Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 22

Draft 11
I've copied and pasted the middle column (at Talk:J._K._Rowling) down here for readability (and to not have it get lost in the mix with all the newer drafts). I cherrypicked the things I like from Draft 9 and the current version, and organized and formatted them in a way that I believe flows well. Some1 (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I like this draft. It comes in at 447 words. There's some repetition in the second sentence of para 1 & the first sentence of para 3 that needs working out. Also agree re this comment. I am very busy & need to unwatch for a few days, but will be back to take a closer look. Victoria (tk) 16:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * On the whole, while my initial reaction is that I like the setup of draft 10 (10.3) better and would rather continue to work from it as the 'base', there are aspects of this draft that I'd support incorporating into 10 if other people also support that. (If we switch to using this draft 11 as the base instead of 10, let's fix the issues which were fixed in 10 that remain in this draft, including the vagueness of the first sentence, which should say what she vocally says and not merely emptily that she "is vocal"; the use of "questioned"; the breezy conflation of criticism and death threats; and the absence of the "men, every last one" quote, replaced here with "rejected [...] that she holds animosity towards transgender people".) I would support adding this draft's language about "labelled as trans-exclusionary" and/or "referred to as a TERF, a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist"" to 10 or to whatever text we add to the article, per your comment of 11:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC) pointing out that that's the language sources use, if that wouldn't be a blocker for other editors. &#45;sche (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also prefer Draft 10 as a base. I'm fine with incorporating labelled as trans exclusionary into it. But I'm really firmly in the camp that we must describe what her views are and why people object to them immediately, and so any draft that starts with anything less clear than "Rowling has gender-critical views" is a hard no for me. Otherwise we're failing to inform the reader about the most basic facts of the situation. Loki (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I pointed out above that, though I very much dislike having to use the Telegraph here, we do now have a source saying she's gender-critical in its own voice. Loki (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph source shouldn't be used in the J. K. Rowling section if the RSN thread that you started regarding the Telegraph on trans issues ends in anything other than Option 1. Some1 (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that if it's Option 2 it would be fine (an anti-trans bias would affect whether she's described as gender-critical or as a TERF, but we don't care about that distinction here, so it's fine either way), but basically this is why I don't like having to use the Telegraph here. Loki (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How is saying that she has views seen as trans-exclusionary not a description of her views? Again, "gender critical" is not some kind of inherently more neutral or objective term than trans-exclusionary/TERF.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 20:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind "Rowling has anti-trans views" (in fact I'd prefer it if we could source it), but saying she has views "seen as" anything is very clearly not a description of her views. It's a sentence about how her views are seen by other people, not the views themselves. Loki (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as a technicality, though absent an "I am gender-critical" or "I am trans-exclusionary" statement from Rowling, we have to (as is usually the case) rely on reliable-source-reported analysis of what a subject's position is. The two terms are also conceptually distinct. Being gender-critical is a critique of or position in opposition to modern gender theory (or some particular variant of it), while being trans-exclusionary is a socio-politico-legal stance on specific matters, that generally tends to depend on a gender-critical theoretical position (though it can have other, usually religious fundamentalist, sources). In Rowling's particular case, I'm not sure the conceptual distinction actually matters much. One thing that might matter, per MOS:LABELS and WP:NPOV, is that the latter (and especially the "TERF" acronym version) is almost always a negative exonym, not a term that someone adopts to describe their own position, which is more likely to be "gender-critical" (or something narrower, in which case it might also be as propagandistic about their belief system as is the "TERF" labeling in the opposite direction). In short, if we have clear WP:ABOUTSELF material from Rowling on this question, we should start with that. Whether we do or not, we should also report the WP:DUE perception of her views, including the terms most often used even if they are socio-politically motivated labeling.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, including reverting to mostly draft 10 but including "trans-exclusionary". I would object to "referred to as a TERF, a 'trans-exclusionary radical feminist as unnecessary verbosity for the lead ; links exist for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "referred to as a TERF, a 'trans-exclusionary radical feminist'" as unnecessary verbosity for the lead Q: by "lead", do you mean the first paragraph (which my draft(s) never included anyway) or the first sentence of paragraph 3? Some1 (talk) Some1 (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Either, actually. This has dragged out so excessively that my memory became dim as to exactly where this text block would fit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think drafts 10 and 11 are both improvements over the status quo, and I urge that one or the other be installed soon. I think most reasonable people would take it this way implicitly, but to be clear: the way we're phrasing these yes/no questions will (hopefully) lead to consensus that a given draft is an incremental improvement, but should not signal that future editing is in any way inhibited. All drafts on the table need work, including just some copy editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft 10

 * Earlier drafts at Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 20 and Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 19.

