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.
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pyxis Solitary (talk | contribs) at 02:13, 1 August 2020 (Restored 1 discussion. Talk page should not be blanked.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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 Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
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, 2019.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?
I restored all of this. And this is why: A bit of material was removed as WP:Undue or as though it's not on-topic when it is. The material is on-topic and falls under the definition of lesbian erasure, depending on how it is being defined by sources. I have interpreted WP:Synthesis very strictly in the past, but I've also considered the other side of that debate. WP:Synthesis has been debated times before as not meaning that things that obviously fall under the definition of a topic should be excluded because the exact phrasing is not mentioned in the source. Matters like these are a case-by-case thing. In the case of homosexuality, for example, we don't exclude material that is clearly about homosexuality from the Homosexuality article because the source doesn't use the term homosexuality or homosexual. If the material is about same-sex attraction, it may or may not be included depending on how WP:Due it is.
The "not sexually attracted to trans women means you're transphobic" aspect is a part of the topic of lesbian erasure, as noted in sources. The "Abigail Curlew" piece is speaking on the "not sexually attracted to trans women means you're transphobic" aspect and is providing her take on it from a transgender perspective.
Regarding this edit? The "In relation to butch lesbians and transgender men" text is not just about trans men; it is also about butch lesbians. So if anything, the title should be "Butch lesbians and transgender men." Also, "In relation to" perhaps sounds less POV than just titling the sections "Trans men" and "Trans women."
Regarding this? No, the "A number of lesbians note that they were tomboys or experienced gender dysphoria as a child. Some younger lesbians report having felt conflicted about whether to transition or that they felt pressured to transition and later detransitioned." piece is not WP:Undue. It is directly relevant to that paragraph and corresponds to the argument against destransitioners being proof of anything in the Katie Herzog paragraph. We aren't going to include Herzog's argument without including this aspect. Many lesbians point to the fact that they felt that they should have been boys growing up. Relevant.
Regarding this removal of "conversion therapy" and the Miranda Yardley source? The Turner source clearly speaks on conversion therapy. And in any case, it's simple enough to find another source asserting the conversion therapy argument. Yardley is clearly speaking on an aspect that has been argued to fall under the topic of lesbian erasure. The very "Girl Dick, the Cotton Ceiling and the Cultural War on Lesbians, Girls and Women" source by Yardley was protested against by the eight lesbian publications mentioned in the trans woman section as being against the notion of lesbian erasure with regard transgender activism. The "Not in our name" letter has been reported on by The Advocate as commenting on lesbian erasure with regard to articles such as the "Girl Dick, the Cotton Ceiling and the Cultural War on Lesbians" one produced by AfterEllen. Yardley clearly states things such as "Here, in the United Kingdom, we have in Stonewall's Ruth Hunt and Diva Magazine's Linda Riley two women who are willing to compromise the integrity of what it means to be a homosexual human female, a lesbian." Furthermore, the Yardley source is used to support the related "cotton ceiling" aspect in the article. I could have easily quoted Yardley in the article, with commentary from The Advocate or a similar source about lesbian erasure, but I did not. Yardley is only used as a reference in the article.
