe this is something it would be good for us to document somewhere on Wikipedia? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I always had that impression too, FWIW. And I think there may be some scope for Gold star lesbian to be a standalone article, as we did from 2016 to 2018 (in 2018 consensus was to merge into the Lesbian article; this was the last version prior to merging. However, consensus can change, and I think there may be some more sources on the term that have come out since the merge discussion which would justify its own article). —AFreshStart (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there's the occasional lesbian who uses the term seriously to refer to herself, but to be honest some of the backlash I've seen to the term has seemed rooted in bad faith assumptions and/or insecurity. And when I've seen people criticise it (outside the context of Cade), they've generally not done so on the grounds of it being 'homophobic' - I've probably seen people call it 'biphobic', though. As far as problems with that article go it seems very low down in the list of things that critics were generally bothered about. Lemonpip (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Those who were interested in coverage of gold star lesbian elsewhere on Wikipedia should see Gold star (slang). — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Vice article published 11 November
Does this Vice article, published earlier today have anything worth adding to the article? There is a quote from an anonymous BBC employee that reads I know someone that walked out the other day over the article, and states that the BBC has a wider transphobia problem mentioning the recent Stonewall program and Stephen Nolan podcast series. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think it would, since it's almost a direct response to the current backlash. I think it also would belong in Criticism of the BBC which covers long-term rather than specific controversies. PBZE (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it's worth mention at Criticism of the BBC, and it fits here too under "BBC internal debates", where it's now included. Possibly it could also be used under "Social context". — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I think that addition to "BBC internal debates" happened as I was adding this section to the talk page! Definitely agree with adding it to Criticism of the BBC as well, as the Vice piece does have content surrounding the deeper BBC issues in this topic area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Reception section too biased towards negative views of the article
Why is there only one line of all the reception section about the support of the article when the LGB Alliance and some other prominent people supported the article? It makes it look very one-sided when the reality is that support and criticism was pretty leveled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:11DD:C73A:2AE3:C327 (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Due weight and WP:PROPORTION are relevant here. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * the reality is that support and criticism was pretty leveled. What references do you have that are missing from the article? — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reading discussions in media I feel that one of the main reasons the article was well-received by some groups is because it was perceived to give voice to some lesbian groups who's voice is drowned under the criticism from pro-trans groups and calls of bigotry. This article (https://thecritic.co.uk/the-truth-will-out/) for example touches on this issue but the reviews section lacks any mention of this central reason for why some think the article was important and relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:6B92:9DC1:C37A:DEE5 (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: The Critic was brought up near the beginning of Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 359, and was quickly rejected as a factor by other editors, with more than one questioning its reliability. It may be worth bringing it to RSN for a clearer consensus if suggestions for its use continue. See also The Critic. I question whether an article in a publication of this caliber and flavor is due, and even if it is, it would need attribution – meaning it certainly wouldn't be grounds for us to generalize to some lesbian groups or some think the article was important and relevant. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about the discussion surrounding PN but I was precisely thinking about PN when I cited The Critic. Allowing sources like PN and not allowing The Critic seems to me one-sided and will end up with an imbalance in diversity of opinion in articles as this one. I think both sources are equivalent from opposite sides of the political spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:E909:8B04:C29F:B852 (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is what you think, but that is not the site-wide consensus at ENwiki. Guess which of those evaluations carries WEIGHT in editing this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs)
 * Well this "site-wide consensus" which is probably never a real consensus though, is making Wikipedia a highly biased source. The article on the BBC received more positive feedback than negative and yet the reception section here gives the impression that the article was universally condemned. It would an act of honesty from the community to make a pause and think why this is so. But as I see it, Wikipedia as an unbiased, reliable and objective source is dying because one side of the political spectrum in many issues is deciding the "consensus" on what are reliable sources. This is my last message here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:E909:8B04:C29F:B852 (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The reliability of PinkNews has been discussed four times now. If you feel that The Critic should also be considered a reliable source, open a discussion at WP:RSN. Likewise if you feel PinkNews should be considered an unreliable source, open a discussion at RSN. Note that for either discussion, you will need convincing arguments and evidence and I'd recommend reading the guidance notes on RSN when opening the discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * IP, what on earth is your source for The article on the BBC received more positive feedback than negative - you mean the article they partially retracted due to shoddy journalism and bad editorial decisions? That article? Either I have misunderstood you or you are living in a chamber with strange acoustical properites. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They retracted one small part of the article, the main point of the article keeps being supported by its content. And the Wikipedia article itself mentions how the BBC received more positive feedback from users than negative related to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:BD08:A61A:5668:BE94 (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The numbers you mention are for direct feedback only. A petition against the article represented more people than contacted the BBC directly for either support or criticism. Newimpartial (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note also that NPOV doesn't require us to give differing sources equal validity. Wikipedia is not meant to present a false balance; in fact, it's our responsibility as editors to avoid creating one. Wikipedia isn't about diversity of opinion, it's about creating an encyclopedia that impartially documents and explains major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. The difference can be subtle, but it's critically important. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A comment to other experienced editors—it's not worth continuing to engage here. The conversation should go like this: you ask for sources; the person presents one poor source; you explain why it's inappropriate and move on (unless they present more sources or actually address your argument). No need to spend more time re-refuting something than the person spent postulating it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is indeed one approach, which I follow at times. At other times, I attempt to put a stake through the marine mammal argument. I believe that different situations call for different approaches. Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Title
For a change, this article, despite its connection to a very hot-button culture war issue, presents an opportunity to make comments on a completely nonpolitical aspect: its title. You've got some really weird combinations of single and double quotes there, with the Wikipedia article title being  (with double quotes around it), the title given in the opening paragraph being   (with single quotes surrounded by double quotes, and some really gnarly Wikicode beneath it; view the source to see), and the actual title in the headline of the BBC article being   with single quotes around it. So I guess the opening-paragraph title is the BBC title with single quotes, surrounded by double quotes to meet the bibliographic style of using them around article titles, and I'm not sure what rationale the double-quotes-only Wikipedia article title goes under, though there are probably technical limitations on what you could cram into those. Just what does the manual of style have to say about quoting article titles that have quotes in them already? &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (...And there's an apostrophe within the title, and there's the question of whether to use straight quotes and apostrophes or typographical curly quotes...) &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia ignores the style guidelines of other publications. We use double quotes, then alternately nest single and double quotes as needed (MOS:QWQ); we never use curly quotes (MOS:CURLY). The title needs one pair of quotes, because the headline has quotes within it (which the BBC does despite the fact it's not quoting anybody). concluded here that we also need to copy the sentence case because it's a quote, not a bare headline.
 * Then, when referring to the article in prose, we use quote marks stylistically to indicate that it's a newspaper article (compare "An Unbelievable Story of Rape"). That means we need two pairs of quote marks, so the outer ones are double and the inner ones are single. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

