Talk:Beira's Place/Archives/2023/January

“… [cisgender] women who are victims of sexual violence”

Hi, I’d like to open up this discussion because an anonymous user has just edited the lede of the article from “cisgender women who are victims of sexual violence” to remove the word “cisgender,” writing, “it would be available to both trans men and non-binary people born female.” Obviously then it shouldn’t say “women” either because trans people assigned female at birth are not women. I suggest using “cisgender women” in the lede over other options like “women” (not all women are included so this is a falsehood) or “female” (too vague; “female” can refer to a sex or a gender identity and the distinction is very important here). “Assigned female at birth” also does not work as Beira’s has not said whether AFAB trans people can use their services. So far, they have simply said that “women” may use their services, and that trans women are not included. Women who are not trans are cisgender women. Maivea (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes I see your point

I think it’s clear that Beira’s Place is providing a service for Women as described in our article on the subject Woman

To make sure there is no confusion I have added that link. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this is missing my point, which is that the word “woman” doesn’t work because not all women are included so it is misleading on a very important part of the shelter’s role. Adding a link to the Wikipedia article for “woman” does not amend the problem because a) people don’t need that word explained to them and b) the article itself mentions trans women in the fourth paragraph so it is not, in fact, providing a service for “women” as the word is defined by Wikipedia. Maivea (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think you are right - I have missed the point. Reading through again I think I still have.

As you say - the article speaks of Women and Trans Women. These are two different things. If you are saying that the wording should be "sis women" I would disagree. The word "Women" and the words "Trans Women" speak for themselves. Both are separately defined in their own articles to which the links refer. I can't see how that could be misleading? If you still do... help me out with your thinking on this. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lukewarmbeer trans women are a category of women. Trans women are therefore not different from women. The proper term do refer to a woman assigned female at birth is cis woman as opposed to trans.

This shelter is organized by a group in explicit opposition to trans women and acknowledging their identity. I think therefore that it is higly relevant, as not to confuse the readers, to indicate that thid shelter is only welcoming of cis women. It would also be very inappropriate to use the term women for all people assigned female at birth as they are not women. Mademoiselle Extravagante (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Clearly we disagree over the definition of “woman” then. I consider trans women a subset of women, alongside cis women, and my point was that it was important to include the qualifier “cisgender” to clarify that the other group is excluded. I get the impression from your statement that “Women and Trans Women […] are two different things” that you do not see things that way. However, neither of the Wikipedia articles you linked supports your point. The Wikipedia article for “trans woman” even states: “A trans woman […] is a *woman* who was assigned male at birth.” If you want to use the word “woman” to only refer to cis women, so be it, but that’s not supported by Wikipedia. If we cannot reach a resolution on whether to refer to women assigned female at birth as “cis women” or “women,” then I will have to ping the dispute resolution noticeboard to bring in a mediator. Maivea (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Early days I'd have though but maybe that would be best. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to ask then why the Woman article isn't titled Ciswoman?

If you read the Talk page it looks like the subject was discussed. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That's because, as stated before, the article for "woman" includes trans women. I misspoke earlier when I implied that women assigned female at birth must always be referred to as "cis women" and not simply "women." In most cases, where trans women are not explicitly being excluded, it is fine to just refer to "women." Trans women are also often just referred to with the word "women." However, this is a case where the distinction between women who are trans and women who are cis is important, we do need to clarify with the word "cisgender" that the former group is excluded. Simply saying "women" and assuming readers will understand that only cis women are being counted as women does not suffice. Maivea (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

this is an absurd conversation, Wiki has been taken over by bigots. 89.14.148.141 (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment

Is describing the service as a service for "women" rather than using "cisgender women" or "people assigned female at birth" a sufficient to convey that it is only for women assigned female at birth? Maivea (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

