Talk:Jessica Yaniv/Archive 2

pageant sources
The JCCF is not a reliable source, ever. It's not even a media outlet, it's a law firm. Sometimes an organization can be a source about non-contentious material about themselves, in their own article, but that doesn't apply here. JCCF are counsel for multiple parties fighting Yaniv in court. It's hard to see how they could be more bias. You can't sneak in claims by bias source by claiming you're just using them as a source of what they said. If we allow that loop hole, then everybody who has ever made a claim about Yaniv can now have their claim cited in this article.

The Independent is obviously a reliable publication in general. However, it actually shouldn't be used here, as it makes no assertion of relevant usable facts. It's essentially reporting on reporting about the case. It never states as fact that there is a case. It used the word "report/reporting/reported" five times, in an obvious attempt to not be responsible for the reliability of the claims. Citing them is deceptive, because it suggests that they are supporting the facts, when they aren't. If you read the Independent article, it's really not about Yaniv, but about Donald Trump Jr's history of transphobic comments, which are often based on various reports he's apparently read.

As for the Western Standard, I'm not sure. The old Western Standard was certainly not reliable (same editor as Rebel News), but under current ownership/management, it's completely different. So, I'm open minded, and haven't removed the content at this time. --Rob (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself". The JCCF has made a claim that it is defending a client against a claim brought by Yaniv. Provided the text reflects that this is a claim by JCCF and does not treat it as a confirmed fact, there is nothing wrong with the use of the JCCF as a source. McPhail (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You took that quote out of context. It says " An article about a business: The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself..."  Notice, it's for "An article about a business", as in the JCCF website could be used for very limited purposes on the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms article itself, not on Yaniv's article.  If we used your logic, then we can cite everyone who's ever had dealings with Yaniv, and chosen to publish their thoughts.  As said before, JCCF can not be used as a source in Yaniv's article, ever.  --Rob (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have to disagree. I think the JCCF is a perfectly appropriate cite for this claim, the use of JCCF cites is not limited only to the JCCF page. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 19:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, JCCF is a perfectly appropriate cite for this claim, the use of JCCF cites is not limited only to the JCCF page Wisefroggy (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It clearly violates the policy that McPhail improperly cited. It's hard to imagine how a source that could be more bias and unreliable.  They are in an active legal dispute.  Are we now going to allow everybody in a dispute with Yaniv to have their side of the story presented in the article?  There are scores of people who have claimed some sort of interaction with Yaniv on their personal web site or social media account.  Do they all get space in the article?  If there is a real case, that moves forward, I'm sure there will be ample coverage in reliable sources, as there was with the BC cases.  --Rob (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , There is nothing in Wikipedia policy, including WP:NPOV, which states that editors can't use a source if that source has a position on the topic. That kind of rule would be silly when you think about it. Of course, potential bias is disclosed to the reader because the article text states that the JCCF made the statement. It's not presented in Wikipedia's voice, but it's expressing a major player's position on this event which is totally permitted. This may all be a moot point because I saw some other sources in the media today regarding the complaint. Outlets include WCBM, Post Millenial, etc. So it's getting coverage elsewhere. I'll probably wait a day and sift through it. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2021
That image is NOT Jessica! I don't think they have ever been to the states, let alone in 2020. The image is clearly someone else; best guess is a Hispanic women who is from the states. I may suggest something along these lines...a scooter image, bathing suit, and also the gown and tiara in court. 172.93.177.132 (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi IP editor, the current image came from Flickr, here, and it doesn't identify the person as Jessica Yaniv there. I'm PINGing the editor - - who added the image a few days ago.  Seagull123  Φ  17:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A news publication identified that person at that rally as Yaniv. I can't recall what publication it was. If that was in error then please remove the image. CatCafe (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't be 100% sure, but it's unlikely that the person in the image is Yaniv. You can compare against images from the first 3 citations on the article . I removed the image for the time being, but I don't know if there is an appropriate replacement. TimSmit (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done – robertsky (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

New lawsuit
In the Aldergrove Star: *Health privacy breach claimed by controversial Langley woman - Jessica Simpson is suing Fraser Health over an alleged breach in her health info* CatCafe (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

'the first'
comment this line "It was the first major case of transgender discrimination in retail in Canada" is misleading: wasn't the result of the tribunal that there had been no discrimination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.6.213 (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes that's a good point, but it is directly from the linked source, telegraph.co.uk . Unless anyone has any other ideas, I proposed it is changed to "alleged transgender discrimination in retail". CatCafe (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"Male waxing" wikilink
Per the, as the proponent of a disputed change, you should have taken it to the talk page rather than reverting again to your preferred version. For context, these are the diffs I am referring to: Note: this box only shows edits prior to the posting of this message. See the article's revision history for the full context.

