Talk:Equality Act (United States)/Archive 1

Biased writing
Why does the Support section lack any criticism of supporters, while the Opposition section includes a boatload of criticism of opponents? Oct13 That, coupled with the bulletin point listing of supporters, smacks of propaganda. Oct13 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I definitely think this article needs some improvement, but religious liberty concerns are already included in the opposition section. Are you suggesting that we state the opinions of all world religions on homosexuality? I can see why you think the current state of the article is a little disproportional, but I'm not sure how your suggestions wouldn't be reductant/disproportional by itself. (Perhaps institutional opposition exists, but it remains heavily popular among laity.) Any ideas? MarvellingLiked (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Public Opinion Section
Is this the ONLY survey that has been done on this topic? Seems like only reporting one favorable survey comes awfully close to violating wiki's neutrality goals. When someone (especially impressionable teenagers) reads this he's going to think that, wow a supermajority of Americans are "for" this, why hasn't it passed? But is that really the case? In any event the inclusion of a survey tends to bias the article. Not sure if it should be included. Tpkatsa (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Non-discrimination protections are widely supported by Americans. I was actually surprised to see that only 70% of Americans believe LGBT discrimination should be illegal; I had expected to see a wider consensus before I read the "public opinion" section of this article.
 * So, "why hasn't it passed"? Because public opinion on LGBT issues advances more quickly than legislation. For example, up until 2011 it was illegal for gay Americans to serve in the military, although vast majority of Americans, even conservatives, saw this policy as unjust discrimination. Same goes here. Legislation on equality and anti-discrimination laws does not advance as quickly as public opinion shifts in favor of it.
 * The survey presented in this article was conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute. It is a nonpartisan organization that is far from being biased in favor of LGBT rights. If we omit the important fact that most Americans have long supported the Equality Act, THEN we will bias the article. Not all issues that are under public consensus are necessarily easy to pass in Congress. Guycn2 · ☎  18:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it seems one sided, or at least, single-faceted. Physicians have brought up concerns that they may be forced into transgender medicine against their beliefs and medical oaths, with the example of being forced to perform a hysterectomy due to a person's transgender beliefs rather than actual medical need. Physicians cite suicide rates to explain the requirements may do more harm than good and violate their oaths to do no harm. Would this compel physicians to perform an operation that they feel violates their medical oaths? Here's one news article on that view. There are also religious organizations that are against some provisions of the bill, with claims that it may be interpreted as forcing the religious organizations to hire contrary to their religious beliefs, or force religious schools to accept practices contrary to their religious beliefs. Would this compel religious organizations to hire people that violate their beliefs, or a compel a religious school to accept or retain a student who is actively violating the religion's doctrine? Would this bill compel a church-run shelter to house biologically male people among vulnerable women like rape victims? Will it compel religious adoption agencies to place children against the religion's beliefs? Multiple religions have claimed while they support the individual rights, the bill has serious flaws within the details. Catholic church's statement. Another religion's statement. This can also impact many other services that are affiliated with religious ceremonies, such as religious-based wedding services such as wedding photographers: consider a photographer who works with members of their own religion which forbids same-sex marriage, who is creating first-amendment-protected artwork, would this bill mean they are compelled to work with a same-sex couple and compelled to create artwork (normally legally protected speech) that violates their religious beliefs? There is clear bias in many surveys in this regard. Short opinion surveys show people generally support the overall headline issue (in this case LBGT rights), but the surveys tend to overlook the nuanced details of how that affects specific groups. (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Bwagstaff. These are the kinds of questions that need to raised. There is a tremendous religious liberty concern here to which the article as written does not do justice. The protected classes used to be race, national origin, religion, and biological sex - all of which are non-controversial. Now we've added all this new subjective stuff. Gender identity for example is totally subjective - to gender identity advocates, my identity is whatever I say it is - who are you to tell me otherwise? (See http://www.tpkatsa.com/articles/2016-12-01-False-Freedom.htm). Also I noticed that the article uses the phrase "sex assigned at birth." Millions of Americans, and I would suspect around the world, don't subscribe to "sex assigned at birth," unless it's 'assigned' by the Creator. Humans can't change biological sex. If you have male genitalia, you're a boy; if you have female genitalia, you're a girl, period. But the article presents as fact that biological sex can be arbitrarily assigned at birth. Why is that? Why is WIKI so biased to the Left with this stuff? Tpkatsa (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * no. okay. bye. 71.193.207.45 (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Discrimination for any reason is just plain wrong, discretionary hiring policies is not the same, so a church group can specify whom it wishes to hire based on its specific beliefs and conflating the two arguments is a backward and self serving to provide a reason to continue to discriminate. People born as Intersex in western countries get allocated a sex by the doctor at child birth, in Thailand they do nothing and these people live a normal life, midwives in Some African countries used to (still do in some?) kill them at birth. Any argument that states one must define ourselves by out dated morales harks back to slavery and anti women's right to vote, own land or have a bank account "as God details" in the bible, and was justified by the ruling minority of the landowners and top 10% as moral, obviously this is bull shit and totally outdated. Most of the reasoning above for the same is just the same, a mix of scaremongering and probably genuine fear of anything that challenges their outmoded racist, sexist beliefs as taught in the doctrine they want to adhere too. No one should have any right to remove or restrict any other persons rights and these malicious and facetious arguments are the devils tools.

Seems to have been vandalised
The article appears to have a Catholic press-release copypasted into it Freddie Scowen (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead was sounding more like a sales pitch or a promotional pamphlet than an encyclopedic intro
I made considerable changes to the Lead, mostly moving detailed content and their sources down into the article's body.

I added that the president opposed this (not mentioned, only that he support anti LGBT discrimination, which is not the topic of this article. Also added that some feminists oppose the act and gave reasons. Source was cited in the body, but can be added to the lead if some editors would prefer that.

This article conflates The Equity Act, homophobia/transphobia and LGBT discrimination. Makes it difficult for the reader to read and gain an understanding of the act and the arguments for and against it.

I removed some weasel words and editorializing.  Dig deeper talk 00:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute
This article is helplessly biased. It is almost a textbook case for supporting the Act. No matter what your opinion is on a hot issue like this, Wikipedia is strictly neutral and having this article almost exclusively make the case for the Act is in violation of Wikipedia Standards. The initial writing is most biased. Referencing the fact that the USA is "one of the few Western Nations" without any citation or explanation of relevancy. The section about polling and frankly most of the top is completely out of line with the policy. As such, my dispute shall be recorded. Thank You. - Liberty823


