Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Manual of Style. 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 5

←

Archive 9

Is "anti-trans" equivalent to "transphobic"?

Latest comment: 2 years ago133 comments30 people in discussion

Does "anti-trans" come under WP:LABEL the same way "transphobic" does?

~~I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of editors who are not involved in the topic area.~~ Crossroads ^-talk- 06:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Struck since that part went out the window ages go. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell "anti-trans" is used interchangably with "transphobic" (example), so I'd say it follows the same guideline. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

There is some irony implicit in citing that CBC example in this context, since following the CBC usage, neither transphobic nor anti-trans would be a value-laden LABEL. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Most WTW are commonly used in the media, despite (in this case) being value-laden. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, simply because an RS uses a label word doesn't eliminate it as a label word, we just have a good source for attribution. --Masem (t) 15:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say yes, but what do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Same perspective as Slatersteven on this one. Crossroads please provide some sources where it is used, as well as articles so that the discussion can be of higher quality. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not aware of there being sources about the label in and of itself. I don't think such were required when listing the others as value-laden. But Jochem van Hees linked to one example of it being used. In my experience other usages of it are much the same. If I have time I may look for more sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think there's a very important distinction to be made here between value-laden labels like perversion, terrorist, racist, cult, versus factual labels which our societal norms cause people read a value into. The words that this guideline is meant to discourage are value-laden ones - i.e. those which contain a value judgement within them. However, the descriptor anti-trans simply describes a general set of beliefs and positions, just the way anti-communist or conservative does. It makes no claim about the motivations or value of the described entity.

In fact, I recall an editor appealing to this same sort of argument on the article on the book Irreversible Damage (I don't recall if it was someone involved in this discussion or not). In that article, we note that the publisher, Regnery Publishing, is politically conservative. The editor argued that it was inappropriate to describe Regnery as conservative because it was a value-laden label intended to degrade the book.

Assuming good faith, it's encouraging from a community point of view that many editors here see anti-trans as inherently a negative descriptor. But that is merely because these editors personally consider anti-trans legislation/ideology/etc. to be distasteful (i.e. they ascribe transphobia to anti-trans activists). Just like conservative, anti-trans is regularly used in sociology and political science to describe a certain political group^{[1][2][3][4][5]}, specifically one which opposes trans acceptance/recognition/rights. Another example: though I imagine most Wikipedia editors consider holocaust denial distasteful, describing Carlo Mattogno as a holocaust denier in wikivoice is not inappropriate under WP:LABEL.

To those in favor of excluding the term anti-trans from wikivoice, I would be very interested to hear – how else we should describe the political movement that sociologists and political scientists call anti-trans? Srey Sros^talk 03:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Answer: "Trans-critical". The prefix/adjective "anti-" means against (e.g. anti-abortion, anti-feminist, anti-government, anti-Semitic, anti-smoking, anti-war). Just because a person or organization is critical of gender-identity ideology does not mean that person or organization is, for example, against transgender individuals being protected against violence and discrimination based on their transgender status. Serious sociological and scientific research/studies may provoke thought, but they don't resort to incendiary terminology. Those that traffic in inflammatory terms should not be taken seriously. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a very strange position to take. You seem to have personally decided that anti-trans is "inflammatory", and then based on that you decide to disregard all reliable sources which use the term, because you think that [RS] that traffic in inflammatory terms should not be taken seriously. That may be your POV, but that's not how we evaluate sources on Wikipedia. You cannot disregard reliable sources because they use language that you don't like, or, for that matter, because you aren't personally convinced by them. Srey Sros^talk 03:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, it's ironic that you invoke the "people who are critical of gender-identity ideology but who oppose violence against trans people can't possibly be anti-trans" argument, as this dogma is specifically addressed in multiple of the (peer-reviewed, academic) sources in my comment above as characteristic of the anti-trans movement.

[6] (entitled "The Growth of the Anti-Transgender Movement in the United Kingdom"): Lobby groups who campaign against trans rights are usually at pains to stress their support for trans people. One such group claims: ‘We believe “transgender” people are entitled to their own personal beliefs and should have the same human rights as anyone else’ ^{(Hey, at least the group didn't say transgender "people")}
[7]: Within the context of backlashes against feminist theory and praxis, one of the most worrying conservative narratives that feminism currently has to face is the accusation of its having developed and spread a so-called ‘gender ideology’... Accusations of gender ideology, which have spread rapidly through Latin-America and Europe are anti-feminist and anti-trans in their intentions.
[8] (section title "Trans-exclusionary politics and ‘gender ideology’"): In the UK context in which we write, a significant upsurge in public anti-trans sentiment has taken place since 2017... the campaigners themselves... have preferred to call themselves ‘gender critical’... In addition to attacking trans people’s right to access public toilets in line with their sex/gender presentation, ‘gender critical’ feminists have criticised social developments such as LGBTIQ-inclusive school education and positive media representations of trans people. Increasingly, they argue that such developments result from what they call ‘gender ideology’The language of ‘gender ideology’ originates in anti-feminist and anti-trans discourses among right-wing Christians, with the Catholic Church acting as a major nucleating agent.

You can have whatever personal definition you like of anti-trans, but unless reliable sources agree with you, that definition will not be used in Wikipedia articles. Srey Sros^talk 03:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The question contains an erroneous premise - that there is a unified and coherent movement that includes everything being called "anti-trans" by some source or other. "Anti-trans" is a vague label that various sources use in various ways, sometimes describing religious conservatives, sometimes describing 'gender-critical' feminists, and sometimes describing anyone who dissents from some specific claim that the one using the term thinks is essential for trans acceptance despite being neither religious or feminist (this one is common in non-academic media). Crossroads ^-talk- 06:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Just curious, Crossroads: would you describe your argument here as OR, or as SYNTH? Newimpartial (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Just curious, Newimpartial: Would you describe your question here as a false dichotomy or trolling? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Just like anti-abortion or anti-war (or conservative for that matter), it's a broad label, but it's very commonly used in reliable sources (academic and otherwise) to identify a specific social/political movement. As it happens, both anti-abortion and conservative are also [used] in various ways, sometimes describing religious conservatives, sometimes describing 'gender-critical' feminists, and sometimes describing people who are neither religious [nor] feminist. Despite this, anti-abortion is widely used as a descriptor throughout Wikipedia: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15], as are anti-war and conservative. I fail to see how anti-trans is any different from those terms. Srey Sros^talk 21:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Abortion" and "war" are acts, while "trans" is a social category. People can be trans, but nobody is an abortion or a war. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be exceedingly inappropriate to exclude ~~mention~~ Wikivoice usage of a well-sourced, notable aspect of an organization or entity because you personally don't believe the movement it is said to belong to is unified enough (or that it can't possibly be because it's against what you see as social categories rather than acts). You have not presented a single source outside of your own opinion to support your argument that what scholars refer to as the anti-trans sociopolitical movement is somehow less of a movement than others which are comparable in terms of both sourcing and wording, and to which we regularly describe membership in Wikivoice.

