Jump to content

Talk:Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Category: Organizations that oppose transgender rights

Transgender students have a right to be respected in their schools. Campaigning to repeal protections for transgender students to allow faculty and other students to misgender them with impunity is indeed opposition to transgender rights. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Categories should be used to categorize content in neutral matter, not to advance political campaigns. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Where does "advancing political campaigns" come into this exactly? Neutrally speaking, the term for an organization that opposes transgender rights, is "an organization that opposes transgender rights". Do they not do that? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Compelling the speech of people who are not transgender is not protecting rights of those who are transgender. It's aggressive ideological authoritarianism. The idea that FAIR opposes the rights of transgender individuals is merely the idealogically-motivated opinion of hard-left activists. That opinion should certainly not be stated in wikivoice, and categories are wikivoice. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
That is your opinion, and on multiple counts just plain factually wrong. We should not include your opinion that misgendering people is OK in wikivoice, for a start see MOS:GID, where even wikipedia has a set policy on respecting the names and gender of trans people. Faculty and students don't have the right to insult students, use slurs, or discriminate against them based on any immutable characteristic. Does "aggressive ideological authoritarianism" and your apparent free-speech absolutism extends to all forms of bigoted or cruel things a person could say to a student? If a teacher has the right to misgender a student, they have the right to misgender a cis student and refer to them by a name they don't use. Or just plain insult them, maybe toss in a slur. It's protected speech, right? Students have a right to be respected, which includes not being harassed for who they are. Your insistence that it's ok to refuse to use a students name or pronouns solely because they're trans is not reflected by reliable sources. You casting the issue as "hard-left activists" is laughable - I'm sure every trans kid who doesn't have a safe school environment and who's schoolmates or even faculty refuse to respect them isn't really hurting, they're just upset "far-left activists". Trans people are a demographic, not a political or ideological position. In addition, see here, where it lays out how in the United States Title IX indeed protects students from misgendering and deadnaming. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
@TheTranarchist: I think there is a difference between what you (or some sources) interpret as opposing rights, and how the majority of sources describe the organization. Many of the examples in the overstuffed "Opposition to transgender rights" section do not clearly support the opposition, although you have framed it that way. Opposing policies that may seem on face value to be antiracist or promote equity and transgender protections but may be poorly written or executed seems the MO for this group. WP:DEFINING is a categorization guideline, and subjective categories are discouraged per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. To keep this category (if it survives scrutiny) on the article, you need to provide sources that explicitly state it is opposing the rights of transgender people, not that it is simply advocating for measurers that activists think might lead to rights erosion, or that you think are opposing rights. When the ACLU defends the rights of neo-Nazis to march or say hurtful things, that doesn't mean the ACLU opposes the rights of Jews, Blacks, or anyone that may be hurt by the speech. Also, just for the record, one of FAIR's advisors and DEI presenters is a transgender man nationally honored as Social Worker of the Year. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
  • The push for educators to address structural racism has prompted its own outcry, turning critical race theory and new histories such as The New York Times’ “1619 Project” into fodder for the nation’s ongoing culture wars. At Smith College, for example, a former staff member has attracted a passionate YouTube following for criticizing the school’s insistence that employees undergo anti-bias training that centers on white privilege. Several academics recently formed the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism to combat what they see as an overly cynical emphasis on race, gender and sexual orientation, rather than “common humanity.”[1]
  • A different incident report attached a “get to know you” form distributed by an unnamed French teacher that allegedly asked middle school students as young as 12 years old to circle their preferred pronouns ... In Kim’s letter, she contends that such compelled speech is prohibited under the First Amendment.[2]
  • An organization called FAIR (Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism) says some of the curriculum in Evanston/Skokie School District 65 is anything but fair when it comes to certain issues surrounding gender and race. ... FAIR also suggests that some of the lessons on gender and pronouns may be unconstitutional. While children should have the right to declare a personal pronoun voluntarily, FAIR says “Teaching students that they must use alternative pronouncs and announce their own may also violate their religious rights.” FAIR also states that District 65’s lessons on alternative prounouns and “whiteness” are not age appropriate, as some coursework is for pre-kindergarten through third grade (ages 4-9). [3]
  • The Fairfax County School Board conducted their regular board meeting June 16 to vote on and deliberate amendments to the 2022-2023 Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) handbook. On the minds of many attending the meeting were recently added protections for transgender students encountering misgendering in school. Upon the origin of this protection, concerns surrounding its conflict with the first amendment’s free speech protections for offending students became apparent. And on May 26, Attorney for the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) Leigh Ann O’Neill expressed this concern in a letter to the school board. While FAIR very much supports the additional protection for transgender students, they were pleased to see the document’s new language including the term “malicious” to help discern between events of malintent and free speech. “I think that was a positive adjustment that the school board made because it is taking into account the intention of the student who might have a sincerely held belief that prohibits them from using another student’s chosen pronoun,” O’Neill shared. (emphasis added) [4]
  • While Ontario election law limits how much groups can work together across different municipalities, several organizations have emerged recently with the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates. Blueprint for Canada and Vote Against Woke have been working alongside longer-established organizations like the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) and Parents As First Educators (PAFE) to offer advice or resources to “anti-woke” candidates. [5]
  • One flier asked, “WHY IS AN ORGANIZATION ‘AGAINST INTOLERANCE’ PLATFORMING TRANSPHOBIA?” Another alleged that FAIR “supports intolerance against trans people accessing healthcare.” The third flier claimed that “LGBTQIA+ books are being banned, trans healthcare is being banned and the ‘Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism’ only cares about banning CRT — and they think states have a right to do so.” ... Alex Klein (24L), who declined to confirm if they put up the fliers, was among FAIR’s critics. They alleged that FAIR gives a platform to transphobia, noting the organization’s webinar “Understanding Gender Dysphoria and Its Impact on Clinical Care.” FAIR promoted the event in an Oct. 17 tweet, which was featured on an opposing flier. For reference, they also platformed Lisa Littman and her debunked theory of ROGD. [6]
Disputed sources (no consensus they are unreliable, especially for the CTR)
  • In reality, however, the organization spends its time effectively defending the “right” of students to misgender schoolmates, attempting to bar teaching materials that mention white privilege from being used in school in at least one case and supporting lawsuits over sex-ed curricula. ... In reality, however, the organization spends its time effectively defending the “right” of students to misgender schoolmates, attempting to bar teaching materials that mention white privilege from being used in school in at least one case and supporting lawsuits over sex-ed curricula. [7]
  • conservative, anti-LGBTQ, pro-charter school activist group [8]
Now to briefly respond to the appeal to tokenism, I raise you one Stella O'Malley, conversion therapy advocate and Genspect founder, who is on the board. Also Abigail Shrier.
