Misplaced Pages

Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 21

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.
< Talk:LGB Alliance
This is an archive of past discussions about LGB Alliance. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24

Views on speed-dating night

Hello @Sideswipe9th, I hope all's well.

I included the following text:

Support for excluding trans women from lesbian dating event. In September 2023, Kate Barker expressed delight that Stonegate Group, a chain of pubs, decided that a weekly lesbian speed-dating event only for "adult human females" could continue. Activists had reported the organiser as being "transphobic". Kate Barker said: "It’s a significant win. It tells the owners of pubs, restaurants and clubs that discriminating against lesbians is wrong."

It was reverted by @Sideswipe9th Undid revision 1173675362 by AndyGordon (talk) WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTSOAPBOX. From reading the source, it appears as though the LGB Alliance had nothing to do with this event beyond commenting on the decision made by the pub. This doesn't seem to be of encyclopaedic value or directly related to the organisations activities.

I don't understand why you think this would be using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox.

From WP:DUE, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

The source article is a substantial discussion of the topic of this page, in a RS, a mainstream newspaper. The subtitle is "LGB Alliance hails decision by pub owner to allow women-only gathering after transphobia row". Of the article's 625 words, 262 are devoted to LGB Alliance's views on this matter, and another 219 on background on LGB Alliance.

It's not relevant to neutrality or WP:DUE whether or not LGBA did anything. (In fact, they did, the organiser thanked them in her Twitter feed.) The point is that for the sake of neutrality we need to include a summary of their views on this matter from this RS.

