Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:I see no supposed undue weight "to gender crits" with regard to . Gwenhope to this article in a derogatory fashion that shows severe misunderstanding. What we are not going to do is pretend that ] do not cover the , including some trans women (for example, ]) suggesting that cisgender lesbians are transphobic if they do not find transgender women sexually attractive/do not want to date or have sex with transgender women. You know, the suggestion that they have a "genital preference" or that "" As ] and I ] at ] last year, this is not ]. And your "weight of the sources" search link doesn't support "undue weight" on this specific topic. You and I have . As discussed there (and like I mentioned above), it is the case that the vast majority of cisgender people (lesbians included) have declined dating transgender people (especially transgender women). The study I pointed to above has somewhat attributed this to discrimination/transphobia, but some sources disagree because of what the ] entails (being sexually attracted to ]s and not a ], which is not a visible entity). What we are not going to do is act as though arguments from transgender authors are more valid than arguments from concerned cisgender lesbians (whether presented by those cisgender lesbians or men or trans women who disagree with the "you should be sexually attracted to me or you are bigoted" line of thinking). This goes beyond radical feminism. The section in question has one paragraph dedicated to one viewpoint, with criticism mixed in. The second paragraph addresses the very real matter of some transgender women calling cisgender women transphobic for not recognizing them as potential sexual partners and that enough trans women object to this shaming of sexuality. It also includes a Claire Heuchan statement. The third paragraph notes that some LGBT activists do not agree with the term ''lesbian erasure'' being used in regard to trans women and includes a quote from Carrie Lyell challenging the argument that trans women are pressuring lesbians to accept them as sexual partners. It's all WP:Due. And I see no need for the content to be significantly expanded. This does not need to become another ] or ] article, and should not. I will also note that cisgender lesbians speaking on being shamed for their sexuality is not the same thing as being pressured to have sex, although the topics are intertwined. ] (]) 22:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
:I see no supposed undue weight "to gender crits" with regard to . Gwenhope to this article in a derogatory fashion that shows severe misunderstanding. What we are not going to do is pretend that ] do not cover the , including some trans women (for example, ]) suggesting that cisgender lesbians are transphobic if they do not find transgender women sexually attractive/do not want to date or have sex with transgender women. You know, the suggestion that they have a "genital preference" or that "" As ] and I ] at ] last year, this is not ]. And your "weight of the sources" search link doesn't support "undue weight" on this specific topic. You and I have . As discussed there (and like I mentioned above), it is the case that the vast majority of cisgender people (lesbians included) have declined dating transgender people (especially transgender women). The study I pointed to above has somewhat attributed this to discrimination/transphobia, but some sources disagree because of what the ] entails (being sexually attracted to ]s and not a ], which is not a visible entity). What we are not going to do is act as though arguments from transgender authors are more valid than arguments from concerned cisgender lesbians (whether presented by those cisgender lesbians or men or trans women who disagree with the "you should be sexually attracted to me or you are bigoted" line of thinking). This goes beyond radical feminism. The section in question has one paragraph dedicated to one viewpoint, with criticism mixed in. The second paragraph addresses the very real matter of some transgender women calling cisgender women transphobic for not recognizing them as potential sexual partners and that enough trans women object to this shaming of sexuality. It also includes a Claire Heuchan statement. The third paragraph notes that some LGBT activists do not agree with the term ''lesbian erasure'' being used in regard to trans women and includes a quote from Carrie Lyell challenging the argument that trans women are pressuring lesbians to accept them as sexual partners. It's all WP:Due. And I see no need for the content to be significantly expanded. This does not need to become another ] or ] article, and should not. I will also note that cisgender lesbians speaking on being shamed for their sexuality is not the same thing as being pressured to have sex, although the topics are intertwined. ] (]) 22:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
::{{tq|And? Others have noted that people there have linked to the atrocious ] and ] articles as well.}}
::{{tq|And? Others have noted that people there have linked to the atrocious ] and ] articles as well.}}
::Just making people aware of canvassing. Incidentally, your view that those two articles are "atrocious" seems to be shared by many on that subreddit.
::So you share r/GenderCritical's general views on these articles, is what you're saying?
::In any case, you've repeated the extreme position that trans women "erase" cis women multiple times , so it's not surprising that you can't see the article's current problems. ] (]) 23:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
::In any case, you've repeated the extreme position that trans women "erase" cis women multiple times , so it's not surprising that you can't see the article's current problems. ] (]) 23:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Revision as of 23:51, 7 November 2019
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, ].Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride
A fact from Lesbian erasure appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 July 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that some LGBTQ activists have opposed the use of the term "lesbian erasure", because it has sometimes been used in opposition to transgender rights?
The term "Lesbian erasure" is being used increasingly, and a redirect was needed pending possible creation of an article. After searching around and not finding any really good article or section candidates for it, I created it as a section link to Compulsory heterosexuality#Lesbian erasure. This target is not ideal, as this article is about a specific essay by Adrienne Rich that touches on lesbian erasure, but isn't a general treatment of it.