I don't understand why "male" keeps being inserted, either in explicit reference to a trans BLP subject's genitals or in this wikilink. Specifically, it is misleading to say that she was refused "male waxing" services. It implies that the parlors offered the services she was requesting and refused to provide them to her on the basis of her gender identity, which, according to the court finding, is not the case. Sources vary in description of the services requested/denied, but none of them use the term "male waxing". Sr ey Sr os talk 22:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not cast on other editors, as you did in . Additionally, your comment is misdirected. I reverted your edit, not .  Sr ey Sr os talk 22:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @, regarding : This time you got the right person at least, but you are still casting . Please remember to and refrain from making .  Sr ey Sr os talk 23:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See also the globalnews.ca source, currently source 5 in the article, which notes that she was additionally refused arm and leg waxing by the salons. Sr ey Sr os talk 01:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I say we follow MOS:ID and MOS:GENDERID. We should avoid describing Yaniv, or any of her body parts, using incorrect gender terms. Our policies are clear that we shouldn't necessarily follow what reliable sources are saying when it comes to transgender people and should use paraphrasing or eliding in quotes to avoid misgendering. Since genital waxing is a major part of Yaniv's notability, we should bring it up in the lead. I would prefer we use genital waxing to describe the procedure; I trust our readers to understand how the term, in close juxtaposition with transgender, could generate a controversial situation. If other editors want to be more clear about it, there is no reason we couldn't use scrotum and penis, since Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. I would object to linking male waxing solely on the basis that Wikipedia should avoid misgendering. There's also little a reader needs from that page in order to understand this one. Linking to just waxing could explain the term to unfamiliar readers, who do not additional details on which oils to use or unsourced explanations of the benefits. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