Regards, @AndyGordon AndyGordon (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I also don’t see how AndyGordon’s addition could be regarded as WP:SOAPBOX – and that comment in the edit summary is insulting.
I think the question of whether this should be included in our article depends on whether the change was down to action by LGBA. The Telegraph article says: In a statement, Kate Barker, the chief executive of LGB Alliance, said: “We are delighted that Stonegate Group has agreed that Jenny’s lesbian speed-dating event at the College Arms can continue, and we thank them for their swift response. which sounds like LGBA challenged the decision, and as a result it was changed. This is confirmed in an article by Kate Barker in Spiked in which she says that Jenny Watson asked LGBA for help, and they argued for her with the management. Spiked is not a news publication, and, since the article is actually written by Kate Barker, I do not suggest using Spiked as a source. But it is support for the relevance of the incident to LGBA. Can anyone provide a news source which is more specific about LGBA’s action in this case?
Sweet6970 (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Not great sources but, per that Spiked piece and an earlier GB News interview, LGBA intervened on her behalf with both pub management and Stonegate management, accompanied her to meetings etc. There's this again on GB News, which isn't terribly specific but does have the organiser specifically crediting LGB Alliance GB News. From the transcript:
"in my case it was the LGB Alliance and they have been so so supportive you know like a couple of years ago we had nothing like that and I would have just crumbled and their support has been amazing and without them we wouldn't have we wouldn't be here you know Friday wouldn't have happened we would have shut down and yeah they've been a a
great force you know I'm so so thankful for their help"
Aside from that it is self-published sources on twitter or youtube.
This I would say appears to be a far more significant and relevant event than the numerous "social media tattle" type things currently filling this page, but the coverage is poor and hard to assemble into a straightforward "LGBA forces pub chain to back down over lesbian event" type thing. It might be worth waiting to see if a better source emerges? And I also think if it does go in in some form, it doesn't belong in "views".
As an aside, this again brings up the problem with balanced coverage of this org, ie outlets for whom LGB issues are supposedly their remit like Pink News don't cover this - an actual, material intervention specifically supporting a lesbian event in the face of clear and unlawful discrimination - because they loathe them, and outlets like The Telegraph and The Mail only really care about the trans angle. Void if removed (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Here's a better source (archive link)
"When we approached them and made our case in support of Jenny, they swiftly agreed to reverse their manager's decision". Void if removed (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
How about citing that last Telegraph article by Kate Barker and adding a sentence to the "gay & lesbian rights" section? Eg.
"In August 2023, after the organiser of a long-running lesbian speed-dating night made clear only female attendees would be allowed, the event was cancelled by its normal venue. LGB Alliance supported the organiser and convinced the pub's owner, Stonegate, to reverse the decision, arguing that it was discrimination against lesbians". Void if removed (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
It's seems like reliable, secondary, independent sources aren't covering LGB Alliance's role here very much. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
That second Telegraph piece is fine as a source for statements from Kate Barker, so how about something like:
In August 2023, LGB Alliance supported the organiser of a long-running lesbian speed-dating night, whose event was cancelled after she had made clear only female attendees would be allowed. The event was later reinstated by the pub's owner, Stonegate, after which LGB Alliance CEO Kate Barker stated "When we approached them and made our case in support of , they swiftly agreed to reverse their manager’s decision."' Void if removed (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Which sources are we using for "LGB Alliance supported the organiser"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Depends - GB News is "generally unreliable", but isn't blacklisted, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Here we have a video with the organiser quite plainly stating that she was supported by LGBA. It is about as unambiguous a case as it is possible to get from a source I wouldn't normally recommend touching. Failing that could do "expressed support for", which is hardly controversial and can be cited to any one of their public statements expressing support, but strikes me as unnecessary. Void if removed (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Even within the realm of context matters, a generally unreliable source should not be used outside of exceptional circumstances, and this does not rise to that level. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Generally unreliable sources "may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions" - this is the organiser herself, describing the support she received. It is not controversial. All parties say this, and none dispute it.
As well we have a TalkTV interview saying the same thing.
"They worked on my behalf"
"They sent a letter to Stonegate"
"Without them I would have crumbled"
etc.