Yes, I'm hoping it will get its own article. As to your "Debates" suggestion, that would likely be a very long article with a very acrimonious Talk page, of which the size and fury of the talk page history at Feminist views on transgender topics would barely hold a candle. If you neverthless are not afraid to wage the Battle of the That is, L, G, B, T, Q, I, and A., go for it! Mathglot (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, the Queer erasure article should be expanded first. And per what I stated at Talk:Queer erasure, any expansion should be without WP:Synthesis. If the lesbian material starts to take up most of the Queer erasure article, it can be split off into its own article. One might also consider including lesbian erasure material in the Lesbophobia article, just like bisexual erasure material is included in the Biphobia article. As for not wanting to open a can of worms, a Lesbian erasure article will be doing that anyway per the "feminist views on transgender topics" aspect. And I do mean the topic of trans women. I don't think we need a "Debates in the LGBT community" article when issues/debates within the LGBT community are covered within their respective articles, such as Biphobia, Homophobia and Transphobia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Since this article was created by StudiesWorld, I tweaked it here and here. Yes, the lead should summarize the article, but the primary focus of the lead and overall article should not be on transgender women. Keep WP:Recentism in mind. Furthermore, with as small as this article currently is, the single lead sentence that it currently has can be considered adequate for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment: there's probably some info to be found on the topic of 'early' gay rights organizations under-focusing (or worse) on lesbians. One would have to see if any scholars have discussed it in terms of this phrase, of course, to avoid snyth an' all that. -sche (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
-sche, For this, I think that The Disappearing L might help, but I haven't yet gotten a chance to read it and I'm not sure when, if ever, I will. StudiesWorld (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I read it a year ago. You can see some of its content on Google Books. Also see this 2016 "Dyke Culture and the Disappearing L" Slate source by the same author. It's an adaptation of the book. And, yes, she does address trans women in the book, which you can see in the link I provided. I wasn't surprised by anything in the book. For example, tensions between lesbian women and bisexual or trans women (including those who additionally identify or only identify as queer). Many lesbians don't or won't date/have sex with bisexual women; there are a variety of reasons for this. And a recent study investigated most cisgender people declining to date/have with sex trans people, with trans women getting most of the "not interested" responses. Here on this talk page, I linked to them.us since they go over the research for laypeople. With regard to lesbians, the tensions go beyond dating. The erasure aspect obviously concerns different things, and it's not a minority of lesbians who feel this way. So the article needs work in this regard. But the article should take care not to heavily rely on material from that author or any other author. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I have added Lesbian erasure to the "See also" sections of all the articles listed by Mathglot above. It would be preferable to integrate each into the prose of the articles, but lacking time and sources for that, I have at least made the article visible to the casual reader. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The sentence Several feminist lesbian activists have lamented the rapidly increasing disappearance of many physical spaces, such as lesbian bars, women's bookstores, and music festivals that were alternative lesbian spaces in which the lesbian subculture thrived. does not currently do a good job of connecting itself to the topic of erasure, as mere disappearance of a bar, e.g. because lesbians stop going to it, is not erasure. The placement of the sentence in the " in the LGBT community" section implies that the bars etc have been erased by(?) the LGBT community, but the sentence does not currently substantiate that. For comparison, the preceding section at least tries to make an argument that the collapse of certain sites was due to "erasure" of them by advertisers. Do we have RS with which to expand this sentence enough to connect it to the topic of erasure, for example by saying something like The disappearance of these spaces has been attributed by to pressure from .? If not, the sentence seems better suited to an article like History of lesbianism... -sche (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Weight
I agree with Gwenhope that there are some WP:NPOV problems here. My impression is that the section on trans women, in particular, gives WP:UNDUE weight to gender crits, and doesn't reflect the overall weight of the sources. (Relatedly, it's worth noting that this article was linked on the transphobic subreddit r/GenderCritical a little while back.) WanderingWanda (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I see no supposed undue weight "to gender crits" with regard to the section in question. Gwenhope was alerted to this article in a derogatory fashion that shows severe misunderstanding. What we are not going to do is pretend that WP:Reliable sources do not cover the very real tension between cisgender lesbians and transgender women, including some trans women (for example, Rachel McKinnon) suggesting that cisgender lesbians are transphobic if they do not find transgender women sexually attractive/do not want to date or have sex with transgender women. You know, the suggestion that they have a "genital preference" or that "genital preferences are transphobic." As Aircorn and I made clear at Talk:Transphobia last year, this is not fake news. And your "weight of the sources" search link doesn't support "undue weight" on this specific topic. You and I have "discussed" similarly with regard to cisgender gay men and transgender men. As discussed there (and like I mentioned above), it is the case that the vast majority of cisgender people (lesbians included) have declined dating transgender people (especially transgender women). The study I pointed to above has somewhat attributed this to discrimination/transphobia, but some sources disagree because of what the biology of sexual orientation entails (being sexually attracted to secondary sex characteristics and not a gender identity, which is not a visible entity). What we are not going to do is act as though arguments from transgender authors are more valid than arguments from concerned cisgender lesbians (whether presented by those cisgender lesbians or men or trans women who disagree with the "you should be sexually attracted to me or you are bigoted" line of thinking). This goes beyond radical feminism. The section in question has one paragraph dedicated to one viewpoint, with criticism mixed in. The second paragraph addresses the very real matter of some transgender women calling cisgender women transphobic for not recognizing them as potential sexual partners and that enough trans women object to this shaming of sexuality. It also includes a Claire Heuchan statement. The third paragraph notes that some LGBT activists do not agree with the term lesbian erasure being used in regard to trans women and includes a quote from Carrie Lyell challenging the argument that trans women are pressuring lesbians to accept them as sexual partners. It's all WP:Due. And I see no need for the content to be significantly expanded. This does not need to become another Feminist views on transgender topics or TERF article, and should not. I will also note that cisgender lesbians speaking on being shamed for their sexuality is not the same thing as being pressured to have sex, although the topics are intertwined. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Just making people aware of canvassing. Incidentally, your view that those two articles are "atrocious" seems to be shared by many on that subreddit.
In any case, you've repeated the extreme position that trans women "erase" cis women multiple times , so it's not surprising that you can't see the article's current problems. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