She is "best known" for her genitalia in this context and this sentence. If you want to bang on about her legs and arms them it's for the body. She talks about her 'male genitalia' in interviews and is open about this, so she has no problem mentioning this, but you seem to be offended on her behalf SreySros. CatCafe (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from casting aspersions or making personal attacks. "Male genitalia" is a euphemism at best and an offensive canard at worst, and it is particularly improper for Wikipedia to assign a gender to a trans subject's genitals. I don't think it's accurate to say that she is "best known" for her genitalia in this context and this sentence. She is best known for the lawsuits she's filed and the ensuing controversy. As for how we should introduce this in the lead, it is not accurate to say (as you have in several of your reverts) that she was denied scrotum waxing services or male waxing services. There are two issues with those wordings.
 * The salons in question did not offer "male waxing" services, that's the entire point of the lawsuit. Given that the issue at hand here is a mismatch between services offered and services requested, unless we want to spell it out explicitly (which we certainly don't want to do in the of the article) it seems like the best option to simply say that she was denied waxing services.
 * Additionally, while much of the media hype was focused on the pubic hair waxing aspect of the case, it is important to note that the salons refused to provide any waxing services to her. The version that I suggest here (and the version that has been stable for many months in the article) encompasses this neatly.
 * I appreciate that you've chosen to engage here rather than continuing to revert on the article, and I hope we can reach a consensus here. Sr ey Sr os talk 05:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering you just accused me of ”casting aspersions or making personal attacks" when I did no such thing, then they will be no reasoning with you. Please refrain from engaging with me again just to be provocative. Bye. CatCafe (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to be going anywhere productive. Let's get some other eyes on this. I'm pinging the ten most recent authors of non-minor edits to the article: I apologize for the notification. If you have any thoughts, I would appreciate your input on this wording dispute.  Sr ey Sr os talk 05:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * On a purely factual basis, Yaniv did not bring the lawsuit purely because she was refused genital waxing services. Per the decision here, the complaint concerned refusal to provide genital/arm/leg waxing services (albeit the genital waxing has clearly had more focus in the media). So the current wording of the lede is inaccurate. How about changing "after they refused to wax her male genitalia" to "after they variously refused to wax her scrotum, arms, and legs"? I don't think "scrotum" is a loaded term. McPhail (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It goes against WP:ASTONISH to describe a woman as having "male genitalia", so we shouldn't be saying anything of the sort here, regardless of how the subject describes herself. Is it clear what specific waxing Yaniv wanted? If so, describe it (not in graphic detail, but "waxing of the [body part A] and [body part B]" or whatever. (It might make sense to do this only in the body, not the lead.) If not, just "waxing" or "genital waxing" (ungendered) is correct. — Bilorv ( talk ) 07:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't normally want to get involved in this discussion, but I have been asked above for my opinion, so briefly here it is. I think the current version is fine, as it is easily understood by readers, and is clearly backed by the headlines of 3 reliable sources summarizing the tribunal conclusions. Earlier less explicit versions make it much harder for the reader to understand what the dispute is about, and make it much more likely that they will form a misleading impression of the nature of the dispute. Incidentally, I don't think the average reader will be astonished or confused by 'her male genitalia' in the context of an untransitioned transgender woman - otherwise we would have to shut down the entire encyclopedia on the basis that some readers might be astonished by learning of possibilities that had not previously occurred to them. On the other hand the average reader may well be confused as to why waxing services were being refused if we omit those reliably sourced words (an omission which would seem, at least to me, to be contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED). The only way to reduce the mild astonishment of a few such readers without censoring the information to which readers are entitled would seem to be to replace 'her' by 'his', which would understandably be deemed astonishingly offensive by many other readers and editors, and might also cause the sort of dispute that leads to considerable unnecessary damage to Wikipedia's ability to retain editors. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I've been pinged for my opinion so here goes - from what I gathered from the sources reporting on this topic, the locus of the dispute between the applicant and the respondents was on the refusal of these salons to provide waxing services based on the applicant's genitalia (alongside other apparently improper, racism motivated reasons). The wording of "refused waxing" without specifying why these salons declined to do so is IMO confusing - the reader would have to implicitly determine, via the provided information of the applicant's gender identity, that this was the reason the salons declined to provide the services. Consequently, the nature of the applicant's genitalia should be explicitly stated. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 00:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a way to avoid WP:ASTONISH completely, but wording like "waxing of the..." would help to reduce the awkwardness. On a side note, highly reliably medical sources do in fact refer to these parts as "male" even on trans women: Crossroads -talk- 05:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And unsurprisingly so, but we're writing for the layperson. The more people comment, the more I am convinced "waxing of the [specific body parts]" is the only solution here, if sources go into that detail. It looks like they do from a cursory reading—we could say "pubic hair", "scrotum", "penis". (Not a waxing expert so someone might be able to put that information in a natural English sentence better than I can.) I think we could also present this a bit earlier in the body section, and more clearly: "Five involved genital waxing, while two involved waxing arm or leg hair." Otherwise, I agree that every solution has some level of ASTONISH. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that Yaniv sought waxing of her scrotum is at the heart of the case. To omit that detail would be detrimental to the reader. The phrase "male genitalia" seems to be in wide use in mainstream RS accounts of the case, which I think is pretty strong prima facie evidence for it being a neutral descriptor in this context. But I think a more specific description as suggested by Bilorv would be okay too, provided there's a basis in RS. However, I do think a piped link to Male waxing is just a hair out of line of NPOV. I would just link to Bikini waxing instead, which provides some broader context (the second sentence of that article notes that "the practice is mainly associated with women", and it includes a link to the male waxing article). Colin M (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For that reason, "bikini waxing" seems highly misleading. Linking to male waxing is NPOV if that is what the sources say; going against them is POV. Crossroads -talk- 02:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Which reason are you referring to? As for what the sources say, it seems like they use the terms "bikini wax" or "Brazilian" much more frequently than they use the phrase "male waxing". In fact I can only find one source using the latter phrase, and it's paraphrasing the argument of the respondents' lawyer (and is therefore not necessarily intended as a neutral description of the situation). Colin M (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Like Colin M said: "The fact that Yaniv sought waxing of her scrotum is at the heart of the case. To omit that detail would be detrimental to the reader. The phrase "male genitalia" seems to be in wide use in mainstream RS accounts of the case, which I think is pretty strong prima facie evidence for it being a neutral descriptor in this context."