You say I need to provide sources that explicitly state it is opposing the rights of transgender people. There is ample evidence they oppose the right of trans children to be respected and their name/pronouns used in schools. Both the schools in question and federally speaking Title IX have recognized the established right of transgender students to respect. FAIR opposes these policies and believes that it should be OK to deadname and misgender people just because you feel like it. By way of analogy, if reliable sources have consistently commented on an organization opposing the right to same-sex marriage, it's splitting hairs and a poor argument to say "Organization opposing LGBT rights" does not apply since sources didn't explicitly use that exact terminology since same-sex marriage is a recognized right. To make it a more specific analogy, the defense that they aren't opposed to LGBT rights, just opposed to same-sex marriage due to concerns about "religious freedom" and "the state forcing a different definition of marriage down their throats", would be a poor defense nobody would take seriously and their self-described motives for opposing LGBT rights would not influence whether we can categorize them as such or not. What that translates to here is that since RS have consistently reported on FAIR opposing an established right of transgender students (due to "religious freedom"), the organization is indeed known for opposing transgender rights.
If you can find evidence that transgender students do not have the right to be respected and their proper names/pronouns used, bring it up. Until then, not getting deadnamed and misgendered is a recognized right in schools is a recognized right and their opposition to it is well-documented. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
That's a lot of text to say very little. Regardless of what weight we might apply to the green text passages most don't support the label even if we take them as both 100% true and of great weight. The sources that have been viewed as unreliable are the closest to actually supporting the label. Many of them seem to support the view that this is an issue filled with shades of gray and conflicts between things like freedom of speech and a desire to respect others. Since we are using examples, opposing school bussing is not the same as supporting school segregation. A group which opposed bussing shouldn't be labeled as supporting segregated education. Springee (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll keep this short for you then. Your analogy doesn't fit at all - the analogy that same-sex marriage is a recognized right is much better and actually directly related. Bussing and segregation is a completely different issue that doesn't transfer onto this at all. Unless FAIR also campaigns to allow professors to insult students and misgender and use a different name for their cisgender students, they obviously don't give a rat's ass about "freedom of speech" but merely "freedom to deadname and misgender trans students". It is a recognized right for trans students to have a safe and supportive school environment where they aren't misgendered or deadnamed. Your opinion that their right to that is debatable doesn't at all outweigh the fact that right is federally recognized.
Give evidence that trans students don't have that right, or accept the fact they do and that no matter what you think of FAIR's reasoning or motives they oppose it. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Please support your opinion with evidence that these are rights vs rules etc. Absent that, there isn't consensus for the tag. Springee (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
It is recognized as a right in the United States and by the United Nations for a start. I am stating a fact, it is a recognized right to not be misgendered/deadnamed as a student. You are the one who has contributed no evidence and only your opinion that it's not a right. evidence that these are rights vs rules etc sounds like gibberish stonewalling. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Per ONUS you are the one who needs to submit evidence and so far you haven't. Show us the case where that has been challenged and upheld under title 9. Show us exactly what this group is arguing against so we can decide if it clearly violates or falls into the large gray area of how rules are implemented. Certainly saying the use of a deadname is a violation of a right is a claim that would need some strong evidence, evidence which you haven't provided. I don't think you should be accusing others of things like stonewalling. If you want to talk about editor behavior etc please do it at an appropriate noticeboard. Springee (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I have provided evidence and this is classic stonewalling, but here we go again. The ACLU has cited Title IX in opposition to policies encouraging the deadnaming/misgendering of students of [9] The US Department of Education has confirmed and explicitly stated that Title IX protections extend to gender identity [10] The SPLC confirms trans kids have the right to be respected [11] Here's a version of Title IX from 2016, before Trump ripped out protections for trans students explicitly stating student's right to not be misgendered/deadnamed [12]
FAIR has argued time and time again that there should not be rules in place preventing students and faculty from misgendering/deadnaming students. That is to say, trans kids should just have to put up with bigots making them uncomfortable in school because of "free speech". From the horse's mouth FAIR says “Teaching students that they must use alternative pronouns and announce their own may also violate their religious rights.” [13], "...the student who might have a sincerely held belief that prohibits them from using another student’s chosen pronoun," O’Neill shared.[14], In Kim’s letter, she contends that such compelled speech [asking students their pronouns] is prohibited under the First Amendment [15], In the instance where a student refuses to use a classmates preferred pronouns, Kim says it gets tricky. “We do encourage everybody to be respectful of everybody else but we also recognize that the use of pronouns is a little bit more complicated,” she said. “It’s not like giving a name or giving your address or giving something similar. It really carries with it a set of underlying beliefs that some students and some individuals may not accept or may not believe in.” [16]