Several editors have expressed concerns about Draft 9 above, so here's my crack at a Draft 10. Loki (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Changelog (relative to Draft 9)

 * First paragraph is now a true summary, including a mention of the criticism. Most of what was the content of the first paragraph has been split out into what's now the third paragraph.
 * Swapped the order of the history paragraph and the paragraph about Rowling's views, because I feel the context of the history is important to understand both the views and the criticism of them.
 * Linked "gender-critical" to gender-critical feminism instead of feminist views on transgender topics
 * Re-added line about "men, every last one of them".
 * Described Maya Forstater's views as "anti-trans" to match the source.
 * Moderated the description of sales to "unaffected" rather than "grew": both statements are supported by the source, and "unaffected" seems more reliable in view of the fact that sales in general grew a lot over the same time period.

Draft 10.2 | 01:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Changed "because of these views" to "and therefore" in first paragraph.
 * Replaced Suissa & Sullivan with Taylor 2024.
 * Replaced "Rowling thinks" with "Rowling believes".

Draft 10.3 | 04:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Changed "making it simpler to gender transition" to "making it simpler for transgender people to transition" to line up better with standard terminology for this subject.
 * Changed the tense of the Forstater quote and also prefixed it in a way that made it seem less like we were endorsing her claim.
 * Replaced attribution to Jennifer Duggan with the qualifier "on social media" for the claim that Rowling thinks that cis women are threatened by trans women claim. I'd like a second source but this also feels clear enough from Rowling's public statements that I'm not sure we need one.
 * Replaced "Rowling" with "she" in one of the sentences of that paragraph to make it sound less repetitive.
 * Split criticism sentence from threats sentence. (Please do tell me if it sounds repetitive now; I tried to avoid it but I'm worried it still might be.)

Draft 10.4 | 20:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Added stronger citation for "gender-critical views".
 * Expanded first paragraph with a bit about Rowling being called transphobic.

Discussion of Draft 10
Could probably delete and because of these views opposes and just say "and opposes". &#45;sche (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't want to do that because it's important to be clear to the reader that she holds those views because of the more general views. These aren't just a bunch of unrelated opinions: she opposes all that legislation because of her trans-exclusionary/gender-critical/whatever views. Loki (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree that it's a repetitive construct (views mentioned three times in a few words). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe "and therefore opposes"? &#45;sche (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I could get behind that. Loki (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I like that you dropped the mention of the "COVID-19 lockdown" since that refers to widely varying time periods depending on where the reader is from, and ended a long time ago in most places, leaving people to wonder if something changed afterward. I do think "asserted" in the last sentence should be replaced per WP:SAID, as that word can be easily read as casting doubt on the validity of the claim. Crossroads -talk- 06:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