 * Disagree — What is specifically biased in this article? Wikipedia includes public polling in the descriptions of most political issues. (See Affordable Care Act, interracial marriage, etc.) Saying that the act has a positive reception among a majority of America's population is not an instance of (WP: NPOV). MarvellingLiked (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything biased in this article. It explains arguments of both proponents and opponents of the legislation, proportionally. Public opinion sections are included in most political articles, as well as endorsements of organizations and businesses. So far, all polls conducted on the issue have found overwhelming support among Americans of anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people. If you find any other polls with different findings – you are more than welcome to add them to the article. But just saying "biased" without explaining what specifically needs to be changed does not help a lot. Guycn2 · ☎  12:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is biased because it's glossing over the really controversial part of the bill. It's not just about sexual orientation. It's also about including "gender identity" to the civil rights act. So that means that any man who identifies as female must be allowed unfettered access to play women's sports, use women's gym locker rooms, serve their sentences in women's prisons, etc regardless of whether or not they have had any surgery, hormone treatments or anything. I'm not getting into an argument over the merits or downsides of that, but the fact remains that that provision has far less support, because polling about that factor is overwhelmingly negative.--173.73.59.138 (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can understand your point, but that's misinterpretation of the bill. This bill is about prohibiting discrimination, not about eliminating gender-segregated spaces. Twenty-one states already have comprehensive anti-discrimination laws similar to the Equality Act, and yet those existing state laws pose no threat on women's sports or bathrooms. They simply prohibit discrimination. As a neutral encyclopedia, we must stick only to what's actually written in the bill, rather than try to interpret it ourselves. The content of the bill does not include anything about gender-segregated spaces, and therefore specifying that this bill allows men to access women's sports or bathrooms would be completely biased. We cannot refer to concerns raised by some Congress members as facts. If necessary, we could specify that some Congress members raised concerns about the interpretation of "gender identity" in the "Opposition" section, but as long as the bill says nothing about gender-segregated spaces, we cannot refer to the claim that the bill would allow transgender men to access women's facilities as if it were a fact, because THAT would be biased. The bill only prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, nothing more than that. Specifying otherwise would be biased misinterpretation. Guycn2 · ☎  23:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is wikipedia. What you believe to be true or not is irrelevant, it's what you can prove. You can do a cntl-f on the bill itself, the term "gender identity" comes up 73 times, prohibiting any discrimination on that basis. So prohibiting a self-identified woman from using woman's spaces would be discrimination under the terms of the bill. Are you seriously arguing otherwise? Even the proponents of the bill, such as the ACLU, aren't denying that. Even this article in the Washington Post, which very much supports the bill otherwise, pointed this out. Other states laws go in different directions, but some of them have already seen biological males competing in women's sports without even being required to take hormones, so it is already an issue in those states. Anyway, you are right insofar as we can't report the concerns of Congress members as fact, but we can report the fact that people in congress have voiced these concerns! And not just in congress, many prominent legal experts and news organizations have agreed that this bill would greatly affect women's sports, among other things. Plenty of them say it will wipe out Title IX. It is willfully dishonest to include only the glowing support of the bill, and not the complete picture.--173.73.59.138 (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Prohibition on gender identity-based discrimination does not necessarily mean that transgender men would be allowed to access women's locker rooms or participate in women's sports, particularly given the fact that in the 21 states that already prohibit discrimination on such basis in public accommodations – women's sports and gender-segregated spaces still exist with no problem. The Equality Act, according to its content, would prohibit employers from firing someone because he's transgender, for example, but it definitely would not require public accommodations to eliminate their gender-segregated locker rooms; if that was the case, the Equality Act would be overwhelmingly opposed and major businesses would definitely refuse to support it. The bathroom and women's sports issues are only concerns raised by some rather than information specifically provided in the bill's content; therefore, I have no objection to include those concerns in the Opposition section using neutral point of view, but they can't be included, for example, in the article's "Purpose and content" section. Guycn2 · ☎  04:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have shown you that even some advocates of the law say this will happen. And since there have been incidents, including at least one school where students staged a walkout, it's not true that there has been "no problems". Gender segregated spaces would still nominally exist, but since anyone can claim they are transgender at any time, that's a moot point, isn't it? That's what opponents are getting at. I do plan to include the sports issue and other objections but I wanted to discuss it here first because I'm not going to do that work if the edits will be immediately steamrolled out.--128.190.185.107 (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced paragraphs
There have been 2 attempts at making large deletions of the lead paragraphs. The lead was previously reading like a promotional pamphlet before. The comments and concerns in the talk page above make this quite clear. The edits have made the article more encyclopedic and balanced. Please remember that NPOV doesn't mean one point of view. If editors feel the edits are too biased in one direction or another, please indicate below. Ignoring the specific points of opposition to the bill (well informed or otherwise) is not in the best interest of the article.

If there are specific counter-points that have been published in a reliable source, it would not be inappropriate to add these to the article to counter the points you feel are uninformed. This would be a better approach than deletion.  Dig deeper talk 22:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The references are mostly low-quality, which in turn means it's hard to think the text is WP:DUE. This would need better sources more clearly establishing its weight, and consensus about the wording, to be included. -sche (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * NBC news and ABC news are not reliable sources? I added another reference.
 * There seems to be consensus that NPOV is not quite right, for the lead or the article. Deleting paragraphs of text and 5 references is not the answer.
 * There has been no consensus to remove the material placed in good faith. I would disagree regarding WP:DUE. WP:LEAD is quite clear that the the lead should summarize the contents and the contents discusses opposition.
 * It may be worthwhile to look at the previous versions. This article is not perfect, but has come a long way.

 Dig deeper talk 01:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You must provide rationale on the talk pages before removing numerous properly cited sentences and their references. There are multiple editors working on this article. Changing the number of supporting organizations from 515 to 330 and removing the American Pediatrics Association from the list of organizations, that was added at the request of another user above, is also disruptive. The several instances of weasel words that were also restored by MarvellingLiked have been reverted. Let's work collaboratively to make this article better.  Dig deeper talk 00:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Because the back-and-forth editing over this has involved only a handful of users and this discussion has involved even fewer (just the two of us, so far, sigh), I solicited input ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Law&type=revision&diff=899584136&oldid=899438717 like so]) from the Law wikiproject and the LGBT wikiproject, the two wikiprojects listed at the top of this page to which it seems most closely related topically. If that doesn't help (or even if it does) we may want to also solicit advice / other opinions from WP:NPOVN and/or WP:RSN. -sche (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what "discussion" is being referenced. I have provided rationale for my edits both in the talk page and in the edit summary. I have made several invitations, ignored up until recently, to discuss the edits on the talk page. It is difficult to view the large deletions with no attempt at discussion as anything other than vandalism. Without an explanation to justify deleting large portions of the text with references. Let's work collaboratively on this to make it better. I'm very open minded to proposals, such as the one requested above. NPOV was a concern among several of the editors here. I believe I improved on this. If you disagree please discuss why you feel differently. This is what the talk page is for.  Dig deeper talk 01:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Any perspectives of opposition in the lead?
It seems to me that in order for the lead to be balanced, which seems to have been a point of contention for quite a while (as evidenced by the history of this talk page) there needs to be some summary of the opposition in the lead. Several editors have either reverted all my contributions or deleted my paragraphs in the lead that included 6 citations. Seems to me the WP:LEAD should summarize the article. For a bill it would stand to reason that this would include the opinions of the "yeas" as well as the "nays". So the question is where to go from here? Can a compromise or creative solution be had?  Dig deeper talk 02:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging those who have worked on the article or the talk page recently. Collaboration and use of the talk page seems to be lacking in this article. I have tried to resolve the NPOV concerns of several editors who have shared their concerns above. I think I struck a pretty good balance between perspectives in the lead. Nonetheless, attempts have been made to undo all my edits, or in some cases the several paragraphs I added in the lead and their references. I pasted the lead below. Let's start with that and pick it apart here on the talk page and see what needs to be changed and what should stay the same. If the non-collaborative editing continues as it has, measures might need to be taken.  Dig deeper talk 14:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

''The Equality Act is a bill in the United States Congress, that, if passed, would amend the Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and the jury system.[1] As of 2019, 20 states have outlawed LGBT discrimination, with members of the LGBT community being given little protection at a national level[2][3]. The Equality Act would lead to nationwide anti-LGBT discrimination laws.[1]''

''Many scientists, legal experts, and medical practitioners have shown support to the Equality Act. The American Psychological Association as well as the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association have released statements supporting the Equality Act.[4] Human rights groups, businesses, and other associations also supported it.[5]''

''The Equality Act was jointly introduced in both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate on March 13, 2019. The bill has received support and opposition from both members of the Republican and Democratic.''

President Donald Trump opposes the bill in its current form due to what he considers "poison pills" in the legislation,[6] but expressed support for LGBT anti-discrimination.

''Republicans and some feminists have expressed concern over the privacy and safety of women, with respect to the act's "lack of clarity" on right of transgender persons in women's restrooms and locker/fitting rooms.[7][8][9]. Religious groups have also expressed concern, over the broad scope of the act and the impingement of religious rights and publicly funded abortions.[10] Parent's rights groups have expressed concern over the lack of parental consent in transgender hormone and surgical therapies, even for young children. [11][12]''

''The Equality Act passed the United States House of Representatives on May 17, 2019. It is currently awaiting consideration by the United States Senate.[13]''


 * I don't see why the opposing voices should not be summarised in the lead. Shuipzv3 (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. Does it seem fair and balanced? Are there words or phrases that could be improved upon? In order to create more of a NPOV, I've tried to substitute ambiguous statements, puffery, weasle words, unsupported attributions, and biased expressions for clear, direct language. Is there any areas for improvement in this regard? Thanks!  Dig deeper talk 16:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to add the opposing viewpoints to the body first, including references, then include the more relevant ones in the lead. There's some sentences that I do think are a bit unwieldy and can be improved. For example, "The [APA] as well as the [AMA] and the [ABA]..." can be changed to "The [APA], the [AMA], and the [ABA]..." instead. The following sentence can also be changed to something like "Many human rights groups, businesses, and other associations have also expressed support." That's my two-cents. Shuipzv3 (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Perhaps we can expand on the deleted paragraphs and their references to the body and prepare a more concise summary in the lead.
 * Simplifying the list in the lead is a good idea. It isn't hard for the reader to scroll down (or click on the reference) and get more details.
 * another PING of recent editors to encourage feedback on this topic.  Dig deeper talk 18:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding "... the opposing viewpoints to the body first, including references ..." and then "prepare a more concise summary in the lead" ==> Sounds like a good plan to me. (I am a member of WP:LAW and WP:LGBT.) // Thank you -sche for the heads up. :o)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts: If we are to mention opposition in this article (not only this lead), we cannot misrepresent what this bill does and does not do. For example, this bill does not impact legislation on the age of consent for gender confirmation surgery or for hormone replacement therapy and therefore does not affect parental rights. Nondiscrimination in public accommodations does NOT lead to an increase of sexual assaults in restrooms or locker rooms. In fact, over 250 organizations fighting sexual assault and domestic violence signed a consensus statement in full support of equal access for the transgender community, including for restroom access. Experts on sexual violence are speaking out that discriminating against the transgender community does not protect women from abuse. I am concerned that mentions of concerns over restroom/locker usage have been elevated at an undue level. I think that if anything is to be mentioned, something along the lines of this could be included: "Some opponents have focused on the Equality Act's protection of transgender Americans" without legitimizing exaggerations of what this bill does and does not do. However, I would prefer that this article not single out cultural rhetoric against the transgender community, as much of society is still not very educated on the transgender community and it could lead people to jump to conclusions. Please also remember: Transgender people are also victims of sexual abuse. Transgender people care about women's safety. Transgender people want to be treated with dignity, privacy, and respect.