Regarding this? Author Morgan Lev Edward Holleb's commentary is clearly related to the topic, which speaks on trans exclusionary radical feminists' thoughts with regard to lesbian erasure, including the argument of erasing biological differences. When Holleb speaks on erasure, Holleb is speaking on all of that. Holleb is speaking on trans exclusionary radical feminists, lesbian sexual attraction, and the notion that transgender people are erasing cisgender people. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Support inclusion - to get out in front of whatever may happen next, and regardless of the conflicts I have had with Flyer 22 over various issues in the past, I strongly support the inclusion of all of these topics within the article as being aspects of "lesbian erasure" and as being, by and large, DUE in terms of what the available reliable sources as a whole have to say about the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Support restoration with one exception Wow, after a weeklong talkpage war over relatively minor edits...people are back for more, in a big way. Guess it's because page protection was lifted? As to the content of the edits and reversions: I agree with *reverting* all edits made by Pyxis and Wanda today, except for the removal of the Yardley source and the "conversion therapy" phrasing. The Holleb and Curlew sources are both directly relevant and relatively high-quality. The (paraphrasing) "I was vaguely masculine back in my day, I bet I would've been forced/pressured to transition if I were a kid today!!!!" point associated with Herzog's citation is at best a weak canard used to fight against allowing young trans people to transition. But in this case, after the giant talk page war above, in this case I think it's best to choose battles and not contest its restoration. The Yardley source, however, is particularly low-quality (even among the other various transphobic authors cited in the page), and is just a noxious screed against trans lesbians with no real salient points. The claim about "conversion therapy" is objectively false: neither trans lesbians nor anyone advocating for them is practicing actual conversion therapy on cis lesbians. https://en.wikipedia.org/Conversion_therapy Arguments about how our society's institutional transphobia affects dating preferences and blanket dating exclusions of minority groups, or even the few like McKinnon who extend that to "genital preference," do not even come close to the horrors inflicted on LGBT+ youth by conversion therapists (think electroshock, drugs, lobotomy, "corrective" rape, and religious abuse used under the pretense of "therapy"). What makes this claim/comparison particularly offensive is that many trans people have had actual conversion therapy inflicted upon them, which has caused unspeakable harm. And it's just painfully ironic that some of the same people who advance this noxious argument actually support conversion therapy on trans kidshttps://www.salon.com/2019/07/28/the-heritage-foundation-has-been-promoting-discredited-and-harmful-conversion-therapy-for-years_partner/108.31.146.220 (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion, obviously, as the person who was doing the snipping. Yes, I am concerned about WP:SYNTHESIS here. If you start saying, "well this source doesn't *directly* talk about lesbian erasure, but..." where will it end? Is the article going to start talking about Ray Blanchard and brain scan studies?
I especially oppose the inclusion of this sentence, where the article suddenly shifts from relaying opinions to giving a one-sided statement in Wikivoice about the complex subject of detransition: some younger lesbians report having felt conflicted about whether to transition or that they felt pressured to transition and later detransitioned. Nowhere else is an opinion statement backed up by a Wikivoice statement-of-fact like this. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Support inclusion of all per Flyer22 Frozen and Newimpartial. Sources do not need to use the exact phrase "lesbian erasure", as long as they are about the topic. These sources are. As an example, the Curlew (Vice) source is rebutting the claim that there is an assault on the rights of lesbians and cis-women, an attack on the lesbian community, which is clearly on topic. Yes, it takes editorial discretion to determine which sources are on topic, and which are irrelevant such that their use is synthesis; but this is no different from needing editorial discretion to determine which sources are reliable or due. I see no need to remove the "conversion therapy" bit or the Yardley piece. We are reporting, not endorsing, these POVs, and it is WP:Undue not to report them. As for the phrase that WanderingWanda objects to, I don't see the issue with Wikivoice. The sources comment on it, so it is due, and some lesbians are reporting this. That they are reporting that is not contested anywhere that I can see. Note that WanderingWanda's bit about "where will it end?" is just a case of the slippery slope fallacy. I also note that their out-of-the-blue mentioning of Blanchard and of brain studies appears to be a snipe at Flyer22 Frozen and her talking about that with the IP in the previous section. However, she did say that stuff was not really related to the article anyway. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment. This is what used to be the "In the LGBT community" section that existed: on 16:43, 6 December 2019. This is what it became with the Flyer22 Reborn/Frozen edit of 02:38, 20 December 2019. This is what that former section is now. This article is not about lesbians and transgender women, and the trans material has sucked the oxygen out of the room. The overload of trans-related content dwarfs everything else about lesbian erasure. At this point, the article has become owned, and any bold editing has become "permit needed". Where this article stands now, not only will new editors with different ideas find themselves hitting an editing wall, but readers are probably wondering what this article is really about. Support or oppose ... it doesn't really matter because that bus went off the cliff long ago. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The article is supposed to reflect the discussion on lesbian erasure out there in the world. I suppose one could make the argument that the current version of the article is a bit presentist and that more 1970s and 90s material should be added for BALANCE, but I don't think anyone has cause to dispute that issues related to Trans men and Trans women are at the forefront of "lesbian erasure" discussions over the last two decades. Newimpartial (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
As seen at Talk:Lesbian erasure/Archive 1#Enough with the trans this and trans that and #What the hell?, Pyxis Solitary has been responded to before on their "too much trans material" argument. I'm not going to significantly repeat myself on that, but I will again note that I am looking at the few academic sources that address lesbian erasure and am looking to add non-trans material. I'm not going to rush myself. And because most of the sources for this topic are media sources (opinion pieces and such), editing this article isn't like when I edit a rich academic article or a medical article (which is also why I'm caught up on quoting authors). And I am always reassessing, which includes thinking about what to cut and what not to cut. For this topic, there aren't a lot of quality sources to choose from. So if cutting means cutting content that should be included and can't be replaced with one or more better sources, I am cautious of that. This is an article to be very cautious at.