As stated above I remain opposed to the usage of gender critical alone, even with the changed link. It should be worded to include more direct terminology in addition to gender critical or to use neither. The rest of the lead paragraph is good, simple and objective. As before, I don't like the way opposition to her views incorporated into the fourth paragraph. Ostensibly, this is the paragraphed dedicated to the pushback against her views, yet it begins by noting discussions sparked about "freedom of speech" and "academic freedom". You have to dig into the middle three sentences to get anything about pushback against her views, and even then it's exceptionally vague. This does not seem to be adequate representation of the fact she has been considered transphobic by many people, something I cannot imagine is in dispute (and is mentioned in the lead paragraph anyways), and even besides that I would dare anyone to suggest "freedom of speech" and "academic freedom" are the most notable aspects of the reception to her views. Why are they frontloaded in this way? This is what I like more about the live version and combined suggestion above.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 07:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Without commentary on which draft is preferable, we should change Rowling thinks to Rowling believes. It's a bit more encylopedic and avoids a somewhat accusatory tone. — Czello (music) 10:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Loki. It may work better not to put up "yes/no" until discussion has evolved-- my pinging after Draft 9 was premature as I failed to notice the draft had moved away from previous consensus. In summary, we went backwards on months of progress with Draft 9, so appreciate starting over here with Draft 10. Although it's a good-faith effort, I can't digest what's going on in the section just above this one, as looking at three tiny columns explodes my brain. Thanks for doing the work. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) The opening sentences have repetitive use of the word views (three times in the span of a few words), which can be solved by removing "because of these views".
 * 2) Move the footnote about the laws to the first sentence.
 * 3) Several things were deleted from the sentence about "fuelled debates" -- see this rewrite which changed that wording and listed sources for updating to newer wording (that got completely ignored in Draft 9).
 * 4) I dislike the despite word -- that construction feels too POV-ish.  Her work remains successful is the idea to be conveyed somehow ... I suggest picking up the Czello/Some1 wording discussed in the section above this one.
 * 5) I disagree with the idea that we need to work back in a term other than gender critical after we have spent months coming to consensus on that ... moving forward, not backwards.
 * 6) I particularly like the re-arrangement of flow wrt the first para.
 * I would perhaps be more sympathetic to the idea we're going "backwards" were I merely dredging up an old issue. But, and do point me to the right place if I'm incorrect, a thorough sweep of discussion surrounding the past several drafts and the rest of the Archives of this talk page for good measure do not appear to reveal the point of whether gender critical is neutral/problematic being discussion; previous discussion seemed to surround its sourceability and nature as a self-descriptor. I do not believe an appeal to the fact you have already been using the term for some time is justification to sweep a novel criticism of the term under the rug. Trans activists refer to people like Rowling as TERFs or transphobes and they brand themselves as merely "gender critical" to avoid the characterization of being discriminatory, but instead merely "critical of gender theory" and "concerned" (one user compared it to the term "race realist" an old talk page archive, which I believe is a helpful comparison). As previous highlighted, perception of the term as problematic and a potential dog whistle is highlighted at the main article on the topic and the interplay between both terms is reflected therein. Thus it is both a violation of WP:NPOV and a platforming of anti-trans agendas to utilize the term in such a prominent place here. If there is further insistence on the usage of this term I don't think a Request for Comment on whether it is appropriate for usage would be inappropriate.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 16:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the reason why gender-critical feminism is the title for our article is that many neutral sources also call them that. I personally don't think this is necessarily dispositive (I argued for calling it trans-exclusionary radical feminism) but it's enough that I wouldn't want to start a fight over it at this point. I definitely don't think there's a consensus in the sources for "TERF". Loki (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also dislike how the term "gender-critical" is being used in wikivoice to refer to Rowling (e.g. Rowling has gender-critical views and Rowling's gender-critical writings). The 3 sources used don't support that:
 * Source 1 says: led some people to label her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), a term first used in 2008 that has more recently evolved as 'gender critical'
 * Source 2 says: Just ask JK Rowling and other women who have been labelled as Terfs.
 * Source 3 says: This sparked a heated discussion within the Twitter community, one side buttressing Rowling's statements, and the other espousing her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF)
 * None of these sources explicitly say that Rowling holds gender-critical views; they say her views have been labelled by some as such. This is one of the reasons why I prefer the current version and Draft 11 over Draft 9/10 and its variations. Some1 (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I hate citing the Telegraph on this, but here's a source that unambiguously refers to Rowling's gender-critical views. Loki (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because you can doesn't mean you should. What does it say about the usage of the term gender critical if we need to resort to a source as anti-trans biased as The Telegraph to support its inclusion?  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 01:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