In short, they obviously oppose the established right of transgender students to not be misgendered. That they claim it's in the name of "free speech" and "religious freedom" has nothing to do with the factual statement they do not believe that transgender students should not have the right to not be misgendered. Nor the factual statement being respected in school and not misgendered is a recognized right. Is that enough or do you want to shift the goalpost again? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
And once again you claim this is an established right. Interpretations of title 9 have changed and been legally challenged over the years (right to face an accusor for example). You are providing opinions and generalities. You are providing this is a right. This is getting very repetitive. Springee (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok then, goalposts shifted again but lets make this simple, what is your idea of an acceptable source for defining what trans people's rights are? You seem to believe that if governments or human rights organizations say it's a right for transgender students to be respected, they're not to be believed, so please enlighten us all as to who gets to define rights. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
This is a pointless discussion. You don't understand the flaws in your claims so there isn't much to say beyond, you don't have consensus for the change you wish to make. Springee (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
It is a pointless discussion - the right to not face discrimination/harassment (misgendering/deadnaming) in schools on the basis of gender identity is well established by the US, the UN, and various human rights groups. Your repeated insistence you don't think it's a right is meaningless and has no bearing on the discussion. Your refusal to give an example of an acceptable source for determining whether it's a right proves you don't give a shit about the facts of the matter and just want to shove your opinion down everyone's throat. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
If you are certain you are right then you should be able to get consensus to include the tag. Springee (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  1. combat what they see as an overly cynical emphasis on race, gender and sexual orientation, rather than “common humanity.”: this statement does not support the assertion of opposing rights (of anyone). It says they combat an overly cynical emphasis, and the word "rights" does not appear anywhere in the source (aside from one instance of "right-wing").
  2. Alleging that compelling children to circle their preferred pronouns may violate First Amendment may come close to what you say is opposing transgender rights, but the source does not say this. It takes WP:OR an WP:SYNTH to compare the statement to various laws or declarations and conclude it is opposing a right. Even if it is true, it is not what the source says. The word right does not appear in the source.
  3. While children should have the right to declare a personal pronoun voluntarily, FAIR says “Teaching students that they must use alternative pronouns and announce their own may also violate their religious rights. - this is a gray area. FAIR supports children having the right to a personal pronoun. Whether the second part is in opposition to transgender rights is a subjective issue, and one that is not raised in the source.
  4. I'm not sure this says what you think it says. FAIR very much supports the additional protection for transgender students: doesn't sound like opposing transgender rights to me. “I think that was a positive adjustment that the school board made because it is taking into account the intention of the student who might have a sincerely held belief that prohibits them from using another student’s chosen pronoun,” - this is where I think reasonable people can disagree about whether this is opposing transgender rights. But nowhere in the source does it explicitly say FAIR is opposing any rights, even though WP:OR may come to that decision.
  5. This source appears to include FAIR along with several organizations have emerged recently with the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates. It might charitably be a voice justifying the disputed category. But the brunt of the source appears to be on more explicitly anti-LGBT Blueprint for Canada and Vote Against Woke, who may have ties to FAIR. And note "anti-Woke" does not equal "anti-trans" or "anti trans rights". It links to Passage article which is misleading in many ways (more below).
  6. College students alleging transphobia by posting flyers is not a reliable source for categorizing. Hosting a controversial speakers, who may say harmful things, is not in opposition to rights.
  7. Passage article: this is of unestablished reliability, and I think it gets several things wrong: it misstates this case as "lawsuit over sex-ed curricula". It correctly states the Blueprint For Canada cites the FAIR Statement of Principles, but appears to conflate those with "dog whistles" like "schools should educate … not indoctrinate,” and “changing the narrative around ‘colonialism.’” which appear to be Blueprint for Canada principles, not FAIR principles. And it alleges that FAIR defends the 'rights' of students to misgender schoolmates, linking to FAIR's issue page that does not clearly state that.
  8. The Colorado Parent Advocacy Network (CPAN) is the latest addition to a group of conservative, anti-LGBTQ, pro-charter school activist groups in Colorado that include the Independence Institute, FAIR.... Even taking this as reliable and at face value (and inferring anti LGBT means opposing transgender rights), this, and the other sources, do not seem to make the case that "opposing transgender rights" is a trait that is commonly and consistently used by reliable sources per WP:DEFINING and contra WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. If it takes the judgement of readers to decide that action "X" is in opposition to trans rights, whether comparing it to a local district ordinance or Federal law or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but it is not stressed or made clear in published reliable sources, then Wikipedia should not construe it as such in prose or categories: that is WP:SYNTH. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
    2. This only makes sense if you take the absurd position that asking someone how they want to be referred to is "compelled speech". For example: A different incident report attached a “get to know you” form distributed by an unnamed French teacher that allegedly asked middle school students as young as 12 years old to [write their name] ... In Kim’s letter, she contends that such compelled speech is prohibited under the First Amendment.