This is the organiser herself, in three video interviews, one appearing alongside Kate Barker, and two saying how grateful she was for their intervention. I think this constitutes support. Void if removed (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd agree that reliable, secondary, independent sources don't seem to be covering the LGBA's role here. From the originally cited article the only apparent involvement from the LGBA was that they commented on the outcome of the investigation by the pub owners. Hence why I reverted it citing WP:SOAPBOX, as we are not a soapbox or other promotional source for the LGBA's views. GB News, Spiked, and other unreliable sources don't factor into our decision here, and don't contribute towards due weight. Additionally the two GB News videos provided above are interviews with Kate Barker, and so would fail the independent sources test. Statements by the LGBA on their Twitter and YouTube accounts would fall under WP:ABOUTSELF, however as they are involving claims about third parties (ie the pub/pub chain, those protesting the event), we can't use those here.
As for the better source provided by Void if removed, unfortunately that's part of the Telegraph's comment section and so subject to WP:RSOPINION. As such we wouldn't be able to use that to support any factual reporting on this. It's also written by Barker, so it fails the independent sources test. At best it could be used as a secondary citation to support comments made by Barker, if those otherwise met due weight through secondary coverage in reliable sources.
As things stand right now, and with the sources so far provided or alluded to, I'm not seeing any policy or guideline compliant way to include content about this in the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Having done a more exhaustive Google Search on this, outside of the interviews (TalkTV, GB News), the opinion articles written by Baker (Spiked, Spectator, Telegraph), the originally cited Telegraph article, and the comments on social media, no other reliable or unreliable source has covered this in any way. This seems very much undue for inclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The additional of the proposed information would not make Misplaced Pages a ‘promotional source for the LGBA’s views’ and I don’t understand why you have said that it would.
We can use the original Telegraph source, plus the interview on TalkTV, where the organiser of the event says she had assistance from LGBA. There really isn’t any doubt about the facts, and the report and the article by Kate Barker in the Telegraph show that the incident has attracted enough attention in a national newspaper to make it DUE.
Sweet6970 (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree with this, and I still think that that Telegraph piece by Kate Barker, per WP:RSOPINION, is a valid source for a direct quote about the nature of their involvement.
And I don't think anyone could accuse this wiki page of being a "promotional" one. Void if removed (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I'll let other people discuss the finer points of the sourcing but I have some other, unrelated, concerns with the removed content. First up, who is Kate Barker? Nobody reading that proposed section would know. She is not mentioned elsewhere in the article and yet she is mentioned by name twice as if readers already know who she is and how that contextualises the content here. (Maybe she should be mentioned elsewhere as, after Googling, I discovered that she is the CEO of the LGBA and not the more famous economist of the same name.) A reader is very likely to wonder what any of this even has to do with the LGBA. Secondly, there is no way on earth that a section title is justified for so minor an incident, which is ironic considering that the proposed section title is actually far more informative than the paragraph underneath it when it comes to explaining what the actual controversy was. If you look at the other subsections of the Views section, they all refer to broad topics or general positions, not to individual very specific incidents. This is not of the same ilk. So, I think the sourcing needs to be thrashed out first but if it is decided that we are to cover this fairly minor matter at all then I suggest that we start from scratch. Keep it short, explain the LGBA's involvement, and say what we actually mean, "excluding trans women", instead of expecting readers to be able to decode it from the euphemisms in the quotation. The other problem would be deciding where to place it in the article. The article has no section detailing the LGBA's activities, which is kind of understandable given that they have so little, but I think it would make sense to have such a section, threadbare though it may be, in order to make a place for coverage of activities such as this. DanielRigal (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@Sweet6970 @Void if removed, we have to treat the video interviews as primary sources, and they're not independent sources as the organiser is involved. See WP:INTERVIEWS. It would be much better IMHO to wait until a reliable secondary source describes how LGBA was involved.
In the mean time, it's a much stronger case to include my original description (or something like it) that states what happened alongside LGBA's viewpoint, without making the claim that they were involved, based simply on the Telegraph article. One reliable source is enough. Most the sentences in the views section of this article are supported by a single source - and we have been reporting views rather than actions by LGBA. AndyGordon (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Without their direct involvement, this story is not significant enough for inclusion, especially not as its own section under "views". Void if removed (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
As per WP:RSOPINION, it's legitimate for us to use Kate Barker's piece (thanks @Void if removed) to summarise LGBA's opinion about lesbian speed-dating.
In The Telegraph, LGBA chief executive Kate Barker wrote that "lesbian speed-dating, by definition, is not for everyone" and said that the Equality Act 2010 permits excluding "men identifying as women and as lesbians" from a lesbian speed-dating event.
I'd propose including the text above in the original reverted text, probably before the specific incident. This is a core part of their views, sourced reliably, and we should include it. AndyGordon (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