To not include "male genetalia" would simply be deceiving the reader. Wisefroggy (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This is the lede being discussed here. Every source mentioning this topic refer to her demanding male genital waxing of 'male parts'/'male genetilia' where these salons provided no such thing. The sentence states this is what she is "best known" for, and as such is accurate as is. Any other part of her body requested is secondary to what she is best known for, and just needs to be included in the body, not lede. CatCafe (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Referring to "waxing" (just like that), or using terms that refer to the genitalia without referring to the word "male" (since genitalia doesn't necessary correspond with gender) can serve as a good means to say that Yaniv was rejected on said basis, remaining accurate without breaching WP:ASTONISH or being otherwise transphobic. For example, "scrotum waxing" is okay, "male waxing" is not okay. Casspedia ( talk )  11:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * u|Casspedia, Please don't slur by calling the other editors transphobic. You don't have consensus here on talk for your desired changes, please refrain. CatCafe (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The comment above doesn't call anyone transphobic. It says a hypothetical action could be transphobic. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, point taken. CatCafe (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggesting an alternative solution here: "wax" as wikilink to bikini waxing, "male genitalia" to Transsexual (to discuss about Yaniv being either pre-operative or non-operative). Linking to "male waxing" would break WP:ASTONISH, so I would refrain from that especially. Casspedia  ( talk )  22:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, unrelated note: I am frankly very insulted at how you called me a "newbie" in your talk page revert edit summary, since I attempted to weigh in for the first time on this specific article. This type of behavior is the exact type that drives Wikipedians outside of Wikipedia. Casspedia  ( talk )  22:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You putting an editwar warning on my talk-page when I am currently in discussions here on this talkpage, then you making pre-emptive edits to the WP page in question without yet gaining consensus, is unhelpful and provocative, and in itself may lead to you creating such an edit war. Please refrain from this. And TBH, you have only had a registered WP account for less that 2 months, such is an observation. CatCafe (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have noticed the userbox on my user page saying that this account is a clean start, you'll understand why. Casspedia  ( talk )  22:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Reading the various replies above, might there be a consensus for "... to wax her scrotum" as an alternative to "... to wax her male genitalia"? The wikilink is currently to scrotum waxing, the issue of what was to be waxed is germane, but some editors object to the use of "male genitalia" when referring to a trans woman. &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 22:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but waxing of the scrotum would be better per WP:ASTONISH and the advice to reword such constructions at MOS:GENDERID. Crossroads -talk- 22:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support either "wax her scrotum" or "waxing of the scrotum", although my preference is still a link to waxing instead of male waxing (to which scrotum waxing redirects). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The redirecting wikilink scrotum waxing is fine. It makes no sense to purposely link the wrong article. Reliable medical review articles (e.g. ) use the term "male" to refer to such genitalia anyway. And "male" wouldn't even be in the wikicode. Crossroads -talk- 22:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see a few potential options here. I was also wondering, would simply linking to "scrotum" (as an article) and "waxing" (as an article) seperately be acceptable? A reader could derive from this what "scrotum waxing" means, without breaking GENDERID or ASTONISH. Going with ' take on it, "...waxing of the scrotum". Wikilinks could be per my suggestion as above (scrotum + waxing), or a single link (waxing). The same could be applied for ' wording, "wax her scrotum" (with both keywords linked appropriately). Linking to "male" is both (potentially) transphobic and (definitely) shocking, and as such should be avoided unless the wording on this article reflects that and has previously established that in a way that does not run afoul of GENDERID and accurately represents Yaniv as a woman (with "trans" second to "woman"). Casspedia  ( talk )  22:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe better to include "her" at some point, because she was requesting waxing for herself, not suing on behalf of others. I don't have strong views on this either way. MOS:GENDERID doesn't say anything against the use of e.g. "her scrotum" that I can see. It says primarily not to overemphasise a subject's changes in gender presentation. Since there's been a lot of discussion, might it be best to open an RfC or some less formal kind of !vote? Or is it better to let the conversation run and see if a clear consensus emerges anyway in the fulness of time? &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 22:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Mortee, the use of "her" is already referred to in the sentence. But an RfC or vote as you suggest may be in order. CatCafe (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt a consensus would emerge soon; it's often the case for many articles relating to transgender people, unfortunately. Maybe a vote primarily concerning whether a link should be pointing towards male waxing, waxing, Brazilian waxing, or something else? Casspedia  ( talk )  22:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As the phrase in question refers to 'male waxing' or 'scrotum waxing' or 'male parts' (as Yaniv refers to), then I find it inaccurate for WP to then w-link to waxing vaginas or general waxing of the body? If the phrase refers to scrotum waxing, then it should link to scrotum waxing, and if it refers to male waxing, then it should link to male waxing. It's not rocket science. And the sentence refers to what she is "best known for" and if we use the sources - that is her taking salons to court for not waxing her scrotum or 'male parts' when they offered no such service. CatCafe (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