    3. Imagine if they'd said that about gay kids: While children should have the right to declare [they are gay] voluntarily, FAIR says “Teaching students that they must [respect them] may also violate their religious rights"
    4. Once again, if they'd made the same comment: The Fairfax County School Board conducted their regular board meeting June 16 to vote on and deliberate amendments to the 2022-2023 Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) handbook. On the minds of many attending the meeting were recently added protections for [gay] students encountering [harassment] in school. Upon the origin of this protection, concerns surrounding its conflict with the first amendment’s free speech protections for offending students became apparent. And on May 26, Attorney for the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) Leigh Ann O’Neill expressed this concern in a letter to the school board. While FAIR very much supports the additional protection for [gay] students, they were pleased to see the document’s new language including the term “malicious” to help discern between events of malintent and free speech. “I think that was a positive adjustment that the school board made because it is taking into account the intention of the student who might have a sincerely held belief that prohibits them from [respecting another student]
    5. How does anti-trans actually manifest in the world if not campaigning against trans rights?
    7. Thank you for linking FAIR's website! Let's see what they say:
    • We support the rights of individuals to use for themselves whatever pronouns they wish and, in the case of minor children, we support pronoun usage that is consistent with the fundamental due process rights of their parents or legal guardians. We do not, however, support institutional or ideological pressure on individuals to conform to, accept, or adopt ideas, behaviors, and opinions that do not align with their own beliefs, values, and temperaments, which would result in compelled speech. IE - kids should be misgendered and deadnamed if that's what their parents want and schools should not have rules preventing deadnaming/misgendering.
    • That page also links to their letter here: While we understand the importance of creating environments of tolerance, requiring students to use the preferred pronouns of others, under threat of harassment charges, violates their First Amendment rights ... Requiring students to use others’ preferred pronouns (and punishing them if they do not) necessarily compels them to affirm faith in a gender ideology they may not accept. The whole letter is about how schools should out students to parents without their consent and why because of "free speech" and "religious freedom" you can't tell students to respect other's pronouns. Medical consensus is that misgendering causes psychological harm, which FAIR also denies in this letter. Trans kids are not an ideology, and you don't need to have any beliefs to accept them and treat them with respect, FAIR in this letter continuously argues that merely accepting that transgender people exist is an "ideology".
    8. Also mentions their homophobic/transphobic board members. Homophobic links to the GLAAD entry for someone who has been both protested against gay and trans rights.
    Per my earlier analogy, if multiple reliable sources note that an organization is known for opposing same-sex marriage, but don't specifically call it an LGBT right, is it SYNTH to say they oppose LGBT rights, given that same-sex marriage is very much recognized as an LGBT right? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I feel we may be blind people trying to describe an elephant here. We should be basing our article on what reliable sources explicitly say, not what they infer. But let's see what others have to say. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Support removal of category. There is a clear difference between what this group advocates and opposing transgender rights. I will note that transgender rights is a nebulous term since there isn't a clear definition of what is a right vs something transgender advocates are advocating for. As an analogy, a group opposed to school bussing might oppose it based on racist grounds or they may oppose it for other reasons. It would be inappropriate to label an anti-school bussing organization "racist" because some opponents to their activities have used the label. That appears to be the case here. Springee (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I think the category should obviously be included. It seems the problem people have with inclusion is they aren't convinced that "transgender rights" includes the right to transition in school without harassment (by malicious, intentional, repeated misgendering). The National Center for Transgender Equality calls this a trans rights issue[17]. Obviously a single group saying something doesn't make it so. But anyone familiar with the issue knows that the views expressed by that are representative for most LGBT organizations. It's also representative of the language many educational organizations use. [18] [19]
Here's the ACLU calling these issues transgender rights [20]
IMO the balance of sources is pretty overwhelming that this is a trans rights issue. Even the sources that oppose these policies will acknowledge that this is usually framed as a trans rights issue. The same sources even refer to "trans rights activists". The number of people who don't see this as a trans rights issue is vanishingly small. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I think part of the issue is where are the lines. Let's go to the horse's mouth [21]. The group clearly states they think preferred names and pronouns should be respected but they also say that compelling students (not faculty and staff) to respect those runs in opposition to established rights like freedom of speech. This is one of those your freedom to swing your hands ends at the tip of my nose sort of things. It's not at all clear that it's a right to compel others to respect pronouns etc. This is like pro-gun people claiming conceled carry laws violate their rights. It may in some way restrict their rights but it's not clear that that restriction is unacceptable. As a society we are rather early in the process of understanding how to balanced the rights and freedoms of those who are trans vs those who aren't. Applying this label given the appearance of an an effort simply to tar the organization and push a POV (a concern already raised on the page). This is clearly not a BLUESKY case nor do we have strong sourcing supporting the label.Springee (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Their rationale is irrelevant. Opposition to civil rights is very rarely stated as such. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
IE, the group clearly states that transgender students should not have the right to not be misgendered. It's like saying, we don't support discrimination against X group, we just don't believe discrimination should be banned... Your freedom to say whatever you want ends in a school system where students have a basic right to respect. For example, teachers can't say, despite religious freedom and freedom of speech, "if you're gay you're going to hell" (which has happened to me and friends before).