No. Considering that the organization explicitly excludes trans women, I believe that it is important to specify cisgender. Snokalok (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Maivea no, because simply refering to this shelter as welcoming to women is misleading. As you said, a subset of women is explicitly being excluded which the word women by itself does not convey. If the shelter is welcoming of AFAB trans and non-binary people, it is also improper and misleading to simply describe it as welcoming of women since they are not women. Mademoiselle Extravagante (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

(invited by the bot) The underlying controversy is about defining the word 'women"...one use uses the word for biologically female, the other is to include those who aren't but identify as such. If the organization excluded the latter then it could be said that it's only for those biologically female. But I don't see that and so it would seem that simply "women" would be fine. North8000 (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment The third paragraph already makes this clear:

In a statement provided by the organisation, Beira's Place wrote "we believe that women deserve to have certainty that, in using our services, they will not encounter anyone who is male. Where appropriate, we will refer men or individuals identifying as trans women to other appropriate services.

Adoring nanny (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Exactly Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It is.

The argument seems to be being made (correct me if I've got this wrong) that there is a larger set of humanity called "Women" of whom "Cis women" and "Trans women" are both subsets.

To me that is not the case. That's why we have separate articles on both. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't even think we need to go there to answer this one. The question of whether or not trans women are included has clearly been a source of controversy. It's reasonable to include it in the article, which the current version[1] does. As a general matter, I'm against trying to force things into the first sentence. The closer can interpret my response as saying that the text[2] is fine. 09:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoring nanny (talk • contribs) 10:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

No. Our lead currently is only one sentece. Obviously this shelter's notability arises not from being just any shelter, but because of who founded it, and its corresponding views on transgender people. The lead must reflect that. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't really agree that adding to the lead things that are covered in the very short article is really necessary but how about....

Beira's Place (English: /ˈbaɪ.rə/, BY-ruh)^[1] is a Scotland-based private support service for Woman who are victims of sexual violence.^[2][3] established in 2022 by British author and philanthropist J.K. Rowling as its founder and financial backer.

This shelter has attracted particular attention because views on transgender people correspond with that of its founder and it therefore does not provide services for trans women. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

With this comment, I want to point out that neither Lukewarmbeer nor I disagree that the opening sentence should specify women assigned female at birth, we just disagree on how to convey that best. I think that would be best conveyed by appending the word “cisgender,” while they think it would be best conveyed by hyperlinking the word “woman” to the Wikipedia definition of “woman,” which they believe defines women as people assigned female at birth. Maivea (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need to decide on a word-for-word text in this RFC, but I think something like the following keeps a crisp first sentence while making clear their views on trans women: Beira's Place is an Edinburgh-based private support service for victims of sexual violence. Founded in 2022 by J. K. Rowling, the facility does not serve trans women, considering itself a "women-only service". If we include the word "woman" in the first sentence, then we should specify that trans women are specifically excluded. I do not agree with lukewarmbeer that linking to "woman" conveys this. Even if it was somehow correct (it's not and WP:WINRS), obviously it would be very unclear to our readers. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 09:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"Beira's Place is an Edinburgh-based private support service for victims of sexual violence." I'd be fine with something like that as the first sentence, it's definitely an improvement over the current one. I'm a little iffy on the second part that says "the facility does not serve trans women, considering itself a "women-only service"." I agree with what it's trying to convey, but maybe we could workshop it to make it clear that all people assigned male at birth (and perhaps AFAB trans people) are being excluded as well. How about something like "Founded in 2022 by J. K. Rowling, the facility describes itself as a "women-only service" because it excludes all people assigned male at birth, including trans women."? I think this might work to get across the idea that all AMAB people are excluded, while still highlighting that trans women are excluded because it is noteworthy that a "women's service" is excluding... women. Also, I agree with you that linking to the article for "woman" does nothing, as some readers do consider trans women to be women and won't understand that it was linked to try and provide a trans-exclusionary definition of the word. Maivea (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd be okay with that wording too, though I'd prefer we get this RFC over with and then figure out the precise wording through normal editing. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not 100% certain how to end the RfC, I think I am supposed to remove the template? There are still three users (Lukewarmbeer, Adoring nanny, and North8000) who may not agree with changing the current sentence referring to "women who are victims..." so should it be left up until they agree to changes? Maivea (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The RfC will end after 30 days automatically but we can end manually if we are happy to do that (otherwise it can be reopened).

