Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Article incorrectly implies Immigration NZ review is a result of LGBT+ lobbying

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article implies the Immigration NZ review of Posie Parker is due to Green and LGBT+ lobbying. However, the review is actually because of events that transpired in Melbourne the weekend of 2023/3/18 to 2023/3/19

Source:

https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/21-03-2023/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-anti-trans-campaigner-heading-to-new-zealand Cerulean dragon (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Good catch, I've made a small change now that I think better reflects the source, though I'm pretty tired so there may be better wording so feel free to treat my change as a quick fix only pending something better being drafted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Rainbow Greens urge Government to ban gender activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull from New Zealand [1]https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/rainbow-greens-urge-government-to-ban-gender-activist-kellie-jay-keen-minshull-from-new-zealand.html 203.217.94.122 (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2023

This edit request to Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the opening sentence; please replace “anti-transgender activist “ with Womens’s rights campaigner” Hughcathcart (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I looked, and there is definitely no agreement on how K-J K-M is referred to. The Wikipedia page contains many tabloid references or those from LGBT news site PinkNews, which doesn't really feel that impartial.

I checked on The Times and have found articles from 2020 referring to her as "a campaigner against reform of gender recognition laws" (https://archive.ph/qtdqT#selection-715.102-717.24), and in 2022 as a "feminist" (https://archive.ph/H2o38) and 2023 as a "feminist" and "gender critic" (https://archive.ph/Lqsli#selection-939.78-939.86).

I'm sure the same issues would arise with the latter two of these descriptors as the current one, but "a campaigner against reform of gender recognition laws" is correct, impartial, and lacking in emotionality, while not in any way glossing over her position. Butheremails (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see our previous discussions about Pink News. The idea that LGBT news sources are not reliable for LGBT topics has continued to come up and has yet to be supported in any meaningful way.

Can you list the tabloid references? Last few times this has come up people had confused Tabloid (newspaper format) with tabloid journalism. Filiforme1312 (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

If there are concerns about the sources in the article generally, a discussion could be opened on this Talk page. In the meantime, in a discussion above, I had noted various sources, including:

The New York Times, e.g. "a protest against transgender rights that was led by the British anti-trans rights campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull" [2]
News.com.au describes her as "anti-transgender activist, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull" and states, "She describes herself as a women’s rights activist, but she is mostly known for her anti-transgender opinions"
The Age describes her as "British anti-trans rights campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull"
The New Zealand Herald also describes her as "Anti-trans activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull" and "the self-described women’s rights activist".

Reversed edits

User:Beccaynr has reversed two of my recent edits. I changed the short description from "British anti-transgender rights activist" to "British gender activist" stating "Sources say anti-transgender activist, women's rights activist, and "gender activist" which encompasses both.". It was reverted back saying: "ce shortdesc to reflect lead, infobox, article Talk discussions; move image placement". Short descriptions are "a concise explanation of the scope of the page". The page contains a mix of Keen's anti-transgender and women's rights activism. These terms can also apply to the same activism, depending on whether you support Keen's views or not. Notable sources use a mix of both, as well as the more concise "gender activist" to describe Keen. This edit also provides a more neutral point of view that short descriptions are required to have. I also edited "legally recognised as their gender" to "legally recognised as their changed gender" stating "More accurate to source.". It was reverted back saying "ce per ref, remove WP:OR". The source article says "She has also voiced her opposition to allowing transgender people to have changes to their gender legally recognised.". She is concerned about their gender changes, not just their gender. This is not original research, it is making the article more accurate to the source. E James Bowman (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

In the context of that sentence, "changed gender" seems redundant. --Pokelova (talk) 07:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"Changed gender" feels a bit too much like WP:PARAPHRASE. Im not sure what to gather from She is concerned about their gender changes, not just their gender as both terms mean the same thing, one being the less clumsy and more standard. The current prose reflects what is said in the RS. Filiforme1312 (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"Gender activist" is completely meaningless to me. It says basically nothing about her views or activities. "Changed gender" is not only redundant but also confusing; it can mean the gender that "was changed" or the one "changed to" – not to even talk about the fact that the notion of "changing one's gender" is generally not how transness is explained today. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 08:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the only place I usually see the word change used is for gender markers on documents, not the individual's gender. I agree about the likelihood for tense related confusion you pointed out. Filiforme1312 (talk) 08:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"not how transness is explained today".