You clearly have a strong personal opinion that anti-trans should not be used (at least on the article which spurred this thread), but the sourcing and basis in policy that would be required to support your position simply isn't there. Additionally, it's rather ironic to hear you say that being trans is a state of being rather than an action – I agree with you, but I think many editors and anti-trans partisans would disagree, and would see that distinction as evidence of your bias towards a "woke gender-identity ideology". Srey Sros^talk 02:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I never said to exclude mention of it, just that in-text attribution should be used. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I should have written Wikivoice mention. I've updated my original comment. Srey Sros^talk 03:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@SreySros: What do you think about terms like "anti-Protestant", "anti-Catholic", and "anti-Muslim"? gnu 57 14:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a question of usage in reliable sources. It is not ours to decide what do and do not qualify as political movements, and it's certainly not ours to disregard or euphemize all RS references to a movement because we don't like the name that reliable sources have chosen for it.

Anti-Muslim is a good example; for instance see the lead and talk page for the organization Stop Islamization of America (possibly most notable for running these ads: [16] [17]). The sourcing behind categorizing the organization as anti-Muslim is overwhelming, and I would be surprised to see anyone here argue that it's inappropriate to denote it as such in Wikivoice. Srey Sros^talk 20:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

By definition, vegans are anti-meat in their own diets; that doesn't necessarily mean they're carnophobes. Carnophobes are scared of meat; that doesn't necessarily mean they mind others eating it. See the analogy to your question? If not: "anti-" ≠ "-phobic". --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, transphobes aren't really scared of trans people, and do mind other people being trans. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree despite how you and I might be outnumbered. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

"XXXXphobe" is a handy (and somewhat negative) label, it doesn't actually have to be linguistically correct. Today "-phobe" has very little connection with φόβος, phobos, "fear". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Ibid my comment to Jochem van Hees. I pity those who play fast and loose with semantics. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Language evolves, else we would be typing in linear A or something. Yes homophobe or Transphobe does not mean fear in the sense we usually mean it so much as they are seen as some kind of threat to "family values" or whatever.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh come off it. Language does evolve but at a slow enough pace that all living speakers of the language can communicate. When people in their 40s or older are told "language evolves" it doesn't bode well for inter-generational communication. "-phobia" as a fear was well understood 10 certainly 20 years ago and comparing that to c. 3500 years is a tad silly. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

What you say may be true, but people who over-adapt to the language as spoken in their young adulthood can produce problems as speakers or as hearers. I remember being deeply puzzled when older adults would use "hip" as a transitive verb in the 1990s, and my parents were initially quite unable to understand "because + noun" constructions when they came into wide use after 2000. Living speakers of the language may be able to communicate, but they may also be quite able to misunderstand each other. Newimpartial (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Gk. φόβος < PIE *bʰegʷ- 'to run, flee'. The modern English suffix -phobic means 'Having an extreme or irrational fear or dislike of a specified thing or group.' (https://www.lexico.com/definition/-phobic). Hence transphobia (Oxford Dictionary of Media and Communication (3 ed.) [Latin trans ‘across, beyond’ + Greek phóbos ‘fear’] Negative attitudes towards transsexuality or transgender people. The term originated in the 1990s. cf homophobia (https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095943403) Negative attitudes towards homosexual people and homosexuality which may be manifested in discrimination, hostile behaviour, or hate crimes. Tewdar (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you people say for the plural of octopus? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I would consider the case of "homophobia" here, in that it is not fear of gay people, but fear of the identities, rights, regulations, and other changes that are used to accomodate gay people into society (. I would read "transphobia" the same way, its the fear of what society has to do to accomodate trans individuals. Anti-trans, as I read it, is actively fighting against these changes (like giving trans similar rights) There is a clear overlap between these words (like, 75% overlap of meaning) but I can see cases where they aren't the same. To this end, for BLPs who are identified as one or the other, we should use the term preferred by sources. --Masem (t) 17:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

But what about cases where only WP:BIASEDSOURCES use the terms? Some editors take those as justification for use of labels in wikivoice, and telling them it is clearly biased and that has to be accounted for by not using wikivoice falls on deaf ears. A source like PinkNews even has a statement at WP:RSP that it is not reliable for statements about a person's sexuality, and yet some editors treat it as reliable for statements about being "anti-trans".

It's also not always a direct BLP matter but applies to organizations, which is what inspired this discussion. Namely, here.

Even though the list isn't expected to be exhaustive, the fact that "anti-trans" is not listed and "transphobic" is seems like it sometimes works a loophole for using the former. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I have never read LABEL to be fully included or exhaustive of label words. Editors are expected to use common sense to recognize other terms as labels to be attributed. --Masem (t) 16:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, I along with many other editors have objected to your argument, Crossroads, that LABEL applies to "anti-transgender", for as long as you have been making the argument. My rationale is not that it happened to be left off the list, but that (1) there is no general principle that LABEL applies to all "anti-X" terms and (2) that there is no general principle that all terms for anti-trans activism need to be seen as "value laden", any more than all terms for, say, anti-democratic activism need to be seen as "value-laden". Some are, and some aren't. So if you want the scope of LABEL extended, again, I think an RfC would be appropriate (as suggested below).

Also, the idea that we are taking about cases where only WP:BIASEDSOURCES use the terms seems like a red herring to me, unless you want to make the argument that BIASEDSOURCES applies to, e.g., the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (outside of sports reporting, that is, where I suppose it might apply and I just wouldn't notice). Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe "anti-trans" is clearly within the scope of LABEL. The term is often used, in a value-laden way, as a negative label synonymous with "transphobic." When used as a pejorative term, "anti-trans" is simply a broad brush that condemns its target as bigoted. More particularly, the term is regularly used to broadly label its target as being motivated by transphobic bigotry or hatred, a motivation which the speaker may imagine or infer. The inference can be based, for example, on the target's specific opposition or skepticism about any given transgender-affirming policy position, even where the target specifically disclaims negative motivations. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

To me, there is a distinction. "Transphobia" refers to an attitude whereas "anti-trans" refers to actions. Of course, the two are very often comorbid as the attitude frequently leads to the actions. Nonetheless the distinction is meaningful. It is possible to imagine a person who is transphobic but who takes no anti-trans actions and it is also possible to imagine a person who takes anti-trans actions unintentionally, without transphobic intent. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's not forget the very real possibility of anti-trans actions that are undertaken cynically (catering to the prejudices of others) rather than out of any active prejudice or malice. Newimpartial (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