This is not about "lesbian speed dating". It is about single-sex events and the right in UK law to events organised around sexual orientation. This falls under their views on lesbian & gay rights.
It does not require a section devoted to "lesbian speed dating", and framing this as LGBA expressing an opinion on speed dating is so trivial as to be WP:NOTEVERYTHING and I agree with its removal on those grounds. LGBA on the other hand intervening on behalf of the organiser of a cancelled event and being instrumental in getting Britain's largest pub chain to reverse this decision is notable.
While it would be nice to get a single article in The Guardian laying everything out clearly, I think there are good enough sources to make the nature of their involvement here plain regardless, but if there is no consensus on that, recording it as their "opinion on lesbian speed dating" is not a compromise, it makes the whole thing too inconsequential to matter, and it should be left off entirely. Void if removed (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Hooray for Kate Barker who seems to have managed to self promote this entire thing and as usual get Wikipedians to write more words (on talk pages) about it that anyone else put together. I'm not impressed at "getting Britain's largest pub chain" language. That's like saying your local NHS hospital reviewed whether a poster someone put up was ok, after complaints, and decided it was, after someone wrote a letter defending it, and claiming this was a reversal by the world's fifth biggest employer. Void, if it is big, then independent people will go "wow, that's big". I don't see any. I didn't turn on the 10 o'clock news and be told in the headlines that Britain's biggest pub chain was forced to ...
This is at the level of the consumer help pages in the Guardian. Someone complains that BT over charged them and the journalist contacted BT by email and suddenly BT dropped the charges, and then suddenly there's a new section in The Guardian crowing about how they can push the UK's biggest telecom firm around.
Including random factoids that tangentially mention the article topic is not how we should be building articles. We have a dearth of source material on LGBA and I can understand that there's a desperation whenever anything turns up on a google search or in someone's favourite hate rag. And it is desperation.
This is a weekly night at one pub. If the disabled toilet at your local ASDA is out of order for a week, and you get your local MP to complain and then it gets fixed, I don't expect to see the Conservative party article boasting about their campaigning for disability rights. Have I given enough examples of how embarrassingly desperate this all sounds? -- Colin° 09:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
This is a lesbian speed-dating event that ran for 5 years, that was cancelled as soon as the organiser posted a message asking people to respect that that means women-only.
As a result the organiser was reported to her employer, abused, harassed, and received a threat of gang rape delivered to her home.
For wanting to run, I repeat, a lesbian speed-dating night.
You are doing a disservice here. As well as support both public and private through the ordeal of being abused, they accompanied the organiser to in-person meetings and confronted the pub manager with whatsapp messages revealing that he denigrated the organiser as a "TERFy asshole" among other things. They escalated to the CEO of Stonegate, and extracted a reversal, no doubt when Stonegate checked with their legal department that they would lose a discrimination claim, badly.
This is more significant than the majority of the nonsense on this page, and nothing like your trivial examples.
I did not raise this issue, and I don't agree with trying to shoehorn it in as a "view on lesbian speed-dating" as it originally was, as that is vapid. I have however put forward a constructive, alternative, neutral framing of this event based on what I think are justifiable sources that actually give it enough weight to deserve inclusion, and I have said clearly it should only be included if it rises to that level of weight. Void if removed (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Did I miss this source? I see your source to a "Comment" piece in the Telegraph written by the CEO of LGBA. Someone that LGBA describe as "A communications adviser to political parties, think tanks and campaign groups". She did her job. Well done. You don't need to persuade me about how awful the abuse is or argue the pros and cons of allowing people to find love in their own terms. Weight isn't governed by how strong you feel, but by sources. Look, if LGBA was actually a support group of national importance, there'd be audited reports on the hundreds or thousands of people helped. People would be writing books about how they shifted the momentum in the country. But it isn't. It is a few twitter accounts and folk who've got lucky that the UK right is currently on an anti-trans culture war and so welcome their opinions in right wing newspapers. Be careful labelling things "trivial". Disabled toilets being out of order long term is not a trivial thing and is the sort of discrimination covered by equality acts and handled by support groups and MPs. It is bread and butter for actual real support group. They might cite a case as an example of the countless they have dealt with. Instead here we have one case, written about by LGBA's CEO and professional promoter. Colin° 11:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
We have a telegraph article describing the original situation and reversal (which IMO is not enough on its own as it doesn't make clear the material involvement of the charity and is just expression of views, and thus trivial), the opinion piece in the telegraph which is valid for a direct quote if we can establish that the story is WP:DUE because of their actual involvement by another route, and a talk.tv interview with the organiser covering both their involvement, and justifying the use of the word "support". Depends which way you look at it - the talk.tv interview gives you the whole story, and the other two support it and flesh it out.