Could you elaborate on how it is explained today please User:Maddy from Celeste

I think that would help a lot. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Generally trans people are considered to always have belonged to their gender, not to have decided to change it one day. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 09:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

So are you saying that it's only the label that was inaccurately ascribed to them that changes? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying that this is the most common view, and that that is one of the reasons why "changed gender" isn't a good way to put it. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 10:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Another way to provide clarity to this first sentence, which will then provide clarity to the points that follow as User:Peckanpoo sought above, would be to change "Keen opposes laws and policies that allow transgender people to be legally recognised as their gender" to "Keen opposes laws and policies that allow transgender people to have legal recognition for changes to their gender". The term 'gender activist' is used by Newshub, NZ Herald, The Guardian and RNZ referring to Keen. E James Bowman (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Aye, but for example the headline of that Guardian story is "Anti-trans activist Posie Parker ends New Zealand tour...". The problem for many news agencies is that whilst "gender activist" is effectively meaningless, some don't want to appear to be using "gender critical activist" (which is effectively a synonym for trans-exclusionary or transphobic) or on the other hand use "feminist activist" which doesn't address the reason why she's in the news. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

According to 'us' Feminist views on transgender topics

Feminists who describe themselves as "gender-critical" say that biological sex is "real, important, and immutable" and is "not to be conflated with gender identity", and that feminism should organize with emphasis on the basis of sex rather than gender.

Would that would describe Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Gender-critical is essentially a polite euphemism for TERF. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 13:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"some don't want to appear to be using "gender critical activist" (which is effectively a synonym for trans-exclusionary or transphobic) "

What makes you say that?

"Gender-critical is essentially a polite euphemism for TERF "

That seems to exclude men who hold that view. It even denies Trans Women like Kathleen Stock who are also Gender-critical .

Please treat these comments with some modicum of respect rather than simply trashing and dismissing them. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Kathleen Stock is not transgender. Men can be feminists, and trans people can hold transphobic views. I don't see your point. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok.

I'll try and get this across by asking you.

Is it the case that someone who holds the view that a person who identifies as a women is, in every respect, a woman... regardless of previously ascribed labels (at birth or otherwise) or biology?

Is it also the case that anyone who does not hold with that view is Transphobic and Anti Trans?

If not what are the exceptions?

Finally, if they speak / promote that view in public are they an anti transgender rights activist? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like sealioning. It falls foul of WP:NOTFORUM anyway. Please stop. DanielRigal (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't accept Sealioning (if directed at me?) I have tried to encourage some engagement here as I feel stonewalled.

As to Wikipedia:NOTFORUM I think I have to plead guilty to drifting that way, I have invited discussion on my talk page (the appropriate place) about this but no response.

I'll take another tack to try and encourage consensus here. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite she wouldn’t be in the news if she was just anti-trans rights either. That's not noteworthy. She’s in the news because she’s saying changes to trans rights are impinging on women’s rights. To be neutral and reflect the article we need to allow for both which “British gender activist” does. Or we need to include both, which “British anti-trans & pro-feminist rights activist” and “British anti-trans & feminist rights activist” achieves. E James Bowman (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Is gender activist a regional term? I've been involved in feminist organizing and spaces in the US for over a decade and have never come across it before. Filiforme1312 (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

A quick Google (first 10 pages) shows 'gender_activist' used in New Zealand, South Africa, Tanzania, Rwanda, France, USA, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Sweden, Malawi, Myanmar, India, Namibia, Zambia and UK. E James Bowman (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Before the edit by E James Bowman [3], the short description was "anti-transgender activist" (and had I noticed this earlier, I would have copyedited it to "anti-transgender rights activist" to reflect the lead, infobox, article Talk discussions, and article contents). E.g. per WP:SDEXAMPLES,

A good way to draft a short description is to consider the words that would naturally follow if you started a sentence like this:
"[Article subject] is/was a/an/the ... ".

You can then use those additional words as the short description. [...]

For a person: "[country adjective] [what the person is known for]"

From my view, adding the word 'rights' reflects the preponderance of independent and reliable sources, the article contents that summarize independent and reliable sources reporting on her activities, within the limits of WP:NOT policy that prevents this article from serving as a means of self-promotion. From my view, to only say "anti-transgender activist" seems incomplete based on the contents of the article and sources, and potentially misleading. A change to "gender activist" does not appear supported by how we tend to construct short descriptions, nor what Keen receives coverage for in the preponderance of independent and reliable sources; the recent flurry of coverage seems to further support this, as there appears to be a variety of descriptions of Keen in international coverage that support 'anti-transgender rights activist'. We have discussed this issue in other sections of this article Talk page, including recently above, and I personally do not think multiple source analyses in multiple sections will serve the overall discussion well.