To put it more simply, my position is that it may not be a LABEL to describe a policy as "anti-trans", but it is almost always a value-laden and pejorative LABEL to describe a person or group as "anti-trans". Lwarrenwiki (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

To quarrel not with your politics but with the "almost always... pejorative" characterization: there are legions of folks who deem anti-trans to be a badge of honor, patriotism, conservatism, etc. rather than as a pejorative label. Regardless of how one feels about trans, I'd say anti-trans is as much a LABEL as pro-trans. As a reader, I want articles to gloss and cite previously published sentiments on the topic, not to evince editors' respective biases on the topic. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 07:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I know of a single BLP of that sort. Where the issue comes up is where someone is described that way by some because they, say, oppose gender self-identification laws, but they will also say they are not anti-trans and they say they still support availability of medical transition, etc. These aren't trivial cases. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to describe language commonly used in academic sources to describe the sides of an issue as WP:LABEL. If we go that route that means the guideline effectively instructs editors to substitute that for... what? The self-descriptions people use pose much more serious WP:NPOV issues. Obviously people heavily involved in a culture-war dispute are going to find any language other than their preferred self-descriptions to be POV, but that's not something we can reasonably thread our way through; all we can do is look to the best sources and reflect the language used there. The comparison (as I made on the other page) is pro-choice / pro-life vs. anti-abortion / pro-abortion. Many strident partisans in that debate will insist that the latter is a POV way to describe their views and only the former is the appropriate way to describe them, on account of not being anti- or pro-abortion in all cases, on account of some other aspect of their views being more important to them personally, and so on; but the latter is still the more neutral language, as can be seen by looking at usage among top-quality sources (especially less biased ones.) The same is broadly true here - anti-trans / pro-trans are generally the language used by top-tier sources to describe the dispute, and are therefore the most neutral terms to use. --Aquillion (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Commonly used in academic sources" is very difficult to define, since there are very many academic sources, and a lot of junk in low-quality journals and/or articles that other academics largely ignore. So, proportion - whether it is actually common or a tiny minority - can be an issue.

Another thing is that relative quality of sources itself is an issue. Perhaps something/a BLP is never labeled "anti-trans" in academic sources, but is by PinkNews and the like. What then? If only outlets that routinely mix fact and opinion use a term for something, it seems best avoided in that particular case at least. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Any definition is going to have difficulties, but "commonly used in academic sources" is at least something solid we can dig into sources on and compare how they use the term. The current inclusion / exclusion criteria for the list seems to be based on nothing beyond editors' gut feelings and personal opinions. Examining high-quality sources to see how and if they use the terms, and removing ones that are widely used as fact in the article or authorial voice in high-quality non-opinion contexts, seems to me to be much better than that. Of course WP:RS, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and (when talking about living individuals) WP:BLP will still apply everywhere even for words that are removed from the list, and you could still object to usage based on what you consider weak sources on those grounds; but including a word on this list asserts that it is always contentious in all contexts. If it has significant use in high quality sources that do not treat it as contentious, then that means the assertion that it is always contentious is not true, and it should not be listed here, nor treated as automatically contentious in articles. --Aquillion (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Narrowly speaking, I do not think that "anti-trans" and "transphobic" are equally pejorative. Groups that oppose trans rights generally have no problem saying that they are anti-trans. (This discussion I think originated in whether to describe a list of three websites as anti-trans, among which were "Transgender Trend" and "Youth Trans Critical Professionals", which as you can see both identify themselves as anti-trans in their names.) However, they often object to being called transphobic. Therefore, they're not the same thing.

Does this mean that "transphobic" falls under MOS:LABEL while "anti-trans" doesn't? I can't really say for certain, since IMO MOS:LABEL is written in a way which doesn't match actual practice in most of the articles to which it theoretically should apply. I go more into detail about this below but for now suffice to say that the answer I've gotten when I've complained about this before is that there is no canonical list of loaded terms; which terms are LABELs is not a static property of the word but depends on context. If people are going to say "MOS:LABEL doesn't apply to calling Hitler a Nazi because it's not contentious that Hitler was a Nazi" then logically, calling Youth Trans Critical Professionals anti-trans is not a LABEL either; it can't be contentious since it's in their name. Loki (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Loki, you illustrate my point by saying "...which as you can see both identify themselves as anti-trans in their names", because I don't see that, and neither do you. In their names, what we see is "trend" and "trans critical", and you made an inference from the words in their self-identification. "Anti-transgender" was not how they identified themselves. To infer "anti-trans" from the words "trans critical" is WP:SYNTH. And I'm not saying you are wrong in your WP:SYNTH, because you may in fact be right—but even assuming you are right, it's still WP:SYNTH. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I wish editors would stop invoking WP:SYNTH where it does not apply. If someone, somewhere off-wiki, has said that "trans critical" is a synonym for "anti-trans" (I am confident that there are pretty good sources out there, but in this instance a random tweet would do), then it cannot be SYNTH to make a statement as Loki has done. It may or may not be a correct conclusion, but it cannot be SYNTH - please see WP:NOTOR. Newimpartial (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. I accept that different people may have different sensitivity to dog whistle phrases, depending on how familiar they are with far-right lingo. What some might be obvious to some people may need to be explained to others. For example, I can see why the "Trend" in "Transgender Trend" might need explaining so some people. It is anti-trans but it is not obvious to everybody until it is explained what the completely bogus "trend"/"transtrender" narrative it is invoking actually is. However, I must say that this understanding runs out at "Youth Trans Critical Professionals". That is much more of a foghorn than an dog whistle. We are not obliged to pretend that we can't hear it. There is no WP:SYNTH issue in pointing out that everybody can hear it and that reliable sources have noted it. It is obviously intended to be read and understood as explicitly anti-trans. If anybody can genuinely bring themselves to doubt this then just swap out "Trans" for some other minority and see how you feel about it. Imagine that there was an organisation calling itself, say, "Jew Critical Professionals"? Can anybody imagine arguing that wasn't obviously antisemitic on its face? Of course not. To infer "anti-trans" from the words "trans critical" is not WP:SYNTH. It is basic literacy. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

A caution, though, is we really shouldn't be relying on a single source, even if it was BBC or NYTimes, to take on context and meaning to newfound controversial words, in alignment with WP:NEO. We also want more than a burst of coverage from multiple sources that disappears after a few days. If you can show such equivalence over multiple sources and months, then yes we probably should adapt that meaning.--Masem (t) 18:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

NOTOR is an essay page. WP:NOR is about ideas for which no reliable, published sources exist, so no, random tweets do not satisfy that. If they did, pretty much nothing would be OR since some rando somewhere will be saying pretty much anything. NOR also puts the burden on the person making a claim to demonstrate they are not adding OR by citing RS that support it - so the answer to a claim that something is OR should be to back it up with sources, not go 'nuh-uh, OR is only if no sources exist anywhere', thus reversing the burden of proof and asking someone to prove a negative. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads: (1) NOTOR is an explanatory note, not an essay - I know you get those two classes of page confused, but they are not the same.