Thank you kindly,

-TenorTwelve (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You might want to weave in those facts/data points (with the citations) to the article.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 10:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a safe space for your political beliefs. The links you cited are mostly opinion pieces, and they rely on the fact that the FBI doesn't track crimes by transgender status so there are no official stats to report. In fact, "nondiscrimination" in public accommodations can and DOES lead to an increase of sexual assaults in restrooms or locker rooms, not to mention prisons   . The article should reflect this. When you put males in the same spaces as females, there are problems. Yes, some of these people aren't transgender. But that's the issue with this bill - it's not only about transgender people specifically, but "gender identity" which is ill defined and could be claimed by anyone. The other main concern is the impact on women's sports and the article should reflect that too.--173.66.182.142 (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the article should not reflect this, because this is your own speculation and misinterpretation of the bill, rather than facts. The facts are that 21 U.S. states, as well as most western countries, have already banned discrimination based on gender identity, and yet none of them have issues with women's sports or bathrooms that were caused by these non-discrimination laws. The article must not include opinions based on mere speculations and fears rather than facts. Guycn2 · ☎  04:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for coming to the talk page and sharing your thoughts. It is appreciated.
 * It seems reasonable to approach this like other "acts" on Wikipedia. Stick to the published facts and the published opinions of those for and against. If the opinions of prominent opponents are not based on fact (fear-mongering, misinterpretation, or otherwise) and there is evidence from reliable sources opposing those opinions, then appropriate rebuttals to those opinions can and should be included with references. Not including opinions because they are wrong or misinformed omits a significant part of the conversation and makes the article appear biased and incomplete. We also want to be careful to avoid original research and inferences from primary sources from either camps.  Dig deeper talk 17:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Guycn, there are documented cases where mixed facilities or bans on gender identity discrimination have caused problems in sports, prisons, locker rooms, and other places. I gave you four links above. I can give you more if needed. That doesn't mean that undue weight should be given to these concerns but they are legitimate concerns and should be reflected in the article. --173.66.182.142 (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is unfortunately no doubt that incidents of men harassing women in locker rooms exist, but there is simply no evidence that such incidents have anything to do with anti-discrimination laws. For example, is there any evidence that Massachusetts, a state with comprehensive anti-discrimination laws on the basis of gender identity, has more instances of men harassing women in locker rooms than Mississippi, a state without anti-discrimination protections? As far as I know, there is no evidence that such cases are more frequent in states and countries with LGBT anti-discrimination laws than states and countries without such laws. As I said, I do not oppose including these arguments in the opposition section, but it should be written neutrally. Claiming that "feminists oppose the Equality Act", as was written before in the article, is simply untrue and not based on anything. Only one single feminist testified in Congress in opposition to the Equality Act (and actually she herself said she supported anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation; her arguments only dealt with gender identity). One feminist is not a representative for all or most feminists; thus the misleading argument that feminists oppose the Equality Act simply doesn't hold water. Guycn2 · ☎  05:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Those who oppose the Act, feminist or otherwise, have identified female washroom safety as a concern. Whether it is justified/rational or not is immaterial. As I said above, it would be in the best interest of the article to include this. If there is a reliable secondary source that supports your view that this concern of the opposition is unfounded, then that too should be included in the article.
 * The original narrative, that those who opposed the act were mainly religious zealots who felt "members of the LGBT community deserve to be discriminated against" clearly does not accurately tell the story of those individuals and organizations in opposition to the act.  Dig deeper talk 17:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