But for a cherry on top, here is an official statement from the USDOE Office of Civil Rights: OCR has received inquiries regarding whether OCR's regulations are intended to restrict speech activities that are protected under the First Amendment. I want to assure you in the clearest possible terms that OCR's regulations are not intended to restrict the exercise of any expressive activities protected under the U.S. Constitution. OCR has consistently maintained that the statutes that it enforces are intended to protect students from invidious discrimination, not to regulate the content of speech. Harassment of students, which can include verbal or physical conduct, can be a form of discrimination prohibited by the statutes enforced by OCR. ... In summary, OCR interprets its regulations consistent with the requirements of the First Amendment, and all actions taken by OCR must comport with First Amendment principles. No OCR regulation should be interpreted to impinge upon rights protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or to require recipients to enact or enforce codes that punish the exercise of such rights. There is no conflict between the civil rights laws that this Office enforces and the civil liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
More circling. The problem now is we are getting into FORUM territory. Saying that a school can't missgender a child is different than saying a school can't tell a student they can't missgender. That is where rights are colliding and seems to be the crux of what FAIR is concerned about. Also, please don't confuse Title 9, a law that applies to schools that accept public funding, with a right. If it were a right it would apply to all schools. Should it be a right? That is a question that can and should be debated. However, that doesn't mean those who oppose are acting in bad faith any more than someone who is against race based admissions quotas in schools or against school bussing is doing so for bad faith reasons. Being opposed to a portion of one aspects of the rights trans-activists are fighting for doesn't mean someone/a group is opposed to "trans-rights" blanket statement. Anyway, since this is still going nowhere let's drop off and let others voice their views. Springee (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
The problem now is we are getting into FORUM territory. Correct. That's why it's best to stick to what relevant sources say. Many sources have been provided showing that LGBT groups regard this as a trans rights issue. I think the point of the USDOE link wasn't to say that the USDOE is the arbiter of what is and isn't a right. Instead, it's just another source talking about these issues in the context of civil rights. Hence the category. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
And we don't have sourcing sufficient to apply the tag. Springee (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
We do, your opinion on whether transgender rights includes the right to be respected in schools is completely irrelevant. Should it be a right? That is a question that can and should be debated. - Yes it should since trans kids shouldn't be discrimated against or harassed in school due to their gender, that right is already is recognized as such, and such "debate" (ie, saying they should just have to put up with such harassment) is just bigotry plain and simple. The idea that it's acceptable for students and faculty to misgender students and make them uncomfortable is wholly WP:FRINGE, not supported by any evidence, and just your opinion. WP:DROPTHESTICK. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, dropping the stick is a good idea. Springee (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I have to agree with Sativa here. It seems abundantly clear that the category should be included. This IS a trans rights issue and the page should state it as such, and it should be stated that the organization opposes trans rights. This seems pretty simple and I'm not sure why the handful of editors on here doesn't recognize this. Historyday01 (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Exclude. WP:RS do not explicitly say the organization opposes transgender rights. This is WP:SYNTH WP:ADVOCACY. Loksmythe (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
If an organization is widely known and reported to oppose same-sex marriage, but sources do not explicitly state "they oppose LGBT rights", just "they oppose the right to same-sex marriage", is it WP:SYNTH and WP:ADVOCACY to say they oppose LGBT rights? If not, why is the situation any different here? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
It seems that the sources do show this from what I've read from this discussion. Organizations will not always directly say they oppose trans rights, but likely try and disguise it behind nice language. Historyday01 (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Like with Loksmythe, I think most of the discussion above is irrelevant. We should not be deciding X position is in opposition to transgender rights and therefore the organisation needs to be categorised as such. What we need are sources which say they do so. IMO we can accept reasonable synonyms e.g. anti-trans, transphobic. But once it starts getting into complicated discussions about whether something should or should not be classified as opposition to transgender rights, that's when we've crossed over into WP:OR territory. That's even before we include government regulations, UN decisions etc. So yes, if the only thing you can find about an organisation is that they oppose same-sex marriage, it's best not to categorise them as an organisation that opposes LGBT rights. Remember that categories are supposed to be defining and clear to the reader. It seems likely that such organisations are so, but if you cannot find a source which mentions this, then apparently it isn't actually such a defining characteristic of that organisation since no one else thought to mention it. You can still mention these details in the article but leave out the categories until and unless you can find sources which explicitly support them. (A common reason this might be the case may be because while it's true, it's such a small aspect that no one bother to mention it. While I understand why this is distressing to those affected anyway, it's an understandable reality that if an organisation is primarily notable for certain stuff, more minor stuff they do may fall by the wayside.) Note that while editors are right that it doesn't matter what an organisation says about itself and its policies, it does matter what reliable secondary sources say. We rely on them to look at the organisation and it's policies and decide if they're in opposition to trans rights, not our own research and analysis. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    @Nil Einne, I just want to note that the Colorado Times Recorder, which seems by consensus WP:GREL and a source that provided WP:SIRS coverage of FAIR, listed them as an "anti-LGBT" organization. They note their advisors have been accused of "homophobia" and "transphobia". Passage, who seem WP:MREL-WP:GREL and are a WP:SIRS source stated Meanwhile, the organizations behind these efforts were funding and promoting school board candidates who promised to ‘do something’ about these supposed problems. The resulting campaigns often easily overwhelmed formerly low-turnout, low-stakes school board elections, resulting in a rash of “anti-woke” figures gaining power across the U.S. Now fulfilling their campaign promises, these figures are using their power to strip protections from marginalized students, enact anti-trans and homophobic policies, and prevent teachers from speaking about race.(emphases added) The article details FAIR's role in promoting such candidates. The text also states One of the organization’s stated goals is to advance “civil rights and liberties for all Americans.” In reality, however, the organization spends its time effectively defending the “right” of students to misgender schoolmates. Explicitly rebutting their claim to advancing civil rights with their support of the "right" to misgender schoolmates is them criticizing their framing of such as a right. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

RFC

For a general policy-based consensus on this going forward: can we categorize an organization as an "organization opposed to LGBT/transgender rights" in an instance where the organization is known for opposing a particular LGBT right, but the sources mentioning that don't say it's a right? For the simplest example: if an organization is known for campaigning against same-sex marriage, are our criteria for categorizing them as "an organization that opposes LGBT rights" based on 1) whether the WP:RS commenting on their opposition to same-sex marriage explicitly call same-sex marriage an LGBT right or 2) whether WP:RS generally consider same-sex marriage an LGBT right? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  • You can, but usually you shouldn't in the case where it's only one specific right they oppose. In that case it's usually clearer and more accurate to be specific. I'd only really recommend this language in a case where reliable sources say separately that they oppose several separate LGBT rights. Then I think it's covered by WP:BLUESKY. Loki (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • In principle, yes but in the case where only one specific right is named, finding a way to be more specific can be more helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    As a matter of language, including an organization in a category of organizations that oppose transgender rights can apply even if they only oppose one such right, just like a list of "People famous for covering Beatles songs" can include people who only covered one Beatles song. There may be a better category to sort such cases into, but it's not linguistically wrong.