Likewise (2) SYNTH is not a synonym for OR, it is a subset of OR - not all OR is SYNTH (I know you have previously been confused about this also).

And (3) if the statement "trans critical" is a synonym for "anti-trans" has not mean made in a reliable source (but I believe it has), it would be OR but not SYNTH.

Capisce? Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, please assume good faith. I don't see evidence that would justify a claim that an editor confuses pages even if the confused the two types in this specific instance (especially since WP:NOTOR starts with, "This essay describes..."). Springee (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have at hand the instance, clear in my memory, where Crossroads previously confused an explanatory note with an essay. But an instance where I corrected him about his extensive (non-policy-based) usage of SYNTH is seen here. Newimpartial (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender critical feminism/trans-exclusionary radical feminism informs us that terms like "trans critical" or "gender critical" are plainly anti-trans terminology and clearly not synth, ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it there and I missed it? Where in that section appears text that confirms ""trans critical" or "gender critical" are plainly anti-trans terminology". What is found within the sources cited that precisely equate "trans critical" and "gender critical" with anti-trans? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Context and way forward?

"Transphobic" was added to the list in LABEL in mid-2019 following a discussion (not an RfC) in which six editors participated. The consensus at the time seems to have been based on the specific terms under discussion being "value-laden", and not on the nature of the claims underlying the use of the terms. Subsequent, much more widely-participated discussions (such as this RfC) have not resulted in consensus that LABEL applies to "anti-trans" or the like. I suspect an RfC with an appropriately broad scope and clearly defined options (discussed in advance) would be the best way forward. Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

So, maybe I misread the initial question. Based on your info, let me parse the question: Does "anti-trans" come under the WP:LABEL? Yes. Does "transphobic" come under the WP:LABEL? Yes. Are "ant-trans" and "transphobic" synonymous? If so, I've been misled all of my adult life, or maybe I just need to improve my English semantic skills. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 00:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, why did you link to the 2019 MOS discussion before it was completed? You said only 6 editors participated (all supported in your link). But if you went into the talk page archives you would get this [18]. It looks more like 11 editors participated (plus one who closed) it. It looked like most/all editors felt the labels were value laden and thus the rule would apply. The editor who seemed to object most to the actual change to the MOS did so on the grounds of explicit vs implicit. They argued we need to be careful about editors reading the list as an explicit list vs examples of the real intent of the rule (ie any value laded label). This was noted by the discussion closer. While I understand the inconsistency point you are trying to make, please be more careful about mispresenting one side of your argument. Springee (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I linked to the same version of the discussion linked in the edit summary when the change was made to the guideline text. At that time it was six editors, and it may have been 11 editors - with one dissenter- by the time of the close. But, unless the edit summary of the editor changing the guideline was in error, the change was not based on the close, and my comment here (that the discussion involved much less discussion than others relates to the term "anti-trans") isn't affected by the accuracy of the link I found in that edit summary. Newimpartial (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You probably should have made that clear at the time. Your edit at the top of the section leaves people assuming only 6 editors were involved (with no comment on the level of support). Also, when you say 6 editors participated it reads as the full discussion was only 6 editors, not that only 6 at the time of the edit plus another 5 after the edit and all editors considered the terms value laden but not all wanted the edit. To a reader who doesn't investigate further you have significantly downplayed the magnitude of the discussion. :Springee (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Compared to the other discussion I linked above on "anti-trans" (and still other, related discussions) the WT:WTW discussion received scant participation, whether or not I inadvertently downplayed it. I don't think 6 editors vs. 11 really factors into that. Newimpartial (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

How many editors weighed in at the other discussion? I counted about 17 !votes (it's a discussion with a lot of back and forth, my count was quick and would miss non-!voters.). So we are talking about ~17, about evenly mixed on a tangential topic vs 11 who seem unanimous that the terms would qualify per WP:LABEL even if they don't agree they should be added as examples. I wouldn't agree that we have a case of scant vs well attended discussions. I wouldn't agree that the article level RfC negates the MOS discussion. Springee (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Since it has been two years, and whether it's 6 or 11 participation is low compared to most RFCs on the topic, it wouldn't hurt to run another RFC. We could bundle the two words together, perhaps, if there's going to be an RFC on this. I haven't investigated transphobic the way I did anti-trans (for the other discussion), but my position is still that words that are commonly used in academia in a context that treats them as neutral (ie. unattributed and as if they are dry, uncontroversial descriptors) cannot reasonably be said to introduce bias and therefore cannot reasonably be categorized as WP:WTW... and I think this is a more useful standard than "well, I feel like it is a WTW", which I feel has sometimes slipped into discussions about this guideline. --Aquillion (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that if an academic uses the term it can't be value laden? Would that apply to academics who are studying racism/racists? Springee (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The context in which it is used matters; if they treat it cautiously then we should reflect that caution. But yes, I would apply it to everything - my feeling is that we should try to use academic language for controversial or highly emotive issues, and that the best way to do that is to look at the way language is actually used in those sources. Otherwise we risk turning MOS:WTW into an unwieldy ball of red tape based on what editors personally find objectionable, which is unworkable (especially because in some contexts - especially the gender disputes that sparked this discussion - there is no language that partisans on all sides would consider neutral.) We should treat WTW the way we treat anything else and base it on the best available sources, rather than editors' personal opinions about language they feel is a value judgment vs. a way to dryly summarize facts. --Aquillion (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that just status quo then? I mean we have academic sources that would say things like a particular person was a terrorist. We might agree that the academic source was sufficient to justify using the term terrorist in a Wikipedia article but that doesn't mean it's not a value laden term. LABEL doesn't say we can't use such terms only that they should be used sparingly etc. Springee (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I very much agree with both you and Aquillion, I think. LokiTheLiar, The Four Deuces, and North8000 have made similar arguments below, and I think we're all getting at the same thing here. It seems that standard practice on WP is (and should be) to use what some editors might consider value-laden terms if the sourcing is strong enough (for example, if the term is used dryly in highly reliable academic sources), and to interpret this guideline as advising us to use these terms sparingly and with caution.