Over the course of 3 weeks (from initial cancellation to reversal), aside from social media this story seems to have got coverage in the mail, the express, the telegraph, the spectator, GB News and talk.tv (julia-hartley brewer), with a mix of opinion, and factual reporting that invariably left out LGBA's involvement. All right-wing sources, ranging from mostly-ok to don't-touch-with-a-bargepole.
I think there's definitely something significant there, but some of these are highly unreliable, partisan sources. The total silence from the gay press doesn't mean this isn't notable, but there is no top-tier secondary source putting all that together.
I've made my case - on a subject I did not raise - for what I think is reasonable presentation of the currently available sources and a neutral framing of the events that doesn't get bogged down in the more incendiary details. Aside from expressing my support for its inclusion on this basis or similar, and rejecting any attempt to include it as "views on speed-dating", I now wash my hands of it until another source comes along. Void if removed (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, another source has come along!
TERF Wars at Lesbian Speed Dating | The Free Press (thefp.com)
It's behind a pay wall but a short quote: "So Watson reached out to the LGBA, which orchestrated a media blitz in August, leaking the story to the Daily Mail and booking Watson to appear in various media outlets. The organization also sent open letters to Watson’s employer and the Stonegate Group, the company that owns and operates The College Arms, pressuring them to reconsider their actions, arguing that Watson’s gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equalities Act of 2010."
Also, "“I would have crumbled without the LGBA,” Watson tells me."
It's published by The Free Press, which is run by experienced journalists. It's a relatively new news org, but apparently has about half a million paid subscribers. The writer is a new journalist to the site, but says she directly met with Watson.
The source is independent of anyone involved.
As per WP:NEWSORG, "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact." Still, The Free Press says it cares about accuracy and has published at least one factual correction, which is regarded as a signal that a news org engages in fact-checking.
Roughly, we'd paused the discussion because the Telegraph news source did not explicitly say that the LGBA had intervened in this case. Now we have an independent secondary source that says so. The one concern may be that less-established news sources are deemed less reliable than say the Telegraph. Less reliable is not the same as unreliable. WP:RSCONTEXT: the context is that we have the interview sources mentioned above that make clear that she did get help from LGBA, and now we have an independent source.
So, I'd propose to include some version of my original summary, taking into account suggestions above, but now including the fact that LGBA intervened. AndyGordon (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
So The Free Press was discussed at RSN back in February 2023, when it was noticed that it was a rebranding of her pre-existing Substack Common Sense. The current consensus seems to be that it's a self-published source, and though ultimately it's a discussion for RSN, I'm not sure much would change in that regard. There's still no documented editorial policy, or evidence of an editorial board, and I'm not seeing any particularly convincing use by others. I am however seeing some criticism of their publishing of unsubstantiated claims in relation to a transgender youth clinic in St Louis from at least two major regional newspapers, the St Louis Post Dispatch, and Missouri Independent.
I think a discussion at RSN would be warranted before we could consider including any content sourced to this site. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Dear @Sideswipe9th,
Thanks for your comments. I always learn about Misplaced Pages ways from your comments, sincerely.
I can't see how this piece can be seen as being self-published. It's by a freelance journalist. She's not named as part of the Free Press team on their site. It looks like work for hire to me, published by the Free Press company, so not self-published.
On reputation for fact-checking:
  • They won the Dao Prize for Excellence In Investigative Journalism
  • They have published at least one correction
  • They have an experienced senior editor Peter Savodnik
You mention that they published a self-authored opinion piece based on a sworn affidavit by Jamie Reed in early 2023. As you say, there were a couple of articles (in the St Louis Post Dispatch, and Missouri Independent) that criticised and in some cases rebutted Jamie Reed's position. Subsequently, the New York Times published their own investigation which seems to largely back Jamie Reed. In any case, it was an op ed which we know to be less reliable than new pieces. I didn't see pieces directly criticising the Free Press rather they were criticising Jamie Reed. I think plenty of op ed's are controversial but that doesn't necessarily impact the reputation of the publishing news organisation.
Like lots of outlets, Free Press has a particular POV, but its run by reputable journalists so it seems safe to rely on it as an independent secondary source for the simple non-BLP fact that LGB Alliance intervened to assist this speed-dating night to continue.
Probably we should go to RSN, but I wondered about your response to the above. Thanks! AndyGordon (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
The Dao Prize for Excellence In Investigative Journalism only came into existence this year, and appears to be a joint effort between the National Journalism Center (itself a spin-off of the highly controversial Young America's Foundation), and the Dao Feng and Angela Foundation, a conservative-religious whose website states they were founded in 2016 but I can't find any information on from reliable sources. Despite a prestigious sounding name, it does not appear to be a prestigious award.
For everything else, that's a discussion best held at RSN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