random quote
Manannan67 added a quote from some random guy named Marc Stein. He's not well known or relevant to the topic. I'm wondering if this quote should be in the article or not? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "San Francisco State University professor and historian Marc Stein questions how accurate those numbers are. "“People may say that when asked in very general terms, but if asked in more specific terms, I’m not sure that it’s true.” Stein notes that "while issues like same-sex marriage and military reform primarily targeted “discrimination” by the government, bills like the Equality Act have implications for businesses and corporations everywhere."
 * AFAIK Time magazine doesn't go around quoting "random" guys. According to the article, Stein is "a historian specializing in LGBT issues at San Francisco State University" -presumably sympathetic and realistic. He makes a few good points. (1) Poll numbers should be viewed with caution. Results can reflect how the questions were drafted. (Push-polls are specifically designed this way.) If you ask people if they support legislation barring discrimination, most will say yes, because most Americans do not see themselves as supporting discrimination. However, if you ask should additional protections be extended to LGBT individuals, you'll get a somewhat lower number of affirmative responses as some respondents will wonder what additional protections are involved. If you ask these same people whether a baker should be compelled to bake a cake for a gay wedding, you're likely to get another different answer, with the respondents finding nothing mutually exclusive in their respective opinions. (2) As Stein points out, people are less sensitive to legislation affecting government actions as opposed to an individual's. -The highly touted list of business endorsements means nothing. They're simply playing to a couple of consumer categories. It's just good business. Multi-nationals have extensive legal departments to ensure compliance with a plethora of legislation, so there is no cost to them. Smaller businesses -not so much. Finally, has it occurred to anyone that people who are not opposed to the idea, are opposed to poorly drafted legislation? The article is currently tagged for NPOV. The tone slants towards advocacy. Removing Stein's cautious comments only proves this. Manannan67 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Businesses, big or small, do not need an extensive legal department to handle the complexity of: if you make wedding cakes - sell them to everyone regardless of race, sexuality, religion, and other protected classes.
 * I agree that polls can give different results based on wording of questions. But including some random historian's opinion seems POV.
 * Marc's quote is in reference to the 70% poll and not the 92% poll.
 * So maybe we could put the Marc Stein quote after the 70% and before the 92% polls. How about this after the 70% paragraph:
 * "Historian Marc Stein questions how accurate this poll is. "“People may say that when asked in very general terms, but if asked in more specific terms, I’m not sure that it’s true.” Stein notes that "while issues like same-sex marriage and military reform primarily targeted “discrimination” by the government, bills like the Equality Act have implications for businesses and corporations everywhere."
 * although this still seems like just one random historians opinion on the bill, and not published research. thoughts?
 * And the second sentence in the quote seems irrelevant to polling though, so maybe just the first sentence?
 * Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You might try googling Stein before you decide he's just some random guy. (You might also read up on Wikipedia's policies, specifically WP:JDLI) If you had read the article, then apparently you misread it. The quote is introduced by the words: "Though polls show that the majority of Americans oppose discrimination,..." That's "polls" as in plural. The quote in its entirety was fine where it was.
 * It also confirms what I said, Americans broadly oppose discrimination. The devil is in the details, as Stein noted. If it's POV (which I dispute), it's his and that is allowed as it clearly identifies him and states that it is his view. "However, 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." It did, however, violate NPOV to remove it. Just because someone experienced in the field expresses some reservations is not grounds to delete.
 * The second sentence is his whole point. People don't care until it directly affects them. Manannan67 (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We could fill the article with random historian's opinions from interviews. We only have names of names of supporters and those in opposition.  And then 2 opinions from current and most recent POTUS.
 * The quote is referring to general discrimination polls (70% poll), that is his whole point, that he questions the general polls. He is saying that although Americans oppose discrimination generally speaking, it may be more gray when it comes to what specific rights (the 92% poll) Americans believe people should have.  Clearly the quote is not questioning the specific polls.
 * The 2nd sentence in particular does not belong in the polling section as it has no relevance to the section. Its just a random historian's general commentary on the bill. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly are your qualifications to define "random"? Stein seems to be notable in his field, which is why, apparently Time, a RS, solicited his views. You have clearly misinterpreted his quote and to what it pertains, despite the fact that it has been pointed out that he was addressing more than one poll. The Time article quotes him in the context of analysis or commentary, -which this article sadly lacks. The second sentence clearly does belong right where it is, because it indicates why there might be various results in response to questions. You seem to think he's attacking the polls, while I read it as merely counseling caution. Manannan67 (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Support from major businesses and public figures
What about businesses and public figures that are opposed to this legislation? The inclusion of only figures that support this legislation tends to bias the article in favor of the legislation. Either this section should be removed or public figures who oppose the legislation should be included. As with most political issues in the United States, this is a Left vs. Right debate. With few exceptions, if you are on the Left you will tend to favor this legislation; if you are on the right you will tend to oppose it. Tpkatsa (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Which businesses (apart from religious organizations) oppose this legislation? Can you name even one major business/company that claimed opposition to the Equality Act? I really couldn't find any. By the way, while left-leaning/liberal people are indeed more likely to support non-discrimination laws, such laws are nowadays also widely supported among Republicans and conservatives, according to a PRRI poll (a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization), so your argument that people who are on the right oppose this legislation is highly questioned. Guycn2 · ☎  18:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I was in the middle of creating a new Talk section here about this very topic, when I realized you already did. Seems to me this section is very non-neutral and a bit PROMO as well, and imho, the entire section should be removed. And I wouldn't be in favor of adding a "Criticism" section to "balance" it, either.  Reason: this is an encyclopedia, not a political campaign, nor even a neutral voter instruction booklet, listing supporters and opponents of referendums on an upcoming election.  I think this section fails WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  In what possible way, is it encyclopedic to know that, say, MasterCard supports it, but (apparently), American Express does not?  Or that Alaska Airlines supports it, but (apparently) Hawaiian Airlines does not?  This section must go. Mathglot (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This section might actually be the most relevant one in this article. Large businesses almost never express an official opinion on political issues, and the fact that this specific bill gained support from hundreds of international large businesses and corporations is extremely notable. It is very rare to see huge companies like Google, Apple or Microsoft officially supporting bills in Congress. If it was a typical phenomenon, it wouldn't be worth noting, but that's not the situation!
 * Second, this is definitely not a "promotion". Promotion would be including the arguments of those who support the bill while excluding the arguments of those who are opposed (or vice versa). Currently, not any ideological arguments in either support or opposition to this bill are included in this article, so how can it possibly be a "political campaign"?
 * And finally, as for your last argument: As I said before, if there were major companies who are opposed to the Equality Act, we would undoubtedly have to include it together with the companies who support it. But the fact that there are no large companies who oppose this legislation, and there ARE many large companies who officially support it – is uncommon and therefore super encyclopedic, relevant, and notable. If we omit this super-relevant information, it will definitely look like a promotion against the bill. Guycn2 · ☎  04:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems rather hyperbolic. Can you list any other articles that do this?  For example, the much more detailed article about Prop. 8 in California, which has over 300 references, has sections called "Proponents" and "Opponents" which are written in encyclopedic fashion, but no comprehensive, unexplained list like this. Or see the "Support" and "Criticism" sections at HB2 for a similar approach.
 * I would see nothing wrong with keeping the sentence currently in the article stating, "The Equality Act is supported by over 330 organizations and over 180 businesses.", but retaining the list is irrelevant, and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia policy regarding encyclopedic content says, Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.(Emphasis added.) Also, where do you draw the line? Why these 25, and not others? Who decides?  There is no need for a list, here; keep the statement, keep the refs, include an external link if you want, where the curious can go look up the full list of names, but there is no need to have the list itself. Tpkatsa, any thoughts here? Mathglot (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot - thanks for asking. I have a lot of thoughts. Look, full disclosure, I'm a conservative, as I suspect you may be and Bwagstaff may be as well (see above). I don't know how to put it. I think we need to have it in here. But the way the article reads I agree it's very biased. If you were from Mars and you knew absolutely nothing about the Equality Act, you'd come away from this article in strong support of it. It's easy to say that X number of companies are in support of it, Y companies are not, and of course X>>Y and so therefore "American corporations support the Equality Act." But no arguments like the ones you and Bwagstaff are raising ever seem to make it into the articles themselves. The few times I have tried to balance out an article by adding a conservative POV it has been removed, but the liberal point of view remains. It is as if WIKI regards those on the Left as normal and those on the Right as abnormal or somehow defective, which is ironic given that WIKI is supposedly impartial and committed to presenting things in a fair and balanced way. Realizing this, for a long time I didn't do any edits to controversial subjects - after all why bother editing if the edits are going to be removed? Now I'm not saying that every article has to be a master's thesis on arguments for and against every position out there. A source of information should be factual. Maybe someone can start something called PoliWIKI where we can do well-thought-out opinions on these topics. I guess the problem for me is that when "facts" are presented, they are presented in such a way - and relevant facts omitted - so as to commend the Left-wing point of view a vast majority of the time. It is as if Left-wing positions are taken for granted and if you oppose them, well, there must be something wrong with you. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox but I'll return to this article occasionally to see if you've replied. Tpkatsa (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * To answer the original concern of, "why not list the opposition to the legislation", this legislation aims to change the status quo, and supporters of the status quo would sometimes rather not even open certain political topics up for discussion. Where we would expect to see an opposition list is in some highly publicized referendum campaign. Bẽeiçon (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: I got a message in my WIKI inbox directing me back to this page. Another question that occurred to me is, what is the intended outcome of a wiki article on a controversial topic? Do we want the reader to come away from the article convinced of one side or the other, or do we want the reader to leave with the impression that both sides have been fairly and equitably presented, and both have good arguments? If the goal is the latter, then many, many articles may need to be wholly rewritten. Philosophically, if we assert that, for example, "the Equality Act is good because American corporations support it," we are arguing from authority, or in the common vernacular, simply counting noses. Counting noses is the weakest form of argument. One noted conservative expert on equality and diversity is Heather MacDonald, who marshals an impressive array of facts, figures, and reasons against things like Equality Laws in her book The Diversity Delusion and in numerous articles she's written over the years. Now, that is not to say an equally impressive array of facts, figures and reasons could not be marshalled in the opposite direction. It is to say however, that perhaps we should elevate our standard of an acceptable level of argumentation, if we are going to be arguing at all, and not merely presenting facts. Tpkatsa (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Do we still need the neutrality tag?
I am wondering if we still need the NPOV tag on the page. The opposition section has been considerably expanded. Thoughts? -TenorTwelve (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Seeing that there has been no discussion for a week and that the opposition section has expanded, I will take it down.-TenorTwelve (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's work together to craft a NPOV article
I personally believe that most Equality Act provisions will help protect queer citizens like myself from discrimination. And, as a Wikipedia editor, I am committed to crafting articles from a neutral point of view.

The article currently sounds like a position paper in support of the Equality Act. We need to change that.

I made some changes (mainly deletions) from the introduction. My intention is add a concise summary of reasons many support the bill, along with reasons others oppose the bill (at least as currently written). Of course, you are free to write those concise summaries!

I did not write them today because I think the Opposition section needs to be improved first. Here are some sources I've reviewed and hope to incorporate into the Opposition section. Of course, feel free to do so yourself if you are so inclined. :)

https://www.heritage.org/gender/heritage-explains/the-equality-act

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericbachman/2019/05/30/what-is-the-equality-act-and-what-will-happen-if-it-becomes-a-law/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bostock-v-clayton-county-georgia/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/altitude-express-inc-v-zarda/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/how-extreme-is-the-equality-act/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/law-professor-explains-why-the-equality-act-would-crush-religious-dissenters/

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/common-sense-part-i-not-every-kid-thinks-gender-malleable-david-french/

Gender Identity Laws Need More Nuance by Andrew Sullivan http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/andrew-sullivan-the-american-system-is-already-failing.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/us/politics/equality-act.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-passes-bill-extending-civil-rights-to-gay-transgender-people-11558135808

Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Today I began to summarize the Heritage Foundation article because it seems to succinctly encapsulate most conservative opposition to the Equality Act.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I finished summarizing the Heritage Foundation's view. Of course, this doesn't mean that my summary is sacrosanct, so please improve it if you so desire. :O)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Do conservatives' perspectives constitute fringe theories?
User:TenorTwelve recently deleted the subsection (about the Heritage Foundation's views) I had added to the Equality Act section (diff). This was TenorTwelve's second deletion of that text. I will not engage in an editing war. Instead, as I wrote on 1 Aug 2019 (above), I ask that we work together to create an article with a neutral point of view. This means reaching a consensus.

TenorTwelve asserts that the beliefs articulated by the Heritage Foundation constitute fringe theories. Although I do not personally agree with the Foundation's beliefs, they are beliefs shared by millions of Americans, and except for the Foundation's #3 point, which might have strong empirical evidence refuting their claim (I don't know), their other four points are socio-cultural, political, or legal arguments, not contentions subject to scientific investigation. Given that a significant minority of U.S. citizens share some or all of the Foundation's perspective, they are not, by definition, fringe theories. - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for my excessive use of WP:Fringe in describing opposition. I began drafting a constructive critique of said anti-transgender beliefs and then worked on other things and instead of returning to working on the draft, I took an alternate route of deletion through summarizing (perhaps sloppily) said section. Would it be acceptable if I present the draft(s) here on the talk page when I am done drafting it?