As is clear, I also expanded the "Language and lesbian spaces" section, which doesn't just consist of trans material. Yes, it includes trans material, but that's because sources focus on it. And as seen here, here, here and here, I obviously disagree with the WP:OWN accusation. That I expanded the article significantly more than others thus far does not equate to "owning." Neither does me having reverted a few times. This shows how many times I've reverted and what I reverted. The reverts are barely more than the number of times Crossroads has reverted. Pyxis Solitary has also reverted a few times, and the vast majority of their edits to the article remain. Until this latest revert, my reverts consisted of fixing the lead, reverting an instance of WP:Drive-by tagging, and other relatively minor issues. In this latest case, because what I reverted is not a minor matter, I took the matter to the talk page, which is what we are supposed to do. This is echoed by Pyxis Solitary reverting an IP and stating, "Discuss in Talk page." This contrasts me reverting Pyxis Solitary here on a formatting disagreement and stating, "Revert. Discus on the talk page. The language material mainly concerns the LGBT community." and Pyxis Solitary replying, "Nope. No discussion from me. This article has been manipulated by the need to assuage snowflake editors." Editing with others doesn't mean agreeing with everything they add, remove, or otherwise change, obviously. Abiding by WP:OWN doesn't mean "Agree with edits others' make. If you don't agree, just ignore the matter." As is clear by WP:BOLD and WP:BRD, we revert and/or bring matters to the talk page to discuss if we'd rather not just ignore what we disagree with. We are supposed to avoid WP:Edit wars, and that goes double for an article that falls under WP:Discretionary sanctions...such as this one. If I hadn't reverted the edits being discussed in this section, someone else would have, as is clear by this discussion. But maybe I should have let someone else revert and then replied afterward. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
"I will again note that I am looking at the few academic sources that address lesbian erasure and am looking to add non-trans material. I'm not going to rush myself." Since when are editors expected to sit and wait until a singular editor finds time to deal with an article? You stepped in it, you opened the can of worms, you need to finish what you started. Pyxis Solitary reverting an IP and stating, "Discuss in Talk page." Yup. Because the edit was first reverted by Crossroads, followed by IP editor re-reverting it. It was a disruptive POV edit by IP that included altering a quotation. Nothing you point to changes the record which is that you took over this article and changed the focus to trans-related matters. It's one thing to include coverage of trans men and trans women in relation to lesbian erasure, but 1,106 words (so far) about trans women alone is excessive and careens the article. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh Pyxis, just save it...my edit was in no way disruptive, it led to marked improvements in the page, and it at least lessened (though didn't totally remove) the bias towards TERF ideology present in the article. Oh, and you need to stop calling literally every editor and edit you don't personally like an "activist." You fit that bill far more than most people who have commented here thus far.108.31.146.220 (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the issue with how much of the article is about in relation to trans issues. Most sources are about that as far as I can tell. Apparently this article was once used for a DYK, and that was about the trans aspect as well. Also, I don't think that Flyer was saying we need to wait for her to add stuff on other aspects. If you want to do so now, and have something to add, then fine. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
You make it sound like I took over the article by being the one to significantly expand it. I didn't. I've already addressed your WP:Own claims, but, sure, I'll state more: I'm not stating that editors have to wait for me to do anything. My point on "not going to rush myself" is that I've been expanding aspects at my own pace. I'm under no obligation to expand non-trans material at the same time. I wonder what "can of worms" I am supposed to have opened when I'm not the one who created the article and was against the article being created from the start (at least it being created without first trying to expand the Queer erasure article). At that time, I stated that "the primary focus of the lead and overall article should not be on transgender women. Keep WP:Recentism in mind." But back then, I was more optimistic about the literature speaking more on non-trans aspects than it actually does. And while the trans material is not just about trans women (but also about trans men and non-binary people), sources on this topic are still mostly covering trans material. I wonder what it is I supposedly "need to finish." Adding more non-trans material? As has been stated by me and others, the vast majority of the sources on the topic are about "trans-related matters." The focus of the article was trans-related from the beginning, including at the time of the "Did you know?" listing. That the literature is like this is a fact and is out of my control. Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to reflect the literature with WP:Due weight. And I'm not going to half-ass an article because someone wants to keep the transgender material to a minimum. In fact, going by your comments seen at Talk:Lesbian erasure/Archive 1#Enough with the trans this and trans that, it seems you would prefer we cover no transgender content. And, well, that's just not going to happen. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