‘Claims’

@Sideswipe9th: You have reverted my change from ‘claims’ to ‘has said’ in the Conversion Therapy section, with the edit summary: this is actually an appropriate use of claim, as not only does the source states that it is a claim but the claim itself is demonstrably false). But you have not provided any ‘demonstration’ that the claim is false. So your revert of my edit is in breach of MOS:CLAIM. Please self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

...
The claim in question is affirmation-based therapy for transgender youth is gay conversion therapy and that campaigns to ban conversion therapy for transgender people are "being used as political cover to promote an affirmation-only approach to gender identity".
I have spent the last 5 minutes trying to figure out how to put this as nicely as possible: these claims are so ridiculously WP:FRINGE it's absurd. Please, provide an example of a single reputable medical organization that says "affirming trans kids is actually gay conversion therapy". Or a single reputable medical organization that says "conversion therapy bans shouldn't include trans->cis conversion attempts". None of them say that, they say the opposite, the only people who do make these ridiculous claims are LGBA and co. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
To Your Friendly Neighbourhood Sociologist: This is not a medical article – whether LGBA’s view is correct or not is irrelevant. The purpose of this article is to give information about LGBA and its views. Therefore your remarks are irrelevant. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
MOS:CLAIM doesn't require us to never use words like claimed in articles, it merely requires us to be careful when using it and other synonyms for said in articles. There are circumstances, like this one, where it can be appropriate to use the word claim in an article, especially when an article subject is expressing a demonstrable falsehood. There are, to my knowledge, no reputable medical organisations who support the assertion that gender-affirming healthcare is "gay conversion therapy". As Florence Ashley said in their paper a 2020 paper The suggestion that gender affirmation and access to transition-related care are homophobic and tantamount to conversion therapy are groundless.
If anything, per WP:EVALFRINGE we should probably be following that sentence with another one that the reader to more accepted ideas (ie, the mainstream point of view) on this issue. Otherwise we've likely got a WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV violation here. In these circumstances however, I will not be self-reverting at this time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
To Sideswipe9th: You said in your edit summary that the view expressed by LBGA was ‘demonstrably false’.You have referred me to a paper by Florence Ashley, who is, according to Misplaced Pages, ‘an academic, activist and law professor at the University of Alberta’. Therefore, nothing she has said could possibly ‘demonstrate’ anything other than her opinion on this matter. LGBA has another opinion. As with YFNS, you seem to be mistaking this article for a medical article, and you also seem to be mistaking a law professor and activist for a medical expert. Please self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Per policy I will not be self-reverting.
I cited Ashley here because it was a succinct way of proving the point, and as a reasonable alternative from citing a dozen or so other sources on this point. As for mistaking a law professor and activist for a medical expert, Ashley was going to be one of the 21 member panel developing the forthcoming WHO guidelines on trans and gender diverse healthcare as one of the experts in this field, but they had to withdraw due to a scheduling conflict. By a relevant body, Ashley is considered to be an expert in this field. In addition to being an assistant professor of law, they are also an adjunct assistant professor in the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry at University of Alberta.
You say that myself and YFNS are mistaking this article for a medical article, and no we are not. The article is very clearly about a highly controversial advocacy group from the United Kingdom. However included in the content in this article, we cover their views on a medical topic. The views they are espousing on this topic are considered fringe by mainstream medical bodies. When describing fringe claims in an article, policy requires that those claims are described in context to the mainstream view on the topic. As I said in my last reply, we should probably be following that sentence with another one that describes the mainstream point of view on this particular issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Sideswipe: The paper by Florence Ashley which you have referred to actually supports LGBA’s position. The argument is, to put it politely, somewhat confused, but she does give as an example of her reasoning:The trans man who goes from being viewed as a Butch lesbian to affirming himself as a straight man is not changing the structure of his sexual attraction by transitioning, merely aligning its external expression with his internal schema. Just before he transitions, he’s already a straight man—others just don’t know it. A more economical interpretation of this situation would be that the lesbian has undergone conversion from being same-sex attracted to being trans. The procedure may not be as overtly forced as is usually meant when speaking about ‘conversion therapy’, but the end result is the same.
Also, importantly, it says at the beginning The scientific consensus is increasingly moving towards the affirmation of youth’s gender identities and access to medical transition. So Ashley is admitting that there is currently no scientific consensus in favour of gender-affirming therapy.
Sweet6970 (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Your version of a more economical interpretation is just ignoring every point Ashley says to conclude the opposite of their argument... I'll also note, you're making the same FRINGE argument Kathleen Stock does (see Gender critical feminism#Conversion therapy) and conversion therapy#Gender exploratory therapy explicitly notes that the latest justification for trans->cis conversion therapy is saying "they're just saying they're trans because of internalized homophobia".
The procedure may not be as overtly forced as is usually meant when speaking about ‘conversion therapy’, but the end result is the same - is frankly just mind-bogglingly offensive.
  • Conversion therapy targeting sexual orientation means attempting to change who you're attracted to. If a butch lesbian underwent conversion therapy, that would entail trying to make them attracted to men (and usually more feminine too).
  • If a trans man who previously identified as a butch lesbian wants to transition, who they are attracted to does not change, and nobody attempts to change it (The key point of Ashley's paper and the critique of Stock)
    • Relatedly, if a trans man who previously identified as a butch lesbian wants to transition, and one insists they shouldn't because they're just lesbian and confused in their eyes, that is actually gender-identity conversion therapy. I'll note Ashley's paper touches on how over the last few decades, some conversion therapists moved to trying to prevent only being trans, not gay.
    • In Ashley's example, a straight trans man previously was viewed as a butch lesbian then affirmed himself. You referring to them as the lesbian is refusing to engage with the example. It's like if somebody said "Bob used to be viewed as straight but affirmed himself as gay" and you responded A more economical interpretation of this situation would be that the heterosexual has undergone conversion.
  • The majority of trans people are LGB (see Transgender sexuality) - ie, the majority of trans people by your definition of conversion therapy are undergoing straight->gay conversion therapy.
  • Nobody has undergone conversion to be trans, and calling somebody identifying the way they're comfortable and transitioning the same end result of conversion therapy is, again, just offensive. If you want to know how offensive, please reflect on whether you would tell a trans person to their face that "your transition is the same end result as conversion therapy".
Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
You have entirely missed my point and I do not think that there is any chance that this discussion is going to lead to a constructive outcome. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Can you distill your point down to a sentence or two then please? AFAICT you seem to be arguing one or both of the following points:
  1. the claim that "affirming trans peoples identities is a form of conversion therapy" is not a WP:FRINGE one - though it very much is
  2. regardless of whether it is fringe, WP: FRINGE doesn't apply because this isn't a medical article - though FRINGE repeatedly discusses how it applies to those known for advocating fringe positions and never says "this applies only to medical articles"
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