Although the lead of the guideline says ...certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias, the text of WP:LABEL is more restrictive: [LABELs] are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. This leaves no avenue for using the terms in Wikivoice, which to me is clearly contrary to standard and advisable practice (several examples of this have been furnished on this talk page – Adolf Hitler, Richard Spencer, Baked Alaska, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, 9/11 truth movement etc.). I would support modifying the text of WP:LABEL as follows:

This would codify the already common practice of using labels when uncontroversial or very well-sourced, while still keeping a guideline basis for using caution, especially when the labels are only present in few/unreliable sources. Right now, the text of WP:LABEL has the guideline functioning as a global Wikivoice blacklist; claiming a word is value-laden allows an editor to try to exclude practically any word from Wikivoice, regardless of how strong or unanimous the sourcing is and overriding any article-level consensus. It seems ridiculous to me that the only policy justification for calling Goebbels a Nazi is WP:IAR. Srey Sros^talk 03:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I've been reading this discussion for the last few days, and I would be in favour of this proposal by SreySros. It would resolve these sort of issues across multiple topic areas, and not just gender and sexuality. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also be in favor of this proposal. I think this small change would be a significant improvement from the status quo I've complained about multiple times, including below. Loki (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Nope. The former ("use") is a straightforward instruction for all editors to follow. The latter ("consider using") is a choice left up to individual editors. As has happened time and again in many discussions, one editor's interpretation is challenged by another editor's interpretation, and then discussions disintegrate from this starting point into argumentative walls of text. That will be the result of having value-laden label decisions left up to individual editors (which are nothing more than individual opinions, which are plainly and simply POVs). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It is already the case that the decision of whether to use a WP:LABEL is up to individual editors; this is part of the WP:MOS, and therefore is merely a guideline, not policy. See WP:GUIDELINES and in particular Policies are standards all users should normally follow, and guidelines are generally meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. If the current wording misled you into believing that it is a policy that must be followed everywhere by all editors then that is an argument for rewording it. (I have generally noticed editors swinging around MOS:LABEL as if it had substantially more force than it does.) In particular a key point is that when WP:V / WP:NPOV come into conflict, the latter always take precedence. (This is part of the reason MOS:LABEL is written in a way intended to minimize such conflicts, since as a guideline cannot discourage editors from accurately reflecting the sources, which is a core policy requirement.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary, the problem with "use in-text attribution" here is that we're talking about terms that are "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". In-text attribution is meant to be for things that are not "widely used". Otherwise, proper in-text attribution looks a lot like "He has been called a climate denialist by Alice, Bob, Chris, Dan, Erin, Frank, Grace, Heidi, Ivan, Judy, Mike, Niaj, Oscar, Pat, the 73 signatories of an open letter published in The Times, all three of his previous employers, and pretty much every reputable scientist who has ever been asked", which is a bad approach to writing articles. You want to use in-text attribution when things can realistically be attributed to an individual or a small group, e.g., "Alice Expert famously called him a nose-herb nut-hook varlet during a television interview". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose the proposed change to MOS:LABEL. Any ‘value-laden’ label is contentious, and it is not for Wikipedia to decide whether the label is suitable. Attribution should always be used. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I oppose it too, as in 2019 discussion re a similar proposal. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I also oppose it. It's an invitation to endless wrangling and a red carpet to POV pushing. It leaves us wide open to people cherry-picking a few obscure and biased sources that use a term, calling that "widely used", and demanding we use it in wikivoice or else we're whitewashing, which is a bad enough problem as it is. SreySros seems to be under the mistaken assumption that "Nazi" is a LABEL. It isn't. It is first and foremost a clearly defined and specific term for a specific ideology. Of course we would describe Hitler, Goebbels, Spencer, etc. as Nazis. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Do you agree that the term neo-Nazi is value-laden? If you believe that it is, but think that it's acceptable in Wikivoice because it describes a specific ideology and is regularly used in reliable sources to describe that ideology, then you seem to grasp the root of the discussion here (and your responsibility would be to show how e.g. anti-trans differs).

If you think that neo-Nazi isn't value-laden, well, you would be opposing the longstanding consensus that has been encoded in the stable version of WP:LABEL since at least 2017. Srey Sros^talk 03:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for Crossroads. SreySros, editing a posted comment to add a ping is often unsuccessful. See H:PINGFIX. Firefangledfeathers 03:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I could have sworn I checked the text of LABEL already that nothing with "Nazi" in it was there, but it does list "neo-Nazi". I think that is a reason to reconsider that specific term being listed, not how LABEL works. All labels of specific political ideologies could be said to invoke values in the listener to greater or lesser extents - conservative, socialist, etc. - but if they accurately represent non-partisan sources, then they should be used without attribution. These terms represent specific ideologies first and foremost. Normal sourcing rules are sufficient; listing here is unnecessary. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Well I'll be damned – we seem to agree, more or less: all labels of specific political ideologies could be said to invoke values in the listener to greater or lesser extents - conservative, socialist, etc. - but if they accurately represent non-partisan sources, then they should be used without attribution. There's two discussions to be had here, then.

A) Is your and my opinion (that neo-Nazi is at least occasionally acceptable in Wikivoice) reflected in community consensus? If so, we should change MOS:LABEL to reflect that, as the text of the guideline currently prohibits Wikivoice usage of the term. I think there's a few ways of doing that.

Remove neo-Nazi from the list of examples, and assume that value-laden labels is a narrow enough category to clearly communicate to editors that labels for political ideologies/movements are not covered by the guideline. I think the fact that the label has remained in the list for so long indicates against this option.
Reword LABEL to change the category it applies to from value-laden labels to something more specific. Perhaps vague value-laden labels, like Loki suggested below, although something like conservative is arguably vague and value-laden but nonetheless acceptable in Wikivoice. I can't think of any wording that cleanly and clearly draws a line between perversion and neo-Nazi, but perhaps someone else can.
Relax the wording of the guideline, so that the guideline advises caution but doesn't outright prohibit Wikivoice usage of terms when they express the consensus of reliable sources. This is what I tried to propose above, though I'm very open to alternate formulations/wordings of this option. It passes the buck for outright screening such terms to the reliable sources, but I think this is justified. After all, I can't think of a case where a statement like John Doe is a racist is the consensus of reliable sources, but the statement Charlie Kirk is a conservative certainly is.