I'd say we have probably had all we are going to get in the way of constructive comment.

I have made a new section with a suggestion as to how we might finalise this. It produced a good result last time out. Let's give it a try? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that the quote provided says that they exclude those that are biologically male. I think that that's a straightforward way to say it. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

This is more about whether the first sentence should be changed to reflect that, as the service's claim to fame and its reason for being founded is its exclusion of people assigned male at birth (note that the term "biologically male" is considered outdated by some groups like GLAAD). I have discussed whether "women" in the first sentence could be replaced with "people assigned female at birth," but ultimately the service has only specified that it is a) only for "women," leaving it ambiguous whether the word "women" also includes trans people who were assigned female at birth, and b) excludes all people assigned male at birth. Maivea (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

No: There are many shelters for women in the UK, and almost all of them allow trans women. That Beira's Place does not is one of its main claims to notability right now, so we need to be clear about that. Loki (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, but for the sake a consensus can I refer you back to my previously suggested additional wording and the hyperlinking of the word 'Woman' to our article on same. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• No. hyperlink by all means or use a generally understood adjective to mean 'natal' women in order to clarify (or be specific about whom the shelter excludes). 'Cisgender' is neither used nor understood by the vast majority of readers. 'Cisgender' as a term barely exists outside debates surrounding trans people. Pincrete (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I think we have covered all of that below and have an agreed wording. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  You think someone would understand "natal women" but not "cisgender women"? (The wording below, that the shelter excludes trans women, is IMO the best for clarity for a reader uninformed about trans issues, but I still am puzzled by this !vote.) Loki (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  No I thought that editors here would understand 'natal women'. Be specific about whom the shelter excludes is my alternative suggestion, which avoids finding a universally acceptable and understood term for anatomically female adults who were born that way. Pincrete (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes - even if one believes that trans women are women, the fact that this service excludes a numerically tiny percentage of potential applicants does not change the fact that it is inherently a women's service. Every establishment or service has certain criteria for exclusion; if a women's service excluded drug addicts, you would not refer to it as a "non-drug-addicted women's service". That said, the exclusion is obviously an integral part of both the formation of, and the commentary around, this service, and should be mentioned in the intro. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• No. Further clarification is needed in this sensitive topic area. RS coverage of Beira's Place overwhelmingly makes this clarification, and we should too. The most commonly used terms should be used: "assigned male/female at birth" or "cisgender". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm looking at the The Guardian and The Edinburgh Evening News on this and they don't feel the need for more clarification. I'm sure there are probably some RS that have elaborated but I can't see the need. Let's leave it as is. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  If you mean the status quo when you say "as is", then I do think that "as is" is better than the unexplained "a service for women" this RfC is about. The two sources you cite both explain that trans women are excluded in the first statements they make in their own voice about the Place's clientele, excluding WP:HEADLINES. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  I do mean the status quo. We have beaten around the bush here for ages and the form of words we currently have, while not perfect for everyone, surely is a good place for us to settle on as a consensus. Hope so. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