There's a back and forth adding more representative supportive names to the lede but TBH I think the extensive listing is pretty redundant, and I'm generally in favour of cutting out a lot of the padding in this article. Also as it stands, the lede is not following the body.

I propose removing the sentence in the lede:

The group has received support from Labour politicians including Rosie Duffield and Tonia Antoniazzi as well as from conservative politicians, including MPs Ben Bradley, Jackie Doyle-Price, and Neale Hanvey, as well as support from The Spectator writer Brendan O'Neill.

And replacing it with something like:

However, the group has received support from a small number of politicians from most of the major UK political parties.

While at the same time expanding the relevant line in the body:

A number of other Conservative politicians, including MPs Ben Bradley and Jackie Doyle-Price have voiced support for the group.

To something like:

LGB Alliance has received support from politicians from most of the major UK political parties, including Boris Johnson (Conservative), Rosie Duffield (Labour), Baroness Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrats), Joanna Cherry (SNP) and Neale Hanvey (Alba).

Each of those can be well sourced I believe, and its more straightforward than trying to list everyone as it will never be comprehensive and any incomplete listing will be WP:POV. But whatever happens to this section, I think Boris Johnson is by far the most notable Tory to weigh in for starters, and the omission of Joanna Cherry is glaring when she is the most vocally supportive, having written specifically in support.