B) Is using the term anti-trans in Wikivoice prohibited under MOS:LABEL? Maybe we should put off answering this question until we decide what MOS:LABEL actually says, and what it should say. But the nice thing, now that at least we agree on what conditions merit Wikivoice usage of an arguably value-laden label, is that this becomes a clear-cut academic question. The question we are asking now is: "Do reliable sources indicate the existence of an anti-trans social/political movement, as they do an anti-abortion one or a conservative one?". Srey Sros^talk 00:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the only option of those three that would have a chance of passing is removing neo-Nazi. Regarding "John Doe is a racist" never being the consensus of RS, while that is likely, all it takes is a few lower-tier very opinionated sources saying it to have some editors claiming that it actually is the consensus of RS, as long as there are no RS specifically saying he is not racist - and there often will not be in such cases. This results in wastes of time dealing with tendentious arguments. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This here is absolutely a problem on WP nowadays; editors find maybe 2 or 3 sources that use a label in relationship to a topic, and claim that WP:SPADE must apply and we have to say it in wikivoice as fact, which is against against UNDUE if there are dozens of other sources that don't say that. It's one thing that we can factually call Alex Jones a conspiracy theorist as there's no end of sources that support that, but most cases when labels are used, they are often just a handful of sources out of the multitude covering the topic. I've talked about source surveys that should be done to consider how to apply labels (including with specific or broad-based attribution), and that really needs to be emphasized more as steps that shoudl be followed rather than editors feeling it appropriate. --Masem (t) 05:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads: If you don't think "Nazi" is a WP:LABEL, then I invite you to add "Donald Trump is a Nazi" to his article and see how it goes. (While it's certainly not the *consensus* of reliable sources, I'm also certain I could find sufficient sourcing to at least mention the possibility absent WP:LABEL.) Loki (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

to LokiTheLiar: I don’t want to insult your intelligence – surely you are aware that if someone says ‘Hitler was a Nazi’ they are referring to the historical Nazi party, and if they say a modern politician is a Nazi, they are making a value judgment? Sweet6970 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind another RfC but TBH I have more significant problems with MOS:LABEL and how it's used than just the inclusion of a few words. The way MOS:LABEL is written and the way it's used in practice are very different. For some reason "conspiracy theory" is not called out as a LABEL despite it being very pejorative, and despite several articles having it in the title: see Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, moon landing conspiracy theories, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, and so on. And "pseudoscience" is explicitly protected from MOS:LABEL for some reason.

But even with those LABELs we explicitly identify as labels, we often don't adhere to the text of MOS:LABEL, which says even when labels are used to "use in-text attribution" with no listed way to use the label in Wikivoice. But we use loaded language in Wikivoice when well-justified all the time: we call Adolf Hitler a Nazi and Richard Spencer a neo-Nazi in Wikivoice, we call Jim Jones a cult leader in Wikivoice, and we call the Unabomber a terrorist in Wikivoice.

What this conflict between the guideline and practice means is that whenever anyone wants to add a LABEL in accordance with practice there is a clearly written guideline that opponents can bring up to not do that, and consequently it's very difficult to do so. But I challenge anyone to say that it would be better to avoid calling Hitler a Nazi. Loki (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"Nazi" is not loaded in the same way, as it is a well-defined ideology, and in the case of Hitler, he literally led the Nazi Party. Wikipedia is not consistent with the others. It describes Jim Jones' religious group (the cult in question) simply as a "new religious organization", even in that very same lead. The Islamic State article attributes the claim that it is a terrorist group (which makes it even more authoritative, IMO). Crossroads ^-talk- 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The inconsistency is exactly my point. We do not have a consistent way of handling this situation, because the letter of the guideline is obviously the wrong choice in situations where the WP:LABEL is strongly sourced and a defining characteristic of the subject. I've listed several examples of articles that do not adhere to the letter of WP:LABEL, but in some cases, the article does adhere to the letter of the guideline, and it's at least my opinion that those articles are clearly worse off for it. Even you just described the group Jim Jones led as a cult. Nobody disputes that, the sourcing for it is strong, so why are we calling it a "new religious organization" on its page? Especially when we call Jim Jones himself a cult leader? Loki (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that my point was that because Wikipedia is not a reliable source, some articles can be suboptimal. And just because I personally think that Jim Jones led a cult (and that ISIS are terrorists) doesn't mean I support that term in Wikivoice. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

IMO they are both vague negative terms. "Vague" means both uninformative and open to widespread mis-use, and "negative" means value-laden. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW I would support a guideline that says "avoid vague negative terms" over what we have right now. I think that's much clearer as to what constitutes a WP:LABEL and why than the current guideline is. Loki (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, or add it ("avoid vague negative terms") to what we have right now. North8000 (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I've written an essay to this effect. (I changed "negative" to "loaded" because strongly positive terms can also be WP:LABELs.) Loki (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Kent Dominic, if you have been mislead about the synonymity of anti-trans and transphobic all your adult life, you cannot be very old.

I agree though that it is a label, just as racist is. That doesn't mean we cannot call someone a racist, just that it requires a good reason to do so. We can say for example that Trump appealed to racists but we cannot call any of his supporters racist. The main article about al Qaeda does not call it a terrorist orgnization, but some other articles may. It depends on context. "George W. Bush waged a war on the terrorist organization, al Qaeda" for example seems fine.

Guidelines are what we should normally do, not what we have to do. Exceptions may apply, but they have to be justified.

TFD (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Trans-related subjects have become A-bombs and the tendency to include "anti-trans" and "anti-transgender" labels because one or the other is used in one or two sources (even if there are more sources that don't) is becoming the norm. I don't think Wikipedia articles should use a label to, for example, describe and portray an organization as "anti-trans" or "anti-transgender" unless the preponderance of reliable sources that have published articles/studies about the organization are consistent in using "anti-trans" or "anti-transgender" to define it. But this begs the question: what are considered acceptable reliable sources for supporting the labeling of the organization? An article in an academic journal and an investigative report in, for example, The New York Times, can be considered reliable sources. But what about an opinion published in niche media — if an opinion contains a statement that can be considered slanderous, should Wikipedia reinforce the smear by republishing it in its article? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is a source where the use of the term anti-transgender would be appropriate. People who commit crimes against people because they are transgendered and anti-transgender. People who do not think that they should compete in sports are not necessarily anti-transgender. TFD (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly my point. If a source (such as Statista) states "In 2020, there were 52 victims of intimidation hate crimes motivated by anti-transgender beliefs in the United States. A further 76 people were the victims of anti-transgender simple assault in that year.", then this source can be used as a cited reference about "anti-trans/anti-transgender" hate crimes against transgender individuals. But if it doesn't state that "organization XYZ" is "anti-trans/anti-transgender", you cannot use it as a source that defines "organization XYZ" as such. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

So do you agree that the use of "anti-transgender" in article space should depend on what what sources actually support and the context of the intended use, rather than an outright prohibition of the term? Newimpartial (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

As a courtesy I will not ignore that you asked me a question. However, since you have a history of trying to dominate discussions and creating walls of text (the "RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead" in the J.K. Rowling talk page is an example), I shall not be complicit in feeding your habit. You can use your imagination about what I may or not have answered. Have a nice day! Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

