4 ms·

I was specifically citing the contrast between the two articles. I know little of IG, but IG’s is what I’d expect an encyclopaedic article on this subject to l

I was specifically citing the contrast between the two articles. I know little of IG, but IG’s is what I’d expect an encyclopaedic article on this subject to look like, with (as I said) the inclusion of a paragraph about his views on sex and gender. WP’s puts his views (ideologically slanted as anti-trans rather than as he sees them gender critical) front and centre, and thereby characterises him as a bad person. Many people believe he is, but it’s not WPs place to authoritatively decide that, or the “Which is more real, sex or gender?” debate, or brand dissenters as immoral wrong-thinkers, or format articles to assert that stance. Ideally, WP should be far more factual and neutral. NB: This isn’t meant to be about the Trans issue, I used that subject as an illustration of the kind of thing I personally see as ideological bias in WP.

woodruffw 4y ago
The "anti-trans" label is a rejection of false balance, not a particular ideological stance. It's roughly in line with Wikipedia's broader policy of rejecting "softening" labels that groups use to obscure their positions. Compare, for example, the white supremacists who call themselves "race realists."
- implements 4y ago
  That’s the stated rationale, but with respect I disagree that it isn’t ideological or slanted. In my experience in the UK people who describe themselves as gender critical are older left-leaning (majority lesbian) women and hold their long held (1970s onwards) beliefs in good faith and from a position of pro-female / pro same sex-attracted rights, and resistance to gender as a useful social construct. They’re not anti-trans by primary motivation - it’s that the logical consequence of what they believe about the nature of sex and gender leads them to believe that “Trans-X aren’t X”. But from an opposing ideological viewpoint this is deemed definitionally transphobic, and the slant becomes evident when it’s asserted that this transphobic sentiment is and must be at the heart of what motivates gender critical beliefs - “They espouse their beliefs as racists espouse ‘race realism’ - as a guise to discriminate against the other”. But in this case it’s simply not true, and denying that citing “false balance” is in itself biased and disingenuous.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    > They’re not anti-trans by primary motivation - it’s that the logical consequence of what they believe about the nature of sex and gender leads them to believe that “Trans-X aren’t X”. This reasoning is suspect: most people don't wake up and decide to be "Anti-X" as a "primary" motivation; they're "Anti-X" because it adheres to all kinds of other positions they have, and humans are pattern-matching beings. In other words: most people exhibit prejudice not for its own sake, but for some other sake. This doesn't meaningfully change the fact that it would be correct to label them as prejudiced.
    - implements 4y ago
      It doesn’t follow that beliefs held negative about an opposing group are necessarily prejudiced, though. Atheists aren’t anti-theists, for example - atheists who value empirical rationalism as a true and positive philosophy generate beliefs felt as negative (or even threatening) by devout theists. Nevertheless, it’s not fair to characterise atheists as anti-theists, or primarily motivated by prejudice against theists.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  This is one of the dog whistles I mentioned in an earlier post. Women asking for sex-based rights such as female-only sports. An example of this is the LGB Association in the UK. They're a homosexual rights organization and they talk about sex-based rights. They're currently undergoing a tribunal to strip their charity status depending on in their charitable goals match their actions. Wiki editors have gamed what sources are considered reliable until they're all the ones that condemn this organization and none that support them. The article doesn't actually mention any of their words or stated goals, just what you're supposed to think about them ("anti-trans agenda, etc") and the criticism section is even worse. None of the sources explicitly used for criticism is even criticizing their actual words - just the supposedly hidden meaning. > Wikipedia's broader policy of rejecting "softening" labels that groups use to obscure their positions Pro-Up isn't Anti-Down. There's a big difference between pro-woman and anti-trans and trying to "unsoften" one into the other is trying to put words in people's mouths.
gencom 4y ago
His views probably are anti-trans, but if you consider trans to be, approximately, claiming to be a member of the opposite sex to what you actually are, and advocating for changes in law and policy that act as if that claim is true - then this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just a sociopolitical viewpoint. To draw the distinction further, not everyone with sex dysphoria (gender dysphoria) is trans. For example, some were previously, but are now detrans. Others just deal with it without making claims of being the opposite sex. I would contend that gender critical is a subtype of anti-trans, broadly based on an ideological rejection of gendered stereotyping. The other major subtype involves convictions based on religious beliefs. Less popular subtypes include, for example, skepticism of the consumerist aspect of trans that may follow from holding an anti-capitalist worldview. Holding anti-trans beliefs does have connotations of being a bad thing, but this is mostly because pro-trans activists have latched onto pro-LGB activism.