 * The main reason I invoked WP:Fringe was part of point 4 that mentioned facilities. It's based on the assumption that trans people would be sexually violent in restrooms which is a defamation of character without grounds. -TenorTwelve (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "Would it be acceptable if I present the draft(s) here on the talk page when I am done drafting it?" - Absolutely. :0)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Proposal: User:Markworthen: There are two edits I am thinking of adding. See below the next comment -TenorTwelve (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

There’s been a huge effort to silence the strong opposition of many women on the left and feminist organizations. Again, not because they don’t want to protect LGBT people from discrimination however there are a million ways to do that without altering the only legal protections for women in the us JoDno (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * TenorTwelve's Proposal: User:Markworthen: There are two edits I am thinking of adding.

Edit 1: In the opposition section, after the paragraph with the quote from the Alliance Defending Freedom, adding "The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the Alliance Defending Freedom as an anti-LGBT hate group, "


 * Why is the SPLC considered neutral source re: deciding hate groups? They have their own biases, as is natural. Why is it even necessary to add a disclaimer to ADF's argument? It seems like an attack on the messenger, and a weaselly one at that. I think it should be removed neutrality, as it adds little. 177.194.43.94 (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We need reliable sources, not neutral sources. As for the disclaimer, it is required by policy. Per Biased_or_opinionated_sources: "Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". "Dimadick (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit 2: In (possibly) the support section adding a rebuttal to the opposition's claims on its impacts on gender equality. Adding "The National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence and over 250 anti-sexual assault organizations have condemned opponents' attempts to portray transgender people as sexual predators and contends it is a myth that protections for transgender people endanger women's safety and privacy. | The Taskforce's joint letter was signed by over 250 survivor organizations in full support of full and equal access for the transgender community, including in restrooms and locker rooms. The letter notes the [21] states and 200+ municipalities that have protected transgender people's access to facilities have not seen an increase in sexual violence and public safety incidents due to nondiscrimination laws. The letter also notes that anti-transgender initiatives put transgender people at further risk of assault. "

I believe adding these two things would add balance to the article and would neutralize some of the more pointed parts of the opposition section that I was objecting to in the first place. I'm fine with the other stuff in the article as long as the trans-people-as-sexual-predators narrative is countered and ADF as a hate group is identified.

What I was initially considering was putting both of those two in the same paragraph in the opposition section after the ADF paragraph that is now in there. I am a little confused as to where the Taskforce Letter should be mentioned as it is in favor of LGBT rights, but it is mainly to counter opposition. I was considering having it be in the opposition paragraph because it is directly pertinent to opposition talking points. Should I include edit 2 in Opposition or should it be in Support? I wonder if it impacts the flow of the support section if it is in the support section, or if placement is an issue.

It seems what you wrote and I took out has effectively been re-added. I'm not denying that those parts are important parts of the discussion, but contending that they should not go unanswered. It seems what was added was well-written as well and the page has become more neutral. Do you have feedback on where "edit 2" information should go or any other feedback?

Thanks,

-TenorTwelve (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I am not sure where to put this, but what is your basis for concluding that Southern Poverty Law Center is a neutral, unbiased source? Is the Alliance Defending Freedom a hate group just because SPLC says it is? Perhaps, if your politics are seriously Left-wing. Others have reasoned that the SPLC itself is a hate group that routinely smears fine, upstanding people, both liberals and conservatives. If you claim that Alliance Defending Freedom is a hate group, your sources should be far better than merely the SPLC. Tpkatsa (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion to reach consensus

 * Thank you for your willingness to discuss this issue in a civil, productive manner. :0) ¶ Here are my thoughts:


 * (a) In general, I think we should avoid back-and-forth debates within the article itself. Our task is to provide concise, balanced information about a topic, backed by reliable sources. We do not write to persuade.


 * (b) This article has "Support" and "Opposition" sections, which tends to foster a "debate mentality" in my experience. I am not proposing that we remove those sections In terms of how to best represent criticism in an article, I really like the Criticism essay. Since it is an essay, it recommends, but does not dictate. At the same time, I have found its advice to be quite helpful in the past. I think we are accomplishing some of the essay's recommendations.


 * I might write some more later, but those are my initial thoughts. Thanks!  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  15:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I made several edits (diff) seeking to make the article more concise; better represent cited sources; remove editorial content; remove hard-to-understand terminology that lacked explanation; and some minor edits.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  15:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021
The bill was re-introduced on February 18 (. 76.182.148.91 (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * . Wait until Congress records are out, which I haven't seen yet . ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 00:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021
The /1/ in this URL:

| introducedbill = H.R. 5

Should be /5/:

| introducedbill = H.R. 5

AudreyTang (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Volteer1 (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Bostock in lead
Bostock v. Clayton County does not protect from employment discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation and gender identity". It protects people who are "gay and transgender" without defining those terms. There is dissent in the legal community over what this means. For example, legal experts have pointed out that it is unclear whether or not this means only people who identify with the opposite sex from their birth sex or if this could also include those who identify as nonbinary. See page 14 of this article in the Connecticut Law Review. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

As another example, it does not define "gay", leading to debate among legal scholars as to whether or not this would include protection for bisexual people. See this article in the Northwestern University Law Review.

In short, Wikipedia can't take it upon ourselves to interpret the decision in a broader way than how the Supreme Court handed it down: the decision says "gay and transgender" and not "sexual orientation and gender identity" and so that's what we have to say. Lilipo25 (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2021
§5.2 - change "The Trump Administration opposes the Equality Act" to "The Trump Administration opposed the Equality Act" Dankmemerino147 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Done.

More religious opposition
Equality Act calls Bible a bigoted document, says rabbinic group --Jwh (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected request
The "117th Congress" link in the fourth paragraph of the introduction links to the 116th Congress. It should be changed to link to the 117th. Comrade Diana (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, but I don't see the "edit" link to change the parameter to 'yes', showing it's been completed. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If there isn't one, just add  manually.  ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 01:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Lilipo25 (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Alleged Vandalism
The lead section on women's rights group opposition to the Act has been repeatedly vandalized by Ash243x to include opinions that are completely unsupported by the sources (calling them "anti-LGBTQ organizations" and saying they oppose the Act because they are "uncomfortable around transgender people", etc. Please stop vandalizing. This is against Wikipedia rules. Please discuss here on the Talk page before reverting again. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, the section has been vandalized by Ash243x. These changes are not supported by the sources, nor are they "neutral". , you are free to personally disagree with the opinions of the women's groups. You may not make up things like "they oppose the Act because they're uncomfortable around trans people" nor may you say they "claim" to represent women or anything else negatively biased. And please stop removing sourced material repeatedly. This article has a huge amount of material that is pro-Equality Act, but must also represent opposing views, because it is an encyclopedia and not a personal record of any one person's views. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not vandalizing the page; from my perspective it has been you who are the one engaging in an edit war because you seem to disagree with an objective portrayal of the situation whereby cisgender women are claiming ownership of the entirety of feminism and woman-ness at the expense of transgender women. Reverting edits without explanation and then going on to vandalize my own pages is not constructive.