TFD, regarding trans women in sports, there absolutely are people who consider opposition to trans women in female sports to warrant a label of "anti-trans". (Note that this is distinct from the position that trans women should not be in sports at all.) And a source like PinkNews [19] calls it an anti-trans position, and doubtless a number of editors agree and some may even try to insert this position in an article as fact. This is why these sorts of disputes are so difficult - if we all already agreed that LABELs applied only to certain extreme positions, then we would have no need of LABEL. But in all these situations, some editors are coming from a very different sociopolitical position and argue that not using a value-laden label is whitewashing, and no amount of pointing to WP:BIASEDSOURCES or anything else will dissuade them. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call failure to use an un-informative, vague negative term whitewashing, I would call it being enclyclopedic. In the example, it's quite a stretch to call people who advocate organizing sports where male biological sex confers an advantage by biological sex rather than gender identity a general "anti-trans" term, although opponents on that topic would like to do so. North8000 (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The underlying issue is that MOS:LABEL uses the flawed premise that negative labels are inherently contentious and should be avoided, which makes it prone to misuse. It really plays into the common fallacy that negative coverage violates NPOV. I've seen editors argue that although a label may be supported unanimously by reliable sources, it is still considered contentious if it's assumed the subject would prefer not to have it applied to them or if it's disputed among Wikipedia editors ("See? We're arguing about it right now, so it's clearly contentious!")

Of course these types of words should be used carefully, but the attribution requirement violates the third point of WP:VOICE: "Avoid stating facts as opinions". It would be best to tone down the language here and defer to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV which already conveys the intended message. –dlthewave ☎ 13:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

LABEL is not based on terms being contentious but subjective, and that includes both negative and positive terms, contentious or not. This can be due to the subjective nature of their definition (eg what is the "alt right" expressly defined as?) or whether the term applies to a topic or no. Subjective assessments of a topic should never be in Wikivoice and should require attribution , unless they are held near universally across sources (with Alex Jones as a conspiracy theorist as a prime example). Unfortunately we get cases of editors cherry picking sources to make a claim of a label term applying universally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs) 16:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

If that's the intended meaning, then we should replace "contentious" with "subjective" and "... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution" with "... may express contentious opinion and should use in-text attribution unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". –dlthewave ☎ 19:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:VOICE also says, Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

Unfortunately, some editors seem to think that an opinion becomes a fact if enough green-listed sources at WP:RSP say it, even though some sources, like Vox, routinely mix fact and opinion. One could call it "opinion laundering". These proposed changes would make that problem worse, not better. If these "reliable" sources say it, it can't be "subjective", they'll say. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that's why LABEL gives as examples racist, but not white supremacist, homophobic but not anti-gay, transphobic but not anti-trans. The former are almost always expressions of moral judgment, and would remain so even in situations where that moral judgment was universally shared. The latter terms are often contentious in their application, but sometimes are appropriate neutral factual descriptions. Expanding LABEL to cover the latter terms would result in factual statements requiring in-text attribution as if they were opinion, like "The pamphlets advocating criminalization of sex between men were distributed by Doe, an activist described in several media outlets as anti-gay." (Neo-Nazi always seemed out of place to me in the LABEL list. There are literal neo-Nazis who should be described as such.)--Trystan (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not agree with the assertion above that LABEL is about "subjective" terms. LABEL is about contentious ("likely to cause people to argue or disagree") terms. It might be worth saying that the contention ought to be between sources, rather than individual editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Different sources use different objective senses of the words, under which their usage is correct and others' wrong, allowing a game of source shopping so as to push "anti-X" or exclude it. If X is a category of people (gay, trans, Semitic) the contentiousness includes the choice of definition as well as the subjective question of whether there is antagonism to X people rather than opposition to a political stance that is described as pro X or X civil rights. As an example, the Anita Bryant article describes her as "anti-gay-rights", which is quite a bit better than language like "anti-gay activist" (speaker, celebrity, etc) that might be found in many sources, because it is less ambiguous about what she fought against, without taking a position on what she thought about gays-as-people. Anti-trans is considerably less precise than anti-gay and is used in cases where there are not even specific legal questions in dispute, but vocabulary and unexpressed opinions imputed by others. Sesquivalent (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I am genuinely confused how anti-gay rights and anti-gay activist are not the same thing. I also am confused as to how anti-trans is less precise than anti-gay. I'd appreciate some clarification on that, Sesquivalent. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC

I am going to add an RfC tag to the discussion above regarding whether anti-trans merits inclusion in MOS:LABEL the same way transphobic does. I am seeing many of the same editors I always see in contentious gender/trans-related articles, and suspect that previous animosity between editors, POV, and local consensus is negatively affecting both the quality of the discussion and the result of it. Other editors are free to respond below before I do so, and I will wait 48 hours to add the tag. I don't really plan on contributing to the discussion, as my perspective has already been raised by Srey Sros and this topic area is quite toxic. I am unfamiliar if changes have actually been implemented to the wording of MOS:LABEL as proposed above, but encourage editors to discuss that in a separate section of the talk page so that that discussion isn't as affected by the contentiousness of this thread.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If it is added, it would be a better look if it were added by someone else. This is because of something you have been partially blocked for previously at ANI (although that has recently expired, I believe?).

As to the merits of whether an Rfc tag should be added or not, when a discussion is free-wheeling, as this one has been so far, the lack of structure tends to attract a multiplicity of viewpoints, sometimes including closely related topics that may have a bearing on the central question, without being o/t or tangential. I.e., it becomes something of a brainstorming session. Rfc's tend to be narrowly focused and provide a limited set of options, and if it seems like that would help the discussion, then I would favor it, but it seems like there's a lot of brainstorming going on, and I kind of like the free-wheeling nature of it so far and I think it better serves the purpose. If it starts to stagnate, and/or the discussion starts to laser in on one sticking point that editors are unable to agree on, then it seems to me that that would be the point to use that as the basis for formulating an Rfc question. I'm not sure that I'm 100% confident that you should be the one to do that, currently.

Finally, if you are thinking about adding an Rfc tag because of the limited response or "same editors [you] always see", an Rfc label by itself is not what changes that, it is the application of WP:APPNOTE by editors (and the Rfcbot) that does that, and there's nothing stop you (or anyone) from adding appropriate notification to a number of WikiProjects right now to attract additional editors to this discussion, and that's what I'd recommend you do at this juncture. If that's not enough, one could notify users selected randomly from WP:FRS without too much difficulty. Mathglot (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

In my view, adding an RfC tag without a new, clearly (and neutrally) formulated question would be directly counterproductive. Given the issues raised by editors so far, I would suggest something based on "should the term 'transphobic' be covered by the existing restrictions of MOS:LABEL?" and "should the term 'anti-trans' be covered by the existing restrictions of MOS:LABEL?", as two separate (parallel) questions. While some editors have questioned the suitability of the existing restrictions, but I think that has to be left to a different RfC that is deliberately made broader in scope. Newimpartial (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

For any initiates or warhorses, save yourself the time and trouble of reading much of the above. Start with User:Newimpartial's immediately preceding post and carry on from there.