woodruffw 4y ago

The "anti-trans" label is a rejection of false balance, not a particular ideological stance. It's roughly in line with Wikipedia's broader policy of rejecting "softening" labels that groups use to obscure their positions. Compare, for example, the white supremacists who call themselves "race realists."

implements 4y ago
That’s the stated rationale, but with respect I disagree that it isn’t ideological or slanted. In my experience in the UK people who describe themselves as gender critical are older left-leaning (majority lesbian) women and hold their long held (1970s onwards) beliefs in good faith and from a position of pro-female / pro same sex-attracted rights, and resistance to gender as a useful social construct. They’re not anti-trans by primary motivation - it’s that the logical consequence of what they believe about the nature of sex and gender leads them to believe that “Trans-X aren’t X”. But from an opposing ideological viewpoint this is deemed definitionally transphobic, and the slant becomes evident when it’s asserted that this transphobic sentiment is and must be at the heart of what motivates gender critical beliefs - “They espouse their beliefs as racists espouse ‘race realism’ - as a guise to discriminate against the other”. But in this case it’s simply not true, and denying that citing “false balance” is in itself biased and disingenuous.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  > They’re not anti-trans by primary motivation - it’s that the logical consequence of what they believe about the nature of sex and gender leads them to believe that “Trans-X aren’t X”. This reasoning is suspect: most people don't wake up and decide to be "Anti-X" as a "primary" motivation; they're "Anti-X" because it adheres to all kinds of other positions they have, and humans are pattern-matching beings. In other words: most people exhibit prejudice not for its own sake, but for some other sake. This doesn't meaningfully change the fact that it would be correct to label them as prejudiced.
  - implements 4y ago
    It doesn’t follow that beliefs held negative about an opposing group are necessarily prejudiced, though. Atheists aren’t anti-theists, for example - atheists who value empirical rationalism as a true and positive philosophy generate beliefs felt as negative (or even threatening) by devout theists. Nevertheless, it’s not fair to characterise atheists as anti-theists, or primarily motivated by prejudice against theists.
LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
This is one of the dog whistles I mentioned in an earlier post. Women asking for sex-based rights such as female-only sports. An example of this is the LGB Association in the UK. They're a homosexual rights organization and they talk about sex-based rights. They're currently undergoing a tribunal to strip their charity status depending on in their charitable goals match their actions. Wiki editors have gamed what sources are considered reliable until they're all the ones that condemn this organization and none that support them. The article doesn't actually mention any of their words or stated goals, just what you're supposed to think about them ("anti-trans agenda, etc") and the criticism section is even worse. None of the sources explicitly used for criticism is even criticizing their actual words - just the supposedly hidden meaning. > Wikipedia's broader policy of rejecting "softening" labels that groups use to obscure their positions Pro-Up isn't Anti-Down. There's a big difference between pro-woman and anti-trans and trying to "unsoften" one into the other is trying to put words in people's mouths.

gencom 4y ago

His views probably are anti-trans, but if you consider trans to be, approximately, claiming to be a member of the opposite sex to what you actually are, and advocating for changes in law and policy that act as if that claim is true - then this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just a sociopolitical viewpoint. To draw the distinction further, not everyone with sex dysphoria (gender dysphoria) is trans. For example, some were previously, but are now detrans. Others just deal with it without making claims of being the opposite sex. I would contend that gender critical is a subtype of anti-trans, broadly based on an ideological rejection of gendered stereotyping. The other major subtype involves convictions based on religious beliefs. Less popular subtypes include, for example, skepticism of the consumerist aspect of trans that may follow from holding an anti-capitalist worldview. Holding anti-trans beliefs does have connotations of being a bad thing, but this is mostly because pro-trans activists have latched onto pro-LGB activism.