    That said, this does seem like an awfully broad question, and withdrawing the RfC to run a narrower one would, I think, be more likely to have a productive outcome. XOR'easter (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I'd say no (in general), and in reply to your numbered examples, #1 (again, with exceptions). If it takes a reader's analysis to look at a subject's action (per a source), compare it to other sources (cited or not) that indicate that action violates/opposes rights, then it is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH at worst, and subtle POV-pushing at best, if sources don't frame the subject in the same way. For the same-sex marriage example, same-sex marriage is not legal or fully recognized in many places on earth, so calling it a right may presume that it is a universally held right. Another analogy: if source A says nothing more than a person was driving 120 MPH on a highway, and source B says the legal speed limit for the highway is 80 MPH, and source C says that is criminally reckless driving, but sources B and C don't mention the person, we cannot state (in text nor categories) that the person is a reckless driver, or guilty of law breaking. We just state their speed. To go beyond would put undue emphasis on a point that wasn't explicitly made in sources directly about the subject, and frames facts differently from how they are commonly described, even if correct. And for categorization, we need to not only consider whether something is technically true, but whether it is a defining characteristic, and categories must also follow NPOV. I think the scope of this RfC is too broad: it appears to be well beyond the specific question of "should Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism be placed in Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights?" For the question about placing any organization in this category, there may be too many specifics and conditional circumstances that complicate a simple blanket approach. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • No. Your example, in every way that you've tried to validate it, is improper editorial synthesis. We cannot take one source that says one thing, and another source that says something else, and combine them to produce a conclusion that neither of the sources states explicitly. In your example, given the sources you suggest are available, we can say that the organization is known for campaigning against same-sex marriage, and that's it. The other problem here is you suggest you have a source saying that same-sex marriage is an LGBT right (emphasis added) and you want to use that to state that the organization opposes all LGBT rights, and no, you can't. The sources didn't say that, and neither can we. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • No. My high level answer is this is a contentious label/tag. To use it you need significant sourcing that directly supports it. Additionally, while I might that if A, B, C D and E are all X-rights then opposition to BCD&E (but not A) would be sufficient to support a claim "opposed to X-rights", in such a case I would have to assume we could find RSs that support that claim. Since that isn't the case here, we shouldn't use a broad category. Springee (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    I don't think the same sex marriage example is a good analogy here but let's explore the idea that we editors can/should be able to establish the tag's validity even without RSs establishing it for us. It might be a better example if we use something like is a church that refuses to conduct a same sex marriage anti-LGBT rights. I think most western European and English speaking countries have legally codified the right to a same sex marriage. Laws/rules against dead naming etc are not as well established so the extent to which this is a right vs should be a right is not well established. Thus if we are going to editor define the tag we need to start with a clearly identified right. This point sidetracked the discussion above but even if we agree that something is vs should be that isn't enough. The example church clearly won't perform a marriage but if it still legally and functionally acknowledges the marriage is that anti-LGBT rights or even anti-same sex marriage? If we assume they refuse to even acknowledge the marriage then that part is a yes. However, same sex marriage is only a part of the larger scope of what are or should be LGBT rights. If they only oppose a subset of the larger set then the category fails to be defining since it doesn't define them accurately. Critically it can suggest positions they don't have and thus inaccurately defines them. That in tern degrades the value of the tag. Imagine tagging any movie from any time and saying if it has racially insensitive material it's a racist movie. Or take any movie that shows smoking in any sort of non-negative way and then saying it's a "product that promotes smoking". It would make the tag meaningless in the end. Springee (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Closed and more specific RFC created below, pinging @LokiTheLiar:, @XOR'easter:, @PEIsquirrel:, @Animalparty:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTranarchist (talk • contribs)

More specific RFC

Should we categorize the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism under:

  1. "organizations opposed to transgender rights"
  2. "organizations opposed to bans on misgendering" (or better-worded version), which would be a subcategory of "organizations opposed to transgender rights"
  3. neither

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist

Support 1: A WP:DEFINING characteristic of the organization is that it campaigns against protections for transgender students which prevent misgendering from other students, opposing their right to be respected in schools. The organization has been described as anti-LGBTQ in WP:GREL WP:SIRS coverage.[22] Another RS providing WP:SIRS states One of the organization’s stated goals is to advance “civil rights and liberties for all Americans.” In reality, however, the organization spends its time effectively defending the “right” of students to misgender schoolmates in FAIR's dedicated section in an overview of some of the “anti-woke” groups working to take control of school boards in the province and across the country. They also state organizations including FAIR are behind these efforts were funding and promoting school board candidates who are using their power to strip protections from marginalized students, enact anti-trans and homophobic policies, and prevent teachers from speaking about race.[23] That RS is also cited in this RS for the statement While Ontario election law limits how much groups can work together across different municipalities, several organizations have emerged recently with the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates. Blueprint for Canada and Vote Against Woke have been working alongside longer-established organizations like the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) and Parents As First Educators (PAFE) to offer advice or resources to “anti-woke” candidates[24] In another RS, it is noted that when protections for transgender students encountering misgendering in school to the Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) handbook, they opposed a full ban and campaigned for exemptions for students who might have a sincerely held belief that prohibits them from using another student’s chosen pronoun (ie, it's ok to make trans kids feel uncomfortable and refuse to respect them if your interpretation of your religion tells you to - just like how a kid can repeatedly tell gay classmates they're going to hell and it's totally fine and there shouldn't be rules against it...)[25]. They reported as doing the same in yet another source, where FAIR opposes state it's unconstitutional to teach students that they must use alternative pronouns due to the first amendment and religious freedom [26]. There is the somewhat BLUESKY point that if transgender students are recognized to have the right to not be misgendered, and an organization opposes it for "free speech", that exemption means the right is not recognized since anyone could just say "free speech". You don't have the right to call other kids insults, slurs, or yell fire in a public building. In short, this organization opposes the right of transgender students to not be misgendered in schools, which multiple sources have stated, corroborated, mentioned in passing, and given serious coverage to.