New article title
The title of the BBC article has been changed to "The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women". Clearly "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women" is still the WP:COMMONNAME, but I'm unsure how to incorporate the new title into the article/lead. What do others here think? Also, I'd like to point out that the Executive Complaints Unit of the BBC recently released rulings on whether the story broke its editorial rules that can be seen here. The conclusion states:

The Head of the ECU found that the article, though a legitimate piece of journalism overall, fell below the BBC’s standards of accuracy in two respects: the headline gave the misleading impression that the focus of the article would be on pressure applied by trans women, and the treatment of the survey conducted by Get the L Out did not make sufficiently clear that it lacked statistical validity. He also found a breach of standards in connection with one contribution to the article (subsequently removed) which he considered to have been appropriately addressed by an update added to the article. The complaints were therefore partly upheld in relation to accuracy and resolved in relation to the deleted contribution.

I'd imagine that there will probably be more reporting on this pretty soon. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What an absolutely bizarre move by the BBC. I'd normally suggest "X, later renamed as Y, is a ...", but the titles are way too verbose for that. I've incorporated the new name in the second sentence and in the external link. Some of the BBC's ECU report may be worth quoting as a primary source, maybe under "Official BBC response"―particularly things like their dispute that Poe informed them of Lowbridge's sexual misconduct. Perhaps more reporting will follow, though. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know if we should change the article title. I think the way the new title is currently incorporated into the opening is OK. Sure, it sounds a bit weird but that's just because the thing itself is a bit weird. I think we need a one sentence summary of the new ruling added on to the introduction. I think the way it is covered in the body is OK for now although it will probably need revision as independent coverage comes in. DanielRigal (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The article title certainly shouldn't change -- this Wikipedia page is mostly about the article as originally published, and the revisions are relevant to the topic, but that doesn't change what article this is about.
 * I don't even think this should be mentioned in the prose of the lead -- only as footnote. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've incorporated the new title into a summary of the ECU rulings at the end of the lead. Maybe this is a better solution? Alduin2000 (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks for your edits . I think this works for now, but I might scrutinise it more at a later date to see if both the lead and body sentences can be a bit more concise. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah definitely, it's a bit wordy at the moment. Alduin2000 (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Update from BBC
Not sure how to include this, there has been a response from the BBC recently


 * https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/01/bbc-article-trans-women-did-not-meet-accuracy-standards
 * https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/05/31/bbc-trans-women-cis-lesbians-sex-article-complaints/
 * https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fb4753ea-e0fa-11ec-baab-53d14c642149?shareToken=b7759bb6b77be449d74323b5ed11b453
 * https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/21652568-e04f-11ec-baab-53d14c642149?shareToken=a100f1c7d54797d4f56413ada9e846db

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * the sources will be useful in showing due weight, but there's a discussion about this in the section above and the material has been somewhat added to the article already. The Times comments about the BBC quoting a description of a woman as "they" when the original quote was "he" are... quite something, though, and another thing to write about. — Bilorv ( talk ') 17:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The decision to use a pronoun that was neither the term actually used in the interview nor a reflection of the gender identity of thr person referred to is certainly ... interesting. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

WP Notability
Hoping to clarify something here. At first glance, a WP article about a news article should not meet WP notability. Am I missing something here? Was the notability question was raised before in the talk page (or was it perhaps archived)? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The secondary sources show that the topic meets GNG. As far as GNG is concerned, it doesn't really matter if it's a news article or a book or a scribbled note on the back of a napkin. It is rare that news articles meet GNG—this is the second one I've created after "An Unbelievable Story of Rape"—but such was the level of reaction. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The coverage from secondary sources makes it notable. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)