, re your earlier reply, the only "her" I see is in the link, which is in question. I'll open an RfC. My first time doing so, so I hope this isn't unhelpful. &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 23:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Harassment Section Should be Renamed
None of the instances listed under "Alleged Online Harassment - Against Yaniv" reasonably meet the standard for harassment under Canadian law, specifically "[Action which] causes that other person reasonably [...] to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them." Both Shepherd and Murphy are purported to have made posts which *insult*, not threaten, Yaniv. I propose that this sub-section be removed entirely.

On a related note - "Alleged Online Harassment *by* Yaniv" - Yaniv's years-long unwanted sexual contact with this young lady (starting when she was 12). This sounds closer to Luring than online harassment and we may be burying the lede by referring to it as such. This subsection should probably be named something closer to 'Allegations of criminal sexual luring of children'. I'll leave this to someone with more BLP experience. InverseZebra (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The "Alleged Online Harassment - Against Yaniv" section is still noteworthy as it's about how Twitter was so intolerant of insults against Yaniv, and cancelled those people. A title change may instead be in order. CatCafe (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Good idea. We could expand it to include the then-active publication-ban and other issues. InverseZebra (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not say that, or suggest expanding or removing the section. If you can come up an agreeable and better title then propose it. CatCafe (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you suggested renaming it instead of removing it, which would allow a broader name to be chosen and thus the section could be expanded. How does "Online disputes over pronouns and censorship" sound? That way it's more than just snippets of arguments. InverseZebra (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Harassment isn't just a term of criminal law. I am not aware of any policies or guidelines that recommend against the use of common language terms that also have separate legal definitions. If someone does know of some, I'd be glad to learn about them. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to renaming the "Against Yaniv" section if there's a similarly descriptive option. I would oppose "Allegations of criminal sexual luring of children" as that's unsupported by our sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Most lay-definitions of harassment include 'repeated' or a synonym. An insult from someone you're fighting with generally isn't considered harassment unless they keep going after you stop. I had used the legal definition because I thought Yaniv had sued over that issue, but now I can't find the reference. This is why I now like 's idea of renaming it. As for the sexual exploitation, there are newspaper articles that support the Morgane Oger blog post, such as Yaniv Predatory Behaviour. That part seems clear and deeply supported, what's not obvious is how to make it encyclopedic and BLP compliant. InverseZebra (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Should 'male' remain during discussion?
To me, it seems pretty clear that dictates that the "male" descriptor, which now has been objected to by multiple editors on BLP /  grounds, should not remain in place during discussion. It seems to neatly fit the criteria of the policy (emphasis mine):