Ash243x (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ash, you can see that your claims are not supported by the sources in any way. And literally none of that "cisgender women are claiming ownership of the entirety of feminism and woman-ness at the expense of transgender women"  is an "objective portrayal", for heaven's sake. You have every right to your opinion, but this is an encyclopedia article and not a place for it. Please stop. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that criticism of the act or materials that support such criticisms shouldn't be included and I have not removed anything from the article in that regard. My intention was to phrase the existing content in a way that is intellectually consistent. It does not make sense (and is actively harmful) to portray organizations actively discriminating against certain women as 'feminist' for instance. It is just as much your opinion that trans women do not fall into the category of women, as the way the text you are proposing would directly imply.Ash243x (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You have repeatedly changed the article to call them "anti-LGBTQ groups" and said they are "uncomfortable around transwomen", none of which is in the source. This article gives a very, very positive view of the Act and those who support it. You cannot trash those who don't because you disagree. My edits stated what the SOURCES said, which is all we can do. They are women's rights and feminist organizations and I'm sorry that you find that characterization "harmful" but you can't rebrand them on your opinion. Please stop removing and changing sourced material to say things the sources do not. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You also cannot say that the religious groups which object do so because the Act would keep them from "targeting LGBTQ people". That isn't in any of the sources, either. Please stop adding unsourced opinions. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Just because the people cited have claimed something doesn't automatically make it true. It is important that sourced material (their opinions) be put into appropriate context that reflects an accurate account of the facts. People who discriminate generally don't admit to discriminating. The groups in question calling themselves feminist or that claim to be protecting women have been engaging in the opposite. As a woman who has been subjected to this sort of hate on a continuous basis from all the sorts of organizations, including specific ones mentioned in the sources, I have first-hand knowledge and experiences that do in fact make me biased; For that I willingly accept that some of my original edits were not properly written but the way in which you've handled the situation, to outright delete and revert entire changes, substituting harmful language and attacking me personally rather than engaging in dialogue first has not been well received. Ash243x (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * First, I have at no time attacked you personally. I have said nothing about your person, just your edits. And I have repeatedly engaged in dialogue, including coming to this page and asking you to discuss edits with me. Please don't make false accusations like that. It isn't conducive to discussion.
 * Secondly, it seems very odd for you to be offended that I deleted the entire paragraph when I was only reverting it BACK to the sourced material that you had first completely deleted and filled with unsourced opinions.
 * And finally, I am genuinely sorry that you have experienced hurtful things. I do not wish that on you or anyone. But I am afraid that you can't use that to justify using your own opinion instead of sourced facts in a Wikipedia article. You acknowledge that you are "biased" here. In that case, it might be better if you didn't edit this particular article, as we can't remove any information or references to any organizations on the basis that you find them hurtful. I'm sorry. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Support and Opposition
The page is semi-protected so I can't edit it. Can someone add American Academy of Pediatrics under Support? Thanks It is on the list in the citation. Fasnj21b4jn (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Provide a reliable source below and I will add it and the source.  Dig deeper talk 20:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Orgs_Endorsing_EqualityAct.pdf?_ga=2.173057379.1167392404.1554363031-1646103207.1554363031
 * This source is already on the page though, citation #21 Fasnj21b4jn (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ The list was becoming rather long. So I converted it to prose. I decided to do the same to the other lists in the article as per MOS:USEPROSE. Reads much better.  Dig deeper talk 01:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * okay thanks Fasnj21b4jn (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The support and opposition section has a support subheading but no opposition subheading, could someone add that subheading to better organize that section. Timv2000 (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Relevance of Celebrity & Company Supporters
I can't think of any reason why the personal feelings of Marcia Gay Harden, Adam Rippon or Bella Thorne about the Equality Act have any relevance to a Wikipedia article about it. It tells us nothing at all about the Act. Likewise, it's nice that Abercrombie & Fitch supports it, but is that really noteworthy to include in an encyclopedia article? The entire "support" section is little more than a long list that seems like an effort to cast the Act in an overwhelmingly positive light - there's no detail about WHY any of these people or organizations support it, or a quote from them about it, even - just a list of their names. I propose deleting the celebrity and corporation paragraphs entirely. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There is no reason to list celebrities and various companies. It only needs to be focused on advocacy organizations with statements as to why they support the act. Rad Fem Ish (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It is relevant; celebrities and corporations have quite a bit of influence over our culture and over US Congress. Chillabit (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Opposition to Bill in lead
I removed the part of the lead that talks about opposition from women’s rights organizations and religious organizations as this is already shown in the Opposition section. Also, it said “some religious  organizations” while only citing an article about the LDS church (while it may mention others in that article), in the support section it also lists many other religious organizations in support of the bill   Shadowrvn728  ❯❯❯  Talk  18:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You should not have done that as a discussion of this topic has only just begun in the above section and no consensus has yet been reached for this change. In addition, the lead is meant to summarize what is in the article, so removing information from the lead on the basis that it is in the article is nonsensical. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that! Thanks for letting me know. Shadowrvn728  ❯❯❯  Talk  00:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Factual errors
Posting here rather than just editing the page because this is such a contentious topic.

The source says "It passed largely along party lines in the Democratic-controlled House" while the article says "It passed the United States House of Representatives on May 17, 2019 in a bipartisan 236–173 vote."

Another example: "the majority of people said they disagreed with..." followed by (58.3% disagreed) (48.19% disagreed) and (53.19% disagreed)"

In addition to the blindly obvious error of calling 48.19% a majority, it oversimplifies the actual poll numbers for that question, which were:
 * Strongly agree 674 19.27%
 * Somewhat agree 509 14.54%
 * Somewhat disagree 352 10.06%
 * Strongly disagree 1,334 38.13%
 * Unsure or No Opinion 630 18%

We need to get the basic facts straight by going through every sourced claim and verifying that the source says what the article says it says.

Also see: --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Against LGBT Exceptionalism in Religious Exemptions From Antidiscrimination Obligations [PDF] --Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development
 * The LGBT Equality Act Puts Polarizing Politics Over Good Policy -- Reason Magazine (Reason is reliable for factual claims and political analysis, strongly libertarian biased for opinions).
 * Gay conservative: Equality Act would crush religious freedom. -- USA Today


 * I'll leave the first part for the editor who wrote that to work on, but I'll try to fix the poll issue. Lilipo25 (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight
Responding to a WP:NPOV flag on the article, the lead section appears to grant WP:UNDUE weight to a small minority of opposed feminists. If I read the opposition section, I notice this viewpoint is minor in comparison to the objections pertaining to religious liberty as well as in comparison to the support the bill has received. Per MOS:LEAD, as a general rule undue attention should not be given to less important controversies in the lead.

In the article body, opposed feminists appear to include one criminology professor and four or five minuscule organizations. The listed groups are "Women's Human Rights Campaign USA", "Women's Liberation Front", "Feminists in Struggle", "Standing for Women", and "Save Women's Sports". Aside from WoLF, I am rather uncertain these organizations should appear in the article at all, much less be represented in the lead section for a major piece of legislation in US Congress. "Save Women's Sports" may not even be a feminist organization, at least not exclusively seeing as their "About us" section includes links to videos and articles from The Heritage Foundation, The Post Millennial, The Christian Post, Breitbart, and Fox News.

If I search "Women's Human Rights Campaign USA" in quotes, for example, I receive five pages of results, none of which would help me establish WP:NOTABILITY if I wished. Similar story for "Feminists in Struggle", and difficult to ascertain for "Standing for Women", and "Save Women's Sports" due to the generic naming. Two of the named organizations ("Standing for Women" and WHRC) even appear to be primarily British rather than American organizations; Their social media and websites indicate so (and their presence appears to be primarily online).

In contrast, there is a whole lot of hyperlinking above and below the feminist opposition listed in the article body. The National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, and NARAL are three examples of noteworthy organizations in favor of the bill. The Southern Baptist Convention and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are two examples that are opposed to the bill. These are just examples, there is plenty more. These organizations reach hundreds of thousands if not millions of people each, and their membership often reflects that. So does reliable source coverage. I can't say the same for the feminist groups who are listed as opposed to the bill, and so I do not think they should be included in the lead section. I do not think they should take up about half the space that the entire support section does, either.

Considering the above, how may the page be reweighed? Chillabit (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * In a previous iteration of this page, See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equality_Act_(United_States)&oldid=996001236 the "opposition" section was not divided into two sections. There was a paragraph that invoked the argument from some cisgender women against transgender rights in a statement from the ADF. I added a disclaimer to the statement that the Alliance Defending Freedom is listed as an anti-LGBT hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. In a previous iteration of this page, there was only one paragraph that invoked this argument. There were a few stray references in other paragraphs, but only in passing reference. Now there are approximately 8 or 9 entire paragraphs, depending how you count. We should reduce the number of anti-trans paragraphs. We need to understand that transphobic arguments, while a component of the debate, are very often not based in encyclopedic verifiable fact. If we are going to feature transphobic arguments common to discussion of this, we need to mention if it is a hate group speaking, we need to allow space for refuting the information for the sake of encyclopedic verifiability. If the safety of women and girls is raised, we need to have a segment from sexual violence experts that anti- sexual violence organizations are overwhelmingly in support of transgender inclusion, including in restrooms and locker rooms. If sports is to be raised, we need to mention that many women athletes have spoken up for transgender inclusion in sports. I'd also prefer the conversation not revolve around sports if possible. As an encyclopedia, we must not give the impression that transgender people are inherently dangerous or sexual predators. It's also a defamation of character, not to mention that some trans youth are suicidal and might be reading this page. In a previous iteration of the page there was minimal mention of the anti-trans arguments. I tried to minimize them. I ended up minimizing them too much creating a vacuum which led an editor with an agenda to completely reshape the page, which is unfortunate. I think we can go back to having a majority of the statements of the opposition be about religious liberty. Perhaps there could be a mention, but if it is to be on the page as a talking point common to the debate, we must have such claims be rigorously vetted and subject to refutation. This is laid out in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories . I do not mean "fringe" as an insult, but as a descriptive term. While I respect differing opinions on things and my fellow editors, we need to acknowledge that not all lines of thought are based in reality and some can cause harm. We need to report the facts, for we are a fact-based encyclopedia. We can fix this article. Thank you. -TenorTwelve (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This article had for a very long time represented only right-wing religious groups as opposing the bill. This is false, as there are a number of women's groups and dozens of sources that disagree that were given no representation at all. No, we can't dismiss those groups as fringe (and we certainly can't call them 'hate groups') because they disagree with aspects of this bill. All are legitimate organizations and all deserve to be mentioned.