Thoughts/objections to this approach or something like it? Void if removed (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with these proposed changes. We should certainly mention Johnson's support for the LGB Alliance, especially since he was Prime Minister at the time. Meanwhile it may be worth noting that both Ludford and Duffield are out of step with the official stance of their respective parties. Alarics (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I support Void’s proposed changes to this article. Regarding Rosie Duffield’s position being out of step with the Labour Party – I’m not sure the Labour Party has a position on this issue, but Wes Streeting apologised to her last summer . Sweet6970 (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I’d argue the progressive (ie Corbyn) wing of labour is still pretty strongly against, but the liberal (Starmer) wing is either becoming more sympathetic or at least willing to position themselves as such Snokalok (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
As someone who hasn't really taken much part in discussions one way or another, I did think this was excess padding for the lead section and am in favour of the proposed changes. – GnocchiFan (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
“ LGB Alliance has received support from politicians from most of the major UK political parties”
I’d change “from most” to “within most”, to indicate it’s not necessarily representative of the entire party, but that there are still supporters in every party.
Otherwise though this looks fine. Snokalok (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree; I think this wording would be best. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  • "However" is synthesis and can't be used in this manner unless sources specifically present this as a rebuttal / response to the previous point. Likewise, "most of the major political parties" strikes me as potential synthesis in the sense that it implies broad support in a way that the sources themselves don't really say. Truthfully, I would probably remove the list entirely - on reflection (and looking over the history) it looks like it was added to rebut the sentence before it in a similarly WP:SYNTH-y manner; even if the initial synthesis was fixed, they're still very different things. The prior sentence doesn't mention names for nose-counting, it attributes an important opinion about the group (one that has received significant coverage, and was stated by people important enough to matter, but which probably requires attribution.) Vague "it has supporters tho" isn't really meaningful, comparably. If we want to present an opposing opinion we'd need to state the actual opinion rather than "but some people support it." --Aquillion (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    Not quite sure why you reinstated a list of names in the lede while saying lists of names in the lede are problematic - this was exactly what I was trying to get away from. I replaced the existing weak list with a more representative one with stronger sourcing in the body, and trimmed this cruft from the lede. Plus the names currently cited are exceedingly minor figures, especially compared with a sitting PM.
    I think it is pretty fair to say there's support from figures within most major UK parties, but if that's contentiously WP:SYNTH-y I'm happy to take that out.
    In reverse order of notability, I would say the minimum names worth mentioning are:
    • Boris Johnson
    • Joanna Cherry
    • Rosie Duffield
    And I'm pretty sure I discussed this first and got a fairly good consensus, so I've put the names back in the body, removed the part about "most UK parties", and now I think the line in the lede should be cut to just something like "LGB Alliance has received support from a number of UK politicians, including Boris Johnson" and leave it at that. Void if removed (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Is the full extent of Johnson's known support that letter sent to them by an aide while he was Prime Minister, saying he is too busy to go to their conference? I guess at least some sources reported it as significant and maybe we should follow that - it seems pretty clear to me that it's a more or less a form letter, and not really comparable to the years of overt and specific support from people like Cherry and Duffield. TSP (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I think the sitting PM approving a letter of congratulations in that climate is fairly significant, to the point it receives a whole article in the Times. Compare that to the current sourcing for Ben Bradley, which is a passing mention here, who's been cluttering up the lede for years yet isn't even quoted saying anything about LGB Alliance, based on a tweet. I agree the most significant support in terms of level is from Cherry and Duffield, probably along with Kemi Badenoch, Tonia Antoniazzi and Neale Hanvey, but the most notable figure is Johnson by far, and its also got a very clear source. Void if removed (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The Times would clearly like it to be significant. I think I'd give it 50/50 whether he was actually aware he'd done it at all, or whether the person who wrote the letter had any idea anyone would find it significant. The letter reads like the standard "Thank you for writing to the Prime Minister, your event is clearly very important but sadly he can't attend" wording that I suspect they send to thousands of events. (And was clearly the letter the invitation was intended to elicit - if you actually want the Prime Minister to attend an event in 21 October, you don't invite him on 15 October!) But, it is reported - by both sides - as significant, so probably not our place to question it. I'm not sure I'd see it as enough to name him as the most significant political supporter, though, as we have nothing on the subject in his own words at all. TSP (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)