However, my edit attempting to implement this policy was reverted by. I'd love to get others' input here. Is there something I'm missing? Sr ey Sr os talk 04:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just follow proper procedure, and wait until the RFC above is resolved rather than editing the content under discussion, and not as yet resolved. You're nitpicking again. CatCafe (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * CatCafe seems to be the only user here pushing for the word "male", so as such I will preliminary remove it per consensus. The consensus here seems fairly straightforward. Casspedia  ( talk )  13:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not true.Wisefroggy (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No. unlike you u|Casspedia I follow proper procedure and await the outcome of the RFC above. Also what was your previous WP username you claim to have used? CatCafe (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm unfamiliar with any notion of proper procedure which suspends BLP policy during talk page discussion. Additionally, please refrain from casting on other editors, as you did with your previous WP username you claim to have used aside.  Sr ey Sr os talk 21:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would argue the same thing. I sense that this is yet another one of those situations where "the person attempting to revert POV pushing gets accused of POVing"... wikibureaucracy never dies. For real though, BLP and living persons' right to privacy supersedes consensus. Casspedia  ( talk )  22:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean 'right to privacy'? Do you know anything about the Yaniv case where she openly talks to the media, and reveals to the tribunal, about her 'male genetalia'. CatCafe (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As you know I am not offended by "male genetalia" (nor female) whereas others are and are WP:POV pushing. As has been explained to you, and you refuse to accept, MOS:GENDERID does not forbid the use of the term "male waxing", let alone linking to scrotum waxing as a redirect. "Male genitalia" is simply a biomedical classification of genitalia and does not comment on the gender of the person as a whole. WP:OR and WP:V are also operative here. But you cannot accept that and revert to misinterpretations of misgendering. CatCafe (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am attempting to write in a perspective that says that genitalia does not infer gender; "scrotum" only indirectly refers to the genitalia of a given person, and "male" directly infers a male gender and makes most readers presume it as such. Saying that a pre-op trans woman has "a penis" is infinitely more respectful than saying that this same trans woman has "male genitalia", since it invalidates their gender. If you find yourself accusing others of POV pushing when no one else does the same, than you may want to consider whether you have the minority opinion or no. Casspedia  ( talk )  23:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your misinterpretation of policy has been explained to you, and you refuse to accept. I find your views on Yanivs self publicised 'male genitalia' and/or 'male parts' to be narrow, binary and not embracing of the broad spectrum of gender fluidity. If a woman wants to flaunt it and call her genitalia "male" (as Yaniv proudly does) then who are you to impose your rigid narrow view of gender-spectrum upon her? CatCafe (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Casspedia said: "Saying that a pre-op trans woman has "a penis" is infinitely more respectful than saying that this same trans woman has "male genitalia", since it invalidates their gender."   This is opinion, and, in my opinion, is nonsense.   Casspedia's opinion is not reason to override fact.  "Male genitalia" is factual, clear, concise, and is what the sources use.   Removing the phrase does a disservice to the reader.  The phrase absolutely should remain. Wisefroggy (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with SreySros that "male" should be kept out pending the results of the RFC, but for different reasons. I am not confident that objections to "male" have been made on BLP grounds. Obviously, this is a BLP article, but the edits involved are not poorly sourced. It's a question of style (an important one!) not content. However, just based on WP:ONUS, disputed content should stay out until those who propose its inclusion build consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Seriously what is wrong with just saying her genitals. This is getting ridiculous. Saying her genitals would be more neutral and Wikipedia has a policy saying we should respect trans people’s identities. Read MOS:GENDERID. It literally states use preferred gender language. CycoMa (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's exactly what is wrong with it: saying "her genitalia" explains nothing to the reader;  saying "her male genitalia" explains almost everything.   "Male genitalia"  is both factual (don't you care about being factual, CycoMa??) and is what the sources say.   To say anything else is a disservice to the reader.Wisefroggy (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There's no BLP issue here, this doesn't violate MOS:GENDERID – that's not what is in dispute in the RfC above. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * being factual doesn’t mean I should go against Wikipedia’s rules by saying things that offend trans people.CycoMa (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hogwash. Factuality is the entire reason for the existence of wikipedia.  And your statement "things that offend trans people":  you conducted a survey of trans people, did you?  Wisefroggy (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Biographical articles about certain trans people isn’t about truth, it’s about who the individual is what information should we keep private.
 * If you want truth go to biology articles.CycoMa (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * said "If you want truth go to biology articles".  CycoMa, it is shocking that you said that.  If you truly feel that way, you need to think long/hard about ceasing to be a wikipedia editor.Wisefroggy (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yaniv is primarily notable due to a discrimination case she initiated on behalf of her scrotum. To avoid the central theme of her notoriety is to avoid the facts. CatCafe (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wisefroggy, CycoMa, I wanted to jump in regarding the notion of truth in Wikipedia, and particularly Froggy's comment think long/hard about ceasing to be a wikipedia editor. This is a common error, especially for new editors. To explain Wikipedia policies in a nutshell, they require Wikipedia to be an accurate summary of what Reliable Sources say . Arguing Truth on the internet is a foolish, endless, disruptive timesink. On Wikipedia we do not debate truth. We do not decide truth. Our articles do not contain truth. We block editors who persistently attempt to insert truth into articles, or who persistently try to argue truth on talk pages. If science sources all say the moon is made of cheese, our article on the moon is required to accurately summarize those sources. The same goes for vaccines, UFOs, the moon landing, demons, evolution, astrology, global warming, religion, quantum mechanics, homeopathy, relativity, or anything else. "Truth" is not a valid argument here, truth arguments carry zero weight. We accurately summarize what Reliable Sources say. If anyone tries to argue the sources are all wrong or biased or part of some conspiracy, they are admitting the argument is over and that they lost. They are admitting the sources are against them, and Wikipedia policy requires that we accurately summarize those sources.
 * I am tempted to write a longer and perhaps more clear comment, but this is rather offtopic here. The debate on this article isn't a truth war. Alsee (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * A more accurate description of that is that we aren’t a place of truth with a capital T. We are a place where we present views from scholars from many walks of life. If a majority of scholars say A=A we say A=A. We aren’t a place to say whether or not something is true or not.
 * Sure there may be some cases, like I have seen people cite sociologists in articles for biology. Or I have seen sources where a 1 scholar says C=D while 60 scholars said C=B.
 * Just keep that in mind when editing, respect Wikipedia’s policies.CycoMa (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted this back to what it was in April before this dispute arose, with the non-specific description. It can be changed once consensus is reached about what exactly it should say. Everyone needs to stop edit warring (because that is what is happening) on the article in the meantime. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For clarity, after being refused waxing services was what the text read before the 1st of May: Special:Diff/1020908890, with the RfC occurring about a week later. I'd say that version is probably the WP:STATUSQUO (I guess you could argue a different consensus was established in the few days after, but given it was almost immediately contested I would disagree). Regarding BLP issues, what is and isn't a BLP issue is not a trivially obvious matter, but regardless, whether or not "male genitalia" was unsourced (or poorly sourced) was never really up for dispute here, so removing it for WP:BLPREMOVE reasons doesn't really make sense. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Kiwi Farms drawing
recently found, uploaded to Commons(diff), and inserted this image into the article's infobox. Including this image would violate practically every relevant WP policy and guideline, and I am shocked that anyone would think inserting this image was appropriate.