 * Likewise, we cannot add original research such as the letter from sexual violence groups that TenorTwelve gave a large paragraph to in the "support" section: that letter was written years before this Act was drafted, so was not in support of it and obviously made no mention of it - none of which the paragraph in the article stated at all, falsely giving the impression that the letter had been written in support of the Equality Act. This was an attempt to bias the article in favor of one viewpoint and violates the rules on original research.


 * TenorTwelve, I am sorry, but it is not for Wikipedia editors to decide, nor is it a "fact", that feminists who object to what they perceive as the erosion of women's rights are merely "transphobes" and shouldn't have their views represented. You are correct that this is a fact-based encyclopedia, which is why we report what the reliable sources say and not personal opinions like that.


 * I am particularly disturbed by this statement in TenorTwelve's comment, above, in which they argue this as a reason not to include women's rights advocates concerns that women are losing their right to their own sports and spaces:


 * As an encyclopedia, we must not give the impression that transgender people are inherently dangerous or sexual predators. It's also a defamation of character, not to mention that some trans youth are suicidal and might be reading this page.


 * First, not one of the sources in the women's rights section says anything at all about transgender people being either "inherently dangerous" or "sexual predators", so that's a false flag. And while it is certainly very unfortunate if any youth are suffering from suicidal thoughts, this is emotional blackmail and absolutely should not ever be used as an argument to bias a Wikipedia article in favor of one side. Wikipedia cannot present only one side of any debate on the grounds that people on the other side might kill themselves if they read it; I would not ever argue that there are teenage girls who are suicidal and might harm themselves if they read that no one is fighting for their spaces, for example, as this is not fair or honest discussion.


 * The article needs balance. It was heavily biased for a long time with every person who has ever expressed support for the Act being included and none but religious organizations who have opposed it included. It is certainly odd that editors find it "notable" that minor "celebrities" like Adam Rippon or Bella Thorne need to have their support of the Act represented in the article, but women's groups which have dozens of articles listing their objections do not. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * TenorTwelve, MandyMB, and Lilipo25: I think you are all barking up the wrong tree here. First of all, to my understanding WP:FRINGE has more to do with primarily historical and scientific articles. The dispute here isn't over scientific truth... otherwise we would probably see a lot more academic literature cited in the article. It's about a bill in US Congress.


 * The WP:NPOV dispute also is not over whether detractors to the bill are correct or incorrect. There is just no need to give WP:BALANCE between a small minority and majorities or significant minorities, or worse to weigh the small minority more than the majority or significant minority opinion. That is undue WP:WEIGHT; disproportional to that viewpoint. To retain undue weight would be WP:FALSEBALANCE, though.


 * I checked out the letter from the survivor organizations and it does not seem to be directly related to the bill. So yeah, it should not be here unless it can be established that it is directly related to the bill somehow.


 * As I said, WoLF is a notable organization. I would contest the idea that people such as Bella Thorne who regularly appear on magazine covers and television are too minor to mention; that seems like opinion and not reflected by sourcing. On the other hand, I would like to know where you found these dozens of articles, Lilipo25. I do hope it's not a similar case to the survivor organizations letter with unrelated content; This is not a platform for advertising opinion about gender topics.


 * From what I see, it seems as though organizations that mainly exist among bloggers and social media users are being presented with equivalent, comparable or superior notability to NARAL, Southern Baptist Convention, or Planned Parenthood. Chillabit (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with you that only WoLF should be included among the women's rights groups and can't help but note that it is the only one of the groups in opposition to the Act that is known to lean to the right, making it easier to discredit. You state that Bella Thorne's personal opinion should be included because she appears on fashion magazine covers. Yet representatives of the Women's Human Rights Campaign regularly appear on popular cable news shows and radio shows specifically to talk about the Equality Act and they aren't notable enough for an article about the Equality Act? I'm afraid I can't follow this reasoning at all.


 * I have to say that I don't much care for the comment that you "do hope it's not a similar case to the survivor organizations letter with unrelated content" - as you know, I didn't add that content. All of the content I have added has been 100% related to the Equality Act. I'll be happy to add even more if you'd like evidence that there are more articles, but I rather thought you were concerned about the "undue weight" of those arguing for the Act to be amended already. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You may link the articles here, if they exist. Self-published sources (some of which are WordPress blogs) aren't anything that would establish notability. I didn't mean to suggest you had posted the letter, merely that if articles you were to link were concerning gender politics topics but not the Equality Act, that it would be a similar problem to the one you appear to have correctly fixed earlier.


 * Thorne is a TV actor, which is what I meant by appearing on television. I do not think I would say that the opinion of anyone who happens to appear on radio or television interviews is notable enough to be represented in the lead section.


 * Whether or not one thinks that having WP:DUE weight in an article would make it easier to discredit any opposition is not really the crux of the issue. If a bill has primarily got support and otherwise largely appears to have religious opposition, should or should not Wikipedia reflect that, especially in the lead section? In weighing the content of an article, we are not obligated to give credence to an extremely small minority who struggles to establish any notability in the first place, particularly if that requires weighing them heavier than other viewpoints by inserting their opinions into the lead section. Chillabit (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Your point is that Thorne's opinion is more important to include in an article on the Act than that of women's groups who oppose said Act because when she appears on TV shows, it is as an actor, and then they appear on TV shows, it is as a women's advocacy group that is less large than some other women's advocacy groups, discussing the Equality Act and its effects on women's rights? Again, I don't have any idea how to respond to that reasoning.


 * I'm going to just ignore the snide "if they exist" and the weirdness about Word Press blogs that have nothing to do with me or any source I have used, for the sake of civility. Your arguments simply don't hold up when you argue for a minor TV actor to be taken seriously for notability on congressional legislation but not women's groups, and it's clear that you are grasping at straws in order to eliminate legitimate opposition to the Act from the article. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thorne has millions in following and extensive coverage. Because of celebrity influence in politics, they are considered a prominent adherent or supporter if they speak in favor or in opposition to a bill.


 * You are correct that they are less large than other women's groups; the prominent ones reach millions while I am not seeing sufficient notability among the opposed groups as to provide them more WP:WEIGHT in this article than other viewpoints. Radio or TV interviews may not necessarily even have a digital footprint. Is there some reason why you object to the lead section in particular being restructured?


 * I say "if they exist" because you haven't posted them, they aren't in the article, and I could not locate "dozens of articles". Some of the citations in the article for feminist opposition to the Act are self-published blogs, including at least one hosted by WordPress software. Please cite the sources you earlier indicated you would happily provide. This would more likely be constructive than discussing how exactly I word my replies. Chillabit (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, so now "digital footprint" is the determinant of whether or not something gets included in an article on congressional legislation? That's nonsensical, but for the record, Joe Rogan and his radio show have one of the biggest "digital footprints" out there, and they've been guests on there. Now stop moving the goalposts. You did the same thing with the articles I mentioned - I pointed out that groups like WHRC have been featured in dozens of articles as proof they are a notable group, and you changed it to "they have to be articles about the Equality Act". Well, most of them mention the Act, as it happens, but that isn't necessary to prove the group is notable.  And no, I will not spend hours looking up and listing sources for you. I would suggest if you can't find any, you might try looking beyond Pink News for news on women's rights. Feminist Current is a good source to start with https://www.feministcurrent.com/2021/01/31/did-joebidenerasewomen-yes-but-we-can-stop-him/ but if you want something along the Pink News line (but far more reliable), try Lesbian & Gay News https://lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/02/radical-feminist-campaigner-sheila-jeffreys-on-why-shes-still-fighting-for-lesbian-and-womens-rights-in-2021/.Lilipo25 (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Digital footprint would be how you cite the existence of TV or radio coverage. I could not locate the Joe Rogan interview pertaining to any of the individual listed groups, however, I did locate an interview he hosted with a Flat Earther. To my knowledge, this is a microcosm of the way in which he operates his platform (at least sometimes). He enjoys speaking with people who have viewpoints in the tiny minority.


 * "Feminist Current" is founded by Meghan Murphy, who is opposed to transgender activism. She appears to also be a radical feminist. As your own link shows, "Lesbian & Gay News" is associated with the LGB Alliance (per the banner promoting the LGB Alliance at the top of every article on the website and this tweet), which is another such group though primarily based in the United Kingdom.


 * It's OK if you don't wish to gather source coverage of the topic(s), but please don't indicate that you 'happily' will if that is the case. I appreciate you were able to provide two additional posts from feminist opinion blogs. However, this does not appear to demonstrate that this is more than a small minority viewpoint.