trans women are biological people and so biological females. all humans are biological. sex is comprised of gonads (hormones), genes (chromosomes), and genitalia, all of which are nonbinary measures to begin with with various gradients of presentations as seen in completely naturally occuring DSDs. what we see on this page is no less than a terf takeover of science and a bigoted attempt at scrubbing the record of the truth. The truth is that no trans person will be welcome at Beira's and that Intersex ciswomen are probably also likely to be turned away if the truth be known. Beira's does not use a consistent biological or social standard other for "woman", but rather seeks to exclude trans people in particular and this is its stated goal in the news media. "Cisgender Women" should be used so as not to mislead. The last time I wrote something like this my IP was banned for multiple days, lets see if the same corruption happens again. I do not trust some of the editors here. 89.14.148.141 (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I just called Beira's they are a "single sex" venue, so intersex women are also not welcome. They weren't able to comprehend the question regarding indigenous persons, but my guess is someone with no assignment at birth is also not AFAB or cisgender. They have no logically consistent measure outside of the single-sex definition of "woman" from the euphamistically named equalities act. talonx89.14.148.141 (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible closure

I have asked the originator DMVHistorian if they will put together a revised Lead Section that will tie the threads of this discussion together.

If he assists and we can (hopefully) all get behind it - even if it's not quite 'perfect' for everyone - we can move on. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

That's looking good to me. Thanks DMV.

I hope everybody else can live happily ish with that. Lukewarmbeer

Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this is ignoring the points Madeline and I made about why hyperlinking the page defining "woman" to clarify that the shelter is only for cisgender women doesn't make sense, and the fact that the majority in the RfC (5-3 if I counted correctly) decided against using the word "woman" to mean cis women. The first sentence also doesn't need to mention "women" at all if the second sentence already clarifies the clients.

The specific reason Lukewarmbeer suggested linking the article for "woman" is that they believe that the definition of "woman" excludes trans women, which is not backed up by the page's own definition. Madeline and I, as well as several others on the RfC page, have criticized that, which you should probably reread.

This seems like subverting a majority opinion to appease one editor who, in statements like "The argument seems to be being made [...] that there is a larger set of humanity called "Women" of whom "Cis women" and "Trans women" are both subsets. To me that is not the case." and "Women and Trans Women […] are two different things" that their edits are motivated by their personal view that trans women are not women. Maivea (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. Linking woman is useless WP:OVERLINK, and I'd prefer not to include the term in the first sentence at all, since we need to clarify right after anyway. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you think we can achieve consensus? I'd like to continue the effort but I'm not quite sure where to go with it.

Are you thinking you would be happy with:

Beira's Place (English: /ˈbaɪ.rə/, BY-ruh) is a Scotland-based private support service for people who are victims of sexual violence. Founded in 2022 by J.K. Rowling, the organisation describes itself as a "women-only service" because it does not provide services to people assigned male at birth, including trans women.

?

I could live with that. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

That is fine with me, though "people who are victims of sexual violence" could probably be simplified to "victims of sexual violence." Maivea (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

That's great. Hopefully we can call it a day. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

This is okay for me too, though you can cut people who are. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 10:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Lovely.

Have we any other comments before we wrap this up? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The new intro is fine. Maivea (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Maddy from Celeste, would you review the newest version too? Maivea (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The other problem is an intro that contrasts "women" with "trans women" sets up a dichotomy that implies the two are mutually exclusive groups.

By the way, I hate to play the big mean trans person here but Lukewarmbeer did ask DMVHistorian on DMV's talk page to give them backup when I was arguing against LWB prior to asking DMV to write this closing statement. If LWB asked DMV to write the closing statement because they thought DMV would be more likely to take their side, that may be a violation of Wikipedia's anti-canvassing rules (see WP:CAN). Maivea (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Maivea, @Maddy from Celeste, @Lukewarmbeer, and all,

Thank you for your feedback.

Just respectfully noting that I am only on this discussion because I was asked to attempt to draft revised sections of the article that would reach broad consensus. Any notion that I am "taking sides" or providing "backup" to a particular viewpoint is not accurate.

You didn't need to go to DMVHistorian's talk page to find that out. I stated that intention at the top of this section and I did it because they created this page, helped out before, seemed to have a good feel for respecting the variety of views expressed and took the time and trouble to put together a form of words to try facilitate consensus.