 * 1. The image is an illustration of the subject, seemingly created and posted(Internet Archive) by a user on the webforum Kiwi Farms (see ) on a hate thread(Internet Archive, thread context) about the subject. The thread that CatCafe downloaded the image from and linked to as CC attribution is titled JY British Columbia - Racist pedo tranny; vexatious litigant from British Columbia; protected by big tech; #waxmyballs. If that doesn't provide enough of a glimpse into the artist's intent here, see the Internet Archive links above for more context.


 * 2. Although CatCafe did remove Yaniv's deadname from the image, putting a trans BLP subject's chosen name in scare-quotes is completely unacceptable, on, , and grounds.


 * 3. Even aside from all the issues of NPOV, BLP, and basic human decency that the previous points raise, we almost never use sketches of living people (see the recent Elliot Page RfC which discussed this).

I am horrified that this image was inserted into a BLP page and that it remained live for nearly an hour, to the point where I am concerned that CatCafe's account has perhaps been compromised.

Sr ey Sr os talk 15:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Jesus, what a horrendous image. I'm not sure if there's much to discuss on this talk page (other than that the image obviously shouldn't go here), perhaps opening an WP:ANI thread about would be appropriate? &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In terms of this page, I’d consider this discussion closed; the sketch is a bad idea period and I’m adding my voice to consensus against it. For conduct issues, I encourage interested editors to continue discussion at CatCafe’s talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree the image is bad, though regarding point 3 I'll note that they may not have known about that RfC or that sketches for BLPs are typically rejected. Regarding point 2, CatCafe has since corrected the file to not have the quotes, but I agree that it is still a bad picture. Crossroads -talk- 21:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note. This is completely unacceptable. I have added the image to the bad images list and blocked CatCafe indefinitely from this page. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: interested users should see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:J Yaniv.png if they have an opinion on whether or not the image is suitable for Wikimedia Commons to host. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * When "stunningly poor judgment" is the most charitable explanation, there is certainly an issue. I very much agree with Black Kite's response. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Whilst it's obvious that the subject of this article has garnered considerable negative publicity, that doesn't mean we should be willing to simply insert everything that their detractors have created. In that light, the choice of this image demonstrates questionable judgement, and is frankly, unnecessarily inflammatory. I agree also with Black Kite's response, and would like to also propose reminding CatCafe (and indeed all potential contributors), that a certain degree of discretion may be helpful when choosing what sources to add, especially on BLPs, and that especially when sources are overwhelmingly unflattering about a BLP, we must be careful on what is DUE and what is UNDUE. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 18:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021
change

is a Canadian transgender activist in British Columbia

to

is a Canadian transwoman in British Columbia

Gabbriellle (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: 'Transgender activist' is more descriptive.  Mel ma nn   23:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)