 * Please constructively explain the WP:WEIGHT you are providing these extremely small minority groups by inserting their opinions into the lead section of a major bill in US Congress via your edits. Chillabit (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * OMG, radical feminists? Are you sure? Well, thank god you caught that - can't have any of those representing women's interests! Whew!
 * Thanks for finally just coming out and saying it, Chillabit. All this long discussion and you could have just said from the beginning that you won't agree to any feminist opinions being represented in the article UNLESS they're what you personally consider the "right" kind of feminist (the kind who agree with you). Which I knew, and I'm guessing so did everyone else, but it's nice that you finally just said so. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not a space for your personal opinions.
 * So you can keep making up one excuse after another to discount them (a talk show host whose show they appeared on once interviewed a Flat Earther - disqualified!) all you like. You've just made your editing bias very, very clear and I don't think there's any more need to take anything you say seriously enough to reply to. Lilipo25 (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It has to do with writing this article from a neutral point of view and with appropriate WP:WEIGHT. It does not have to do with my personal opinions (or yours). I have said that what I am getting at here is that these specific groups are a very small minority concerning the subject of the article, which is a major piece of legislation in US Congress. What I have also indicated is that opinion blogs associated with this small minority viewpoint do not constitute evidence that it is not a small minority viewpoint, and neither does a Joe Rogan interview. I think I have reasonably substantiated that.


 * I think I have WP:DGF sufficiently well. On the other hand, if you believed early on that I was apparently not acting in WP:GOODFAITH on this page, then that may be an automatic assumption of bad faith due to your disagreement with my original analysis and attempts to discuss improvement to the page.


 * You can be assured: I am not here to crusade against your viewpoint, only to provide due WP:WEIGHT to it. If you want me to state my opinion on the matter, it is that the integrity of the Wikipedia project and its pillars have been rigorously constructed in a way that provides a sort of social good which benefits many people, including women, by providing trustworthy and weighted information on topics of interest.


 * You may feel at times that in specific instances, adherence to this would contradict your ideological views. Please consider the net benefit of ensuring the continued integrity of the project, including to women, by adhering to a WP:NPOV. To do otherwise is missing the forest for the trees, in my view. I would likely not be editing on Wikipedia at all if I had not considered this. Consider, for example, a page about the Equal Rights Amendment. If the integrity of WP:NPOV were eroded, this would mean that modern opponents of the Amendment could insert opinions from their viewpoint into the lead section. These policies and guidelines are designed to preserve the basic integrity of the Wikipedia project, and if feminism or women's quality of life is something you are concerned about, I believe it is also reasonable to care about the purpose of Wikipedia while editing.


 * If after considering what I have just said, you still wish to be responsive, I would greatly appreciate a reply to the question I asked last time pertaining to the insertion of small minority opinions into the lead section of this article.--Chillabit (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The inclusion of the relevant sources from feminists is critical. There is also a need to ensure statements about sources are verifiable, considered and accurate MandyMB (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

and, thoughts on the above? Ash243x added the NPOV flag, Shadowrvn728 mentioned relevant part of the lead below. --Chillabit (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * In response to, I appreciate others' persistence in correcting bias in the article and attempts at minimizing or removing discriminatory language and bad faith representations from sections where opinion should not be highlighted.
 * While I am obviously deeply uncomfortable with statements meant to antagonize or dehumanize people like myself, I will concede that documenting such sentiment is necessary in representing the full extent of this topic. I only wish that all statements, either in support or opposition, be clearly represented as opinion unless supported by verifiable facts or credible sources and that all language throughout the article be maintained to convey a neutral point of view. Thank you to everyone here that has worked to make this article more accurate and objective. Ash243x (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Come on, no canvassing to get a consensus. I can start pinging people, too. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * They're interested editors. You said above that my arguments are no longer worth replying to, so I ask for more opinions. Not sure what else I am really meant to do. --Chillabit (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "women's groups which have dozens of articles listing their objections do not." Lilipo25, most of the groups listed so far lack Wikipedia articles  of their own. From a typical editor's perspective, we do not know what their ideology is, their membership numbers (from organizations with thousands  of members to organizations with  less than a dozen), or their impact on the political controversy. The only exception so far is the Women's Liberation Front, where we at least have information on their litigations. Can you find sources indicating that their arguments have persuaded any of the politicians involved? 23:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
 * You are correct that almost all radical feminists and radical feminist organizations are badly underrepresented on Wikipedia. Some editors leave them out because they don't want their views seen, and some do it because they fear the way they'll be characterized by editors who oppose them if they have articles. I am going to make an effort to start creating articles on them, regardless. Lilipo25 (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

NPOV lacking
This article has been extremely biased in favor of promoting the pro-legislation POV and misrepresenting the opposition to it as merely that of right-wing religious groups. There was no mention at all in it of the objections of multiple women's-rights groups or of even one of dozens of sources that discuss the potential threat to women's rights, no mention of polls which show lack of support for some of the effects the legislation would have, and a heavy and undue emphasis on a long list of people, including random and minor celebrities, who support the legislation. Without removing any of the sourced material, I have been adding in some of that POV to make the article at least somewhat balanced, but TenorTwelve has deleted much of it. In addition, they added a long and very biased section refuting all of the deleted material and casting it as WP:FRINGE or even hate speech.

My requests that we discuss on the Talk page have been ignored thus far but I hope we can engage in a constructive conversation here rather than edit war. The article needs to adhere to WP:NPOV. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If we are going to have anti-trans arguments on this page, out of concern for NPOV, we should also allow refutations.


 * The vast majority of women's groups reject transphobic arguments and I am concerned this misrepresents that the feminist movement is supportive of LGBTQ rights, including transgender rights.


 * Regarding Bostock: Frankly, trying to assert that Bostock does not protect bisexuals is original research. There also is no need for "scare quotes" in the text with the words gay and transgender.


 * Also, please don't put words in my mouth.


 * Thank you. -TenorTwelve (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * First, I have indented your comments. Please do so. Secondly, these are not "anti-trans arguments", they are arguments for women's rights. And no, you can't reject the feminist groups making them as not being feminist because you don't agree with them. Not every feminist agrees on every issue.


 * I am very confused by you calling it "original research" that Bostock may or may not protect bisexuals since I gave you a link to a Law Review article by a prominent law professor saying exactly that when I made the point, above. And "gay and transgender" were in quotes in the article because they are direct quotes of the SCOTUS decision, not as 'scare quotes', but if you prefer there to be no quotes at all around them, I can agree to that.


 * I haven't put any "words in [your] mouth, but since you haven't stated what words you are referring to, I don't know how to address that any further.


 * This article has been very heavily biased toward a single POV for a long time. It needed a great deal more balance. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring! You are removing correctly sourced information repeatedly to force a personal POV and with disregard to the discussion here. For example, you just removed the Bostock corrections and edit-noted them as "original research" - I specifically gave you a link to TWO Law Review articles showing them to be correct and then pointed that out to you here when you called it original research. Please stop this immediately. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The critics of the Equality Act are indeed arguments for women's rights. Why wouldn't some feminist groups critique the act on that basis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rad Fem Ish (talk • contribs) 23:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The information you added yesterday under "support" for the Equality Act (the letter from the National Task Force) was written in 2016, well before the current Act was ever written, and therefore makes no mention of it. I understand that you feel it supports a viewpoint that disagrees with those who oppose the Act, but I'm afraid that is original research and not allowed - you can't insert information that you feel refutes sourced viewpoints on an article subject when the source does not say it is about the subject. I haven't removed it yet but am hoping you will do so yourself. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I have now gone ahead and removed it. Lilipo25 (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for removing information that was heavily biased towards a single POV and, as a consequence was not accurate. MandyMB (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The article seems fairly balanced under the rules of POV. I don't see any WP:PUFFERY, or exclusion of TERF women's groups, or anything to suggest the article is more pro-passing the legislation that just giving the facts. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The Economist
The 9th paragraph in the Opposition section says: "The Economist stated in October 2020 that the Act as written..."

This shouldnt be stated witht The Economists voice. It is the opinion of the author of the article at the Economist. Bilto74811 (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See: https://www.economist.com/news/2020/06/19/frequently-asked-questions
 * "Journalists often co-operate on articles. And some articles are heavily edited. Accordingly, articles are often the work of The Economist’s hive mind, rather than of a single author."
 * Unless I'm missing something, the intention of The Economist appears to be that all unsigned articles are the work of "The Economist's hive mind". It certainly begs a few questions, but the attribution appears appropriate, no? --Chillabit (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. It seems ambiguous as to when it is the work of multiple vs a single journalist, but keeping it with the Economists voice, per "the hive mind" seems reasonable. Bilto74811 (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)