"going by your comments seen at Talk:Lesbian erasure/Archive 1#Enough with the trans this and trans that, it seems you would prefer we cover no transgender content." You keep bringing up my comment from 12 November 2019. But since you're stuck in time, and now can't seem to see the forest for the trees, I repeat what I said on 31 January 2020: "It's one thing to include coverage of trans men and trans women in relation to lesbian erasure, but 1,106 words (so far) about trans women alone is excessive and careens the article." So, the sum of your statement "it seems you would prefer we cover no transgender content" is complete nonsense. Don't forget that I know the motive for overloading the trans-related section. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I keep bringing it up because it's relevant. You state that I "can't seem to see the forest for the trees", but I think that applies to you because you are so caught up in wanting to keep the transgender material to a minimum, which would leave out important detail that should be covered. Given what you've stated, I fail to see how commenting that "it seems you would prefer we cover no transgender content" is complete nonsense. Whether one feels you would rather that be the case or not, it would do this article a disservice by not covering trans material at all. It's simple: Most of the literature on lesbian erasure at this point in time is about the transgender aspect, including discussion of the decline of lesbian spaces and the word lesbian being used less because of inclusivity. Non-binary people fall under the transgender umbrella; they are part of the inclusivity debate. So, yes, the article is going to be significantly/mostly about lesbian erasure in relation to trans people. To repeat: "Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to reflect the literature with WP:Due weight." Yes, I'm aware that you think my expanding the article with transgender material the way I have is due to a "need to assuage snowflake editors." And that belief is incorrect. Making sure that material that is considered anti-trans by some editors doesn't unduly occupy more space than material that is considered pro-trans by some editors is a matter of considering balance. I've expanded the material the way I have because it is WP:Due. As seen in this and this discussion, it is clear that I wasn't even considering adding much material on trans men. But having looked further into the topic, I saw that a section about butch lesbians and trans men was needed/is WP:Due. There has been no overloading of trans-related material. The sections cover all of the relevant points. We had a similar debate at the Lesbian article when I was clear that the way that researchers and lesbian-identified people use the term lesbian is not consistent and that some trans women also use the label, and it is due to cover that material in the Lesbian article. I am always like this -- covering what is WP:Due. I also stated back then, "Regardless of how one personally feels about the subject, we do have to follow the literature and with WP:Due weight." I see no need for us to keep sniping at each other or how that helps anything. And, yes, we have been sniping at each other in this section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment There are a lot of books that seem to mention "lesbian erasure" on Google books, a great many of them predating the current trans trend. I think the thing to do here is balance the article according to that and fill out the non-trans-related sections accordingly. I do think it is important to keep WP:DUE weighting here and we should prefer published books to any news sources. I have only given a basic examination of the "In relation to transgender women" section but it seems on topic and well-sourced. I disagree that it dwarfs the rest of the article, and again, we need to determine what is DUE here by looking at the sources - as Flyer22 Frozen and Newimpartial indicate, I would rather see the rest of the article expanded than this section diminished. On the question of SYNTH, I have not looked closely at all of the particular sources or statements that are in dispute, but I see what WanderingWanda is saying about that sources that do not mention "lesbian erasure" may be tangential to this article. However, there are limits to this interpretation of SYNTH. If a source speaks to a topic mentioned by another source that does specifically mention lesbian erasure, and does not draw any inferences other than reporting that another RS has a view on the topic, I don't think this is SYNTH by my understanding. As far as the section headings I think "in relation to" is implicit and do prefer the shorter versions. This is hardly worth disputing either way though. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I always look on Google Books. I've looked there, and there isn't as much material on lesbian erasure (predating the current trend or commenting on it) as it might seem. A lot of or most of it equates to passing mentions. And a good portion of what is there is already currently addressed in the article. But like I stated, I am looking to expand those sections as well. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