2 is needlessly specific, as per XOR'easter's comment in the dicussion above that As a matter of language, including an organization in a category of organizations that oppose transgender rights can apply even if they only oppose one such right, just like a list of "People famous for covering Beatles songs" can include people who only covered one Beatles song. There may be a better category to sort such cases into, but it's not linguistically wrong. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
The source you cite don't support "transgender rights":
  1. The first source, Colorado Times Recorder, is local news and shouldn't be afforded much WP:WEIGHT.
  2. The second source, Passage, is not an RS per the RSN thread you started because Passage only publishes opinion and analysis.
  3. The third source says While FAIR very much supports the additional protection for transgender students, they were pleased to see the document’s new language including the term “malicious” to help discern between events of malintent and free speech. That's hardly "opposed to transgender rights".
  4. The fourth source says (all emphasis mine) While children should have the right to declare a personal pronoun voluntarily, FAIR says “Teaching students that they must use alternative pronouncs and announce their own may also violate their religious rights.” That's not "opposed to transgender rights".
So that leaves us with just the one local news source, which isn't enough to meet WP:DEFINING, MOS:LABEL or even WP:DUE. Levivich (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The first, is WP:SIRS coverage, and should WP:WEIGHT should be determined by the coverage present in the source, so unless there are more prominent sources that contradict their statements there, it's a high quality source for this purpose and their claims are un-contradicted in WP:RS. The source also notes the transphobia of Shrier, but even if you ignore that, they give evidence of another board member being homophobic/transphobic, which includes calling for a "national rebellion" against marriage equality and making homophobic/transphobic comments such as calling gay relationships "immoral" and the existence of trans people an "absurd" "superstitious belief".
The second was cited in another RS to support the claim that While Ontario election law limits how much groups can work together across different municipalities, several organizations have emerged recently with the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates. Blueprint for Canada and Vote Against Woke have been working alongside longer-established organizations like the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) and Parents As First Educators (PAFE) to offer advice or resources to “anti-woke” candidates in the third. In this context, that makes Passage more due, and its relevance not so easy to discount.
The fourth (not third), you are ignoring the WP:BLUESKY implication there, i.e., FAIR believes anyone can misgender a transgender student if they feel like it, rendering the protection moot. A rule that says "you can't misgender classmates" having a "free speech" rider means anyone can misgender the student, and therefore the rule is for all intents and purposes overturned. The source explicitly says protections for transgender students encountering misgendering in school are in the Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) handbook. "Of course we're glad about the new rule against homophobic slurs and insults, but we believe that other students have the right to use them because of religious freedom and free speech"...
The fifth (not fourth), let's look at FAIR's words directly shall we? Their letter is included in the source: Certainly, any student who wishes to declare their pronouns voluntarily should be permitted to do so. Additionally, it may be polite to use the preferred alternative pronouns of others. However, compelling students to do either is likely inconsistent with the First Amendment. - IE, once again WP:BLUESKY, "go ahead and misgender other students with impunity".
To those previous two sources, the analogy would be them saying "we believe gay people can love who they want, they just shouldn't be able to get married", then someone arguing they're not opposed to LGBT rights because of the first half of their statement...
So that gives us 1 piece of WP:SIRS coverage describing them as anti-LGBT and noting their homophobic/transphobic board members. 1 RS citing another source to state they have the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates, the source referenced explicitly contrasting their claims to advocating civil rights with their push to allow misgendering and further detailing their activities. Another RS that states the Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) handbook contains protections for transgender students encountering misgendering in school, which they note FAIR opposes (school recognized it as a right to not be misgendered, FAIR argued it shouldn't be recognized as a right and students only have the right to say what their pronouns are, not have them respected). And another RS that corroborates them doing the same again, arguing that schools should not be able to prevent students misgendering other students and that trans kids shouldn't have that right to respect. So that's 4-5(4.5?) RS supporting "opposed to transgender rights", and no RS proving otherwise.