I am happy with DMV's revised text. Hopefully you can get behind it. If not please propose your own versions(s), taking into account views other than your own and we can either agree or start chipping away at them to try and reach an acceptable form.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add - please remember WP:GF Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Based on the feedback regarding the proposed draft, how does the below revised lead version #2 look?

Also, can the group here please confirm if you are comfortable with the revised language for the 'Activities' section? I just wanted to double check on that.

DRAFT Lead Section (Version #2):

Beira's Place (English: /ˈbaɪ.rə/, BY-ruh) is a Scotland-based private support service for victims of sexual violence. Founded in 2022 by J.K. Rowling, the organisation describes itself as a "women-only service" because it does not provide services to people assigned male at birth, including trans women.

DRAFT Activities Section:

Beira's Place is a privately-owned and operated domestic violence service that was formed to provide specialist support to women assigned female at birth aged 16 and over in Edinburgh and the Lothians who are survivors of sexual violence.

In a statement provided by the organisation, Beira's Place wrote "we believe that women deserve to have certainty that, in using our services, they will not encounter anyone who is male. Where appropriate, we will refer men or individuals identifying as trans women to other appropriate services."

~~DMVHistorian (talk)

Sources
References

DMVHistorian (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Lukewarmbeer, Maivea, and Madeline - Please find the below draft revisions for the lead section and activities section of the article as a follow-up to the feedback in the recent Request for Comment. I tried my best to incorporate the varied feedback and related articles provided. Please let me know if you have any feedback on this draft.

DRAFT Lead Section:

Beira's Place (English: /ˈbaɪ.rə/, BY-ruh) is a Scotland-based private support service for women who are victims of sexual violence. Founded in 2022 by J.K. Rowling, the organisation describes itself as a "women-only service" because it does not provide services to people assigned male at birth, including trans women.

DRAFT Activities Section:

Beira's Place is a privately-owned and operated domestic violence service that was formed to provide specialist support to women assigned female at birth aged 16 and over in Edinburgh and the Lothians who are survivors of sexual violence.

In a statement provided by the organisation, Beira's Place wrote "we believe that women deserve to have certainty that, in using our services, they will not encounter anyone who is male. Where appropriate, we will refer men or individuals identifying as trans women to other appropriate services."

~~DMVHistorian (talk)

Sources
References

DMVHistorian (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

That's looking good to me. Thanks DMV.

I hope everybody else can live happily ish with that. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

unfortunately, this does not indicate intersex cisgender women assigned intersex at birth are or indigenous genders in autonomously governed regions, the focus on barring only trans women is ethnocentric and biased. the policy clearly bars some intersex women and some indigenous women. All people are biological people. talonx89.14.148.141 (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope we need more arbitration. We need a DEI expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.198.77 (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm unsure of why arbitration is required, the way that it has been worded above is factual and has been subject to many articles on the fact that it is only for females who were assigned female at birth, which has been made clear by Beira's Place themselves, while there are strong views on this topic, the fact that it is female only as of now, I cannot see how a DEI expert would be required. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

ok so we need to explicate that that means intersex cisgender women assigned intersex at birth are not welcome, we need to make sure that folks who are raised in places without assignment at birth (on various reservations or in indigenous autonomous contexts) are also not welcome. So can we add those two categories? The current langauge is illogical and misleading and ethnocentric. talonx89.14.148.141 (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

every exclusive reference to ciswomen/cisfemales needs to be marked. Women/females includes trans people. So the language here is biased, for proposing a default to "women" only after redefining it on the page to exclude trans women. This is clear synthesis to redefine woman to exclude only the women you don't like. Also still need to be explicit about the space excluding intersex and indigenous persons without birth assignment. A DEI expert would be desirable, because some people here have repeatedly dehumanised trans people by referring to them as "not biological", defining them out if their sex and gender using synthesis, etc. Talonx78.55.173.227 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)