As Victoria pointed out in a section above, drafts 8 and 9 and this draft 10 are still using Suissa&Sullivan, though I thought the conclusion at RSN was to not use them, and they're not in the current text of the article so this would be (re?)introducing them; it seems possible they failed to be removed from the drafts by mere oversight, though perhaps someone else reads the prior discussion differently than I do. They're being cited for the variety of laws (which is already sourced to two other sources), and for "academic freedom" (if this is relevant/due surely at least one reliable source has covered it which could be used instead?). &#45;sche (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh, I just failed to catch that. I'll remove it when I get a chance to do copyedits. Loki (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And again, in the rewrite that was completely overlooked (in Draft 9), I provided a new source for academic freedom: . See rewrite above that. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I like this draft overall. Re first sentence, is everyone happy with "to gender transition" as a verb? I won't argue if people think it's fine, but it seems slightly awkward to me; bare "transition" as a verb is fine, but when I google e.g. "gender transitioned" (using inflected forms to weed out the noun), the results are SEGM, the Arkansas legislature, "gender, transitioned" where the words just happen to be adjacent, and (admittedly) a grab bag of even longer, more awkward verbs in papers hosted by the NIH like "social gender transitioned". (On Wikipedia, the 56 uses of seem to be nouns, not verbs, and most are from one widely copy-pasted sentence about Jenner.) Perhaps "would make gender transition simpler" (using it as a noun) or does this change the meaning? Re questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real", would said women were being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real" be better? The "questioned" wording reads to me as accepting that women really are forced out just for stating sex is real, whereas in the MF case and others I know of, there was more going on; I think this is why WP:SAID has us use said so much. That said/questioned, I won't argue if people are wedded to "questioned". (In para 3 there's another use of "gender transition" as a verb.) I wonder if there's anything we could do to clarify for readers who "English professor Jennifer Duggan" is and why we're saying she said such-and-such in a sentence where the source is...her. You and I know why we're citing her and the discussions that led to attributing that sentence (instead of using her as a RS to source an unattributed statement of fact), but is a reader going to know or will they think they can add Joe Schmoe's view sourced to Joe? (Maybe there's nothing we can do. I don't object to it.) Could we avoid mashing "criticism" and "death threats" into one sentence; the fact that "criticism" and "death threats" are not put onto one level/sentence is one thing I think the current article text does better; cf Vanamonde93's comment of 01:23, 26 June in the discussion of draft 9. Overall I like this draft and am fine even with putting it in as-is and discussing any further tweaks in a more normal-editing-like way, as Adam said in the discussion of draft 9. &#45;sche (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with all these changes. Lemme see what I can do about a 10.3. Loki (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions:
 * Remove Rowling herself is often described as transphobic or a TERF by her critics from the first paragraph and instead, include the word 'transphobic' in the second sentence ("These views have attracted widespread criticism[5][6][7] and are often described as transphobic and anti-trans,[8] though Rowling disputes this.") It seems a bit repetitive seeing the words 'gender-critical', 'transphobic', 'TERF', 'anti-trans' all crammed into a short, three-sentence first paragraph.
 * Remove and therefore opposes many proposed laws that would make it simpler for transgender people to transition from the first sentence and incorporate it into paragraph 3 if needed.
 * Avoid using gender-critical in wikivoice if the RSN thread on the Telegraph ends in Option 3 or 4. Some1 (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes

 * This is generally fine, and we need to actually move forward with something. I see in the Draft 11 discussion below that several respondents there say they prefer 10, but for whatever reason they have not said so in the Draft 10 section. I don't object to the edit suggested below to add "trans-exclusionary" to this draft.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't obvious, yes, I do support this draft. Loki (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this is a good text to put into the article (I prefer it to the other drafts, including 9 / 11). (Re the comment above: I was waiting until the text was finalized before !voting yes or no, and I infer from SandyGeorgia's comment of 14:27, 26 June 2024 that that's also what others are doing.) &#45;sche (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, given the support above and the absence of opposition or further comments, I have put this text into the article. As most users have explicitly stated, further edits should continue in the normal way, e.g. if any particular sentence needs tweaking or as the article subject does new things that RS attach weight to, this does not set anything in stone. &#45;sche (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm alright with that. Let's stop with all of this Draft X+1 stuff, and just start editing J. K. Rowling through regular editing and find consensus that way. There's also the issue of the Telegraph being used to source 'gender-critical views' in wikivoice, but the RSN thread will most likely end in Option 2 anyway, so that might no longer be a concern. Some1 (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)