@The Four Deuces: If the synonymity of anti-trans and transphobic spans the adult lifetime of a very youthful person, the synonymity must be a fairly recent phenomenon. And so, this thread might not be the ideal forum to determine whether and how far that purported synonymity might apply. But, to Newimpartial's point, that's not the cogent issue here. What he Newimpartial said is the crux of the matter. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Not "he" but "they", but otherwise carry on. Newimpartial (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, Mathglot, Crossroads I have no issues with creating a new thread with a clear, neutral question for an RfC and leaving this thread as a catch-all discussion section. But I do think that the community needs closure for this question that can serve both this particular case and instruct related discussion in the topic area. Not that I'm saying precedent is forever, but good RfC closures are in my opinion the best way to deal with contentious POV issues. I expect this discussion to be referenced in future discussions, at least in the short term, and when there are editors involved with strong POVs or that are personally affected (e.g. trans) leaving it up to editors' interpretation of as loose and/or nuanced a thread as this has been can cause problems.

A small note on the ANI block, it is in no way related to RfCs (just CIR with ANI) and expires in two weeks anyways so I don't see the point in raising the issue. I would appreciate if you took that back, Mathglot, as I see it as an unnecessary if unintentional case of poisoning the well. There's a reason why I opened this to discussion before doing anything, and that is to make sure that any action I take is both backed by policy and agreed upon as beneficial to the discussion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment struck per your request. Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated Mathglot ^u^ A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Please don't. I agree with Mathglot that this is not the time for an RfC on this. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on how User:A._C._Santacruz has handled other RfCs (related discussion at Santacruz talk page), I think someone who has more experience with RfCs should be involved in this matter. Just because an editor wants to be involved in RfC proceedings doesn't mean they should. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you opposed to an RfC being created or just me doing so, Pyxis Solitary. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mathglot. And I repeat, "...I think someone who has more experience with RfCs should be involved in this matter." Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by this and would appreciate you rephrasing it, Pyxis Solitary. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's rather crystal clear to understand. I've noticed in many discussions that you have a habit of asking people to explain themselves. Surely it's not difficult to comprehend (as I stated) that I agree with User:Mathglot's comment above, on 23:18, 19 January 2022; and if you cannot comprehend a simple statement such as "Based on how User:A._C._Santacruz has handled other RfCs (related discussion at Santacruz talk page), I think someone who has more experience with RfCs should be involved in this matter." ... I cannot help you. (As tempting as it will be for you to indulge, do not ask me to explain what "I cannot help you" means.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I often ask others for clarification when I ask a question and they give a nuanced response or when I don't feel I understand the full meaning to their comment. I'd appreciate if you read WP:AUTIST as that would improve our interactions, Pyxis Solitary. I understand you are strongly opposed to me starting an RfC but wanted to know if you were opposed to anyone starting an RfC on this or just me, as your previous responses seemed to be more about myself than the RfC.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, that puts a lot of burden on editors, doesn't it? In any event, I am not opposed to someone else starting an RfC. I think right now you need to cool your jets and aspirations about involving yourself in RfC proceedings. An RfC is a serious matter, not just a run-of-the-mill talk page discussion. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I won't comment on the "burden" thing. But regarding RfCs, I believe that the terminology that Wikipedia uses in connection to or about trans issues is immensely important, so having a serious if not formal discussion (that is less prone to some of the pitfalls of local consensus) on the matter seems beneficial for our ability to cover the topic neutrally, civilly, and in an encyclopedic manner. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Think of it this way ... if we hadn't had this little convo, someone here wouldn't have been possessed by a compulsion to plaster my talk page with discretionary sanctions alerts. To mimic Oprah the Great: You get a laugh! You get a laugh! You get a laugh! Everybody gets a laugh! Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary I fail to see the connection and additionally as far as I can recall alerting other editors of discretionary sanctions through template notices is a neutral action. "If we hadn't had this little convo" you wouldn't have known you might be dealing with an autist editor and we will now interact better (I hope) so I hope you can look at the bright side of the interaction :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

;-) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

One of my favorite artists, Pyxis Solitary :D A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see any significant support in the above discussion for removing transphobic from the examples of contentious labels, so I don't understand why there would be a need to launch an RFC about it. While the previous RFC wasn't huge, it established a clear and lasting consensus. Not every RFC needs to be a 200kb battle royale. At the very least, I would suggest that any RFC brought on this question should be brought by someone who is genuinely proposing its removal. Otherwise, there is no issue to settle.

Similarly, I would strongly question whether an RFC on adding anti-trans would be productive. The above discussion is wide-ranging and often thoughtful, with a high participation rate. It's clear that some people would support adding it and others wouldn't, though I think all in that latter group would agree it is a word that requires considerable care and robust sourcing. Is an RFC likely to provide any further clarity or consensus than that?--Trystan (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I suggested it above, and I don't think the two are really separable. It is inevitable that people are going to discuss its inclusion in any new RFC; and given the low participation in the original RFC, a new RFC is going to override it regardless once that starts being discussed. It would therefore be best to ask the question unambiguously to avoid any dispute over the result. Especially given how frequently that addition is cited, it ought to have a firmer consensus backing it; if you are correct that it is uncontenious then an RFC should simply reaffirm that fact. And since I think an RFC on the main topic here is unavoidable, there is little additional cost or overhead by adding it as an additional question anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, there wasn't an old RfC. There was a discussion with about 14 participants that resulted in a basically a universal consensus that transphobic was a contentious label and a strong but not universal consensus that it should be added to the list as an example. The editor who objected did so on the ground that the list of words is only meant to be examples, not a binary list (on it always = bad, off always = OK). I would suggest any RfC question is arrived at by group consensus rather than who ever asks first. For example, if one just asks if "Transphobic" should be on the list then the question of how to deal with "anti-trans" goes unanswered. If the question askes if both should be on the list then you may find editors who support one but not the other and the answer is confused. Also, some editors may feel that both are subject to the restrictions of a contentious label but, like the objector from the earlier discussion, they want the list to be examples rather than prescriptive. In such a case how do you interpret the results? "No not on the list"!="not a contentious label". Springee (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

If there must be an RFC, I don't think one that singles out trans-related language for differential treatment would be appropriate or constructive. The 2019 ~~RFC~~ discussion considered racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, and transphobic together, and if that consensus is being revisited, let's revisit the whole thing, so that the underlying principles can be considered and applied in a consistent way. Similarly, if we are considering whether anti-trans should be covered, let's also ask whether anti-gay, antisemitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Catholic, and similar terms should also be covered.--Trystan (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)