Note, for example, if two RS say an organization opposes gay marriage, describing that as anti-LGBT and/or explicitly calling gay marriage an LGBT right, other sources corroborating that they oppose gay marriage without explicitly calling it a right still adds to the weight that they are "commonly and consistently" known for opposing an LGBT right. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Bad RFC No reason to have this one when the same editor started one just a few hours earlier. I would suggest closing this as redundant. Springee (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
2 editors said the original was overly broad, and I concur, so unless you think the over-generalized one is better then the original should be closed as redundant TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
3 Since the OP has unilaterally closed the original RfC after my bad RfC edit I will go ahead and !vote here. As was said in the RfC above, the sourcing isn't sufficient for the category and efforts to SYNTH a justification that this source should be in the category are just that, SYNTH. Springee (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
@Springee: IMO it would be better to close the other RfC. It's a very weird place to hold a general RfC of the sort. Even assuming appropriate advertisement there's a reasonable risk participation will be limited or people will be confused. If editors still feel it's worthwhile to have a general RfC on that issue, I'd suggest participants come up with a suitable wording and then post it somewhere more suited for a general RfC. I'm not sure where but it might be VPP. The category talk page might also be an option although such talk pages are often not watched very well so you'd need to make sure it's well advertised, perhaps even in WP:CENT. Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Sennalen (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I see no one objecting to the prior wording - you seem to have very selective vision. where all of the defined options support TheTranarchist's PoV - 1 option (my POV) says it should categorized as such, 1 option says it should be as a subcat, which multiple people had raised as an option in prior discussions, 1 says it shouldn't be classified as such at all - there are literally 2 views I disagree with listed. See WP:CIR
That said, this does seem like an awfully broad question, and withdrawing the RfC to run a narrower one would, I think, be more likely to have a productive outcome. - XOR'easter
I think the scope of this RfC is too broad: it appears to be well beyond the specific question of "should Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism be placed in Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights?" For the question about placing any organization in this category, there may be too many specifics and conditional circumstances that complicate a simple blanket approach. - Animalparty
IMO it would be better to close the other RfC. It's a very weird place to hold a general RfC of the sort. Even assuming appropriate advertisement there's a reasonable risk participation will be limited or people will be confused. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
3, because there isn't enough RS support for #1 or #2, and #2 doesn't exist as a category, and if it did, it would be a WP:SMALLCAT. Levivich (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
1 because 2 would be a weirdly small category and the available sources are adequate to support option 1 (I see no reason to discount local news for this use, for example). XOR'easter (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
3 Per WP:DEFINING, A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. If you have to dig to the Colorado Times Recorder and the Fairfax Times, and even those refs are debatable in whether or not they support your category, it's not WP:DEFINING. This is especially true when the organization in question has come up in the NYT and NBC. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
3 as I concur with arguments made by Levivich and Adoring nanny. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
3: I've viewed every source in this article, and do not see the organization commonly nor consistently characterized as option 1: to apply this category requires WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, and invites a POV framing actions differently from how they are commonly characterized. There might be a more appropriate category, one that satisfies WP:DEFINING and WP:CATPOV and avoids WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:OPINIONCAT, but neither proposal yet accomplishes this. And lastly, per WP:NONDEFINING, even aspects that are verifiably and 100% true may not always warrant categorization: In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic of the topic. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Support 3 (Summoned by bot) because there isn't enough RS support for #1 or #2 per Levivich - at least at present and to apply option 1 requires WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. It may be that this group will come to be seen as opposing "transgender rights', but it isn't at present. Pincrete (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
2ish: I don't have any problem with citing to local papers, but even with that there's only one of those local sources that actually calls them "anti-LGBTQ" outright. However, we do have pretty good sourcing for their position on the specific issue here. And because of that position and others I'd be pretty comfortable calling them conservative on social issues, or maybe even part of the anti-gender movement or similar. Not necessarily "anti-transgender rights" specifically, though, because I think that requires either more direct sourcing or more sourcing of a broad position on this issue opposed to trans rights in general rather than this extremely specific particular issue. Loki (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Bad RfC but Option 3. The RfC asks the community to chose between two options or neither, which embodies a decision of the community that would be hard to overturn, yet either option 1 or option 2 would be acceptable if and only if reliable sources exist to support those. It appears that as they do not, there is an attempt to get a decision for an option that is not specifically found in sources, and would constitute WP:SYNTH. That would be a bad RfC result, and this didn't need an RfC. The policy on synthesis and WP:OR is clear, and as long as sources do not specifically and clearly support 1 or 2, it must remain 3. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
  • 3 - neither. Other editors have convincingly cited policies such as WP:SYNTH. I would add that there seems to be a strong current of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW here, almost as if any organisation that ever expressed a viewpoint relating to gender must be sorted into either a pro- or anti- bucket. That’s not how WP:DEFINING works and editors should ask themselves if they are here to build an encyclopaedia or to promote a viewpoint. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
  • 3 (neither). per WP:NPOV problems in this RFC, so neither seems the most appropriate option. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • 3 - neither. Per WP:CAT the categories should be non-controversial, which is not the case here. Alaexis¿question? 13:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  • 3 - neither. It is usually wise to avoid controversial categories like this unless there is strong evidence from a multitude of reliable secondary sources. This organization looks as though they have made tangential comments about transgender rights but it would not be considered a WP:DEFINING category for the organization. This could change if the organization expands its advocacy and in the mean time it would be helpful to continue to report on verifiable data about their work. Jorahm (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2023

Perhaps we should rename the section from "Opposition to CRT" to Race and CRT as it is not all about CRT - and I'm not sure FAIR is wholesale against CRT, can someone link me to their position on it - as it's not on their 'Issues' Page. AnExtraEditor (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It's fine to open a conversation to discuss potential changes, but don't use the edit request feature until you've drafted the exact edit you want to make, and it is supported by reliable sources. Thanks, Xan747 (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foundation_Against_Intolerance_and_Racism/Archive_2&oldid=1222776649"