As to the edit to the wikilink description, when I reviewed the change to the Legal status of transgender people article wikilink to legally recognised as their changed gender, it had been a long day for me, and I appreciate the opportunity to further clarify my contextual reading of the source text: "her views opposing transgender people participating in sport that aligns with their gender identity. She has also voiced her opposition to allowing transgender people to have changes to their gender legally recognised. Keen is also opposed to allowing transgender people to use public bathrooms that align with their gender." We need to be careful with wording so we do not create text that could imply something the sources do not support, including at the wikilinked article. From my view, the phrasing of one source, talking about legal gender, does not support a broader "changed gender" phrase in this article, "Allow transgender people to be legally recognised as their gender" plainly does not require further clarification, and the proposed addition could be misleading. Beccaynr (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is nothing particularly noteworthy about an 'anti-transgender rights activist'. What is noteworthy about Keen is the reason she has that position. As she constantly states, and is constantly reported, and has been stated on this Talk page many times, and can been seen in multiple edits to the Article that were reversed, Keen is a women's rights activist. Which also is not particularly noteworthy in itself. She is a women's rights activist because she believes giving certain rights to trans women takes away from the certain rights of women. Keen is both an anti-transgender rights activist and a woman's rights activist. It is the combination of the two things that makes her noteworthy. This should be properly covered in the intro, and expressed by the short description. “British gender activist”, “British anti-transgender & women's rights activist” and “British anti-transgender & feminist activist” achieves this in the short description.
- In the source you have quoted there are three points. One refers to “their gender identity”, one to “changes to their gender” one to “their gender”. It is changes from what the gender was formally recognised as that Keen opposes. If nothing changes, Keen wouldn’t be against their gender. The source says she’s against the thing that changes being legally recognised. That is important information to include. Ways of communicating that are "Keen opposes laws and policies that allow transgender people to have legal changes to their gender recognised" or "Keen opposes laws and policies that allow transgender people to have changes to their gender legally recognised”.
E James Bowman (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This sounds like OR

Keen is both an anti-transgender rights activist and a woman's rights activist. Per RS she has taken stances against abortion and birth control access and stated she would rather see a return to traditional gender roles for women than trans people have their rights. There have also been indigenous women attacked for trying to speak at her two most recent rallies. Are there instances of her supporting what she percieves as women's rights that are not simply a way of framing her opposition to trans rights? Filiforme1312 (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
She is pro-choice. She has stated that numerous times, when discussing common ground with right-wing US commentators it is something she often mentions. 79.73.141.88 (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Earlier this month she took a stance on requiring parental consent for youth under 16 to access abortion and birth control, essentially allowing parents to force their children to carry and birth babies. Generally women's rights supporters oppose forced birthing. Filiforme1312 (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Per the core content policy of WP:NPOV and as discussed in the open discussion thread above at Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2023, the content of this article is based on independent and reliable sources. The no original research policy is also relevant to consider, and we need to be careful to avoid presenting content in a way that suggests something the sources do not.

There are sources available about Keen's opposition to Gender Recogition Acts, e.g. Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull: Who is campaigner Posie Parker and why is she so controversial? (NZ Herald, "has since risen to be a key figure in the movement against the UK’s Gender Recognition Act"), so this part could be further developed with additional sources and specific detail about the laws she has advocated against. Beccaynr (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2023

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This edit request to Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The quote "Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, also known as Posie Parker, is a British anti-transgender rights activist" is a point of view, it has no source to state as a fact. She is a womens rights activist, which is sourced. Let Women Speak is not the same as do not let trans speak. 81.157.60.217 (talk) 09:57, 1 April 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. M.Bitton (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

This is explicitely a subjective explanation by me know. This is common rewording among Posie Parker followers: Branding everything as women's rights and attacks on women. Completely always changing words. I am not leaving this here for any change of the article, but merely to bring some light about the motivation and method of the poster in this section in talk, and how to view it highly critically. ~~ 77.20.46.10 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2023

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This edit request to Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change: Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, also known as Posie Parker, is a British anti-transgender rights activist and the founder of the group Standing for Women. to Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, also known as Posie Parker, is a British women's rights activist and the founder of the group Standing for Women. Michael25796 (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Additionally please see the FAQ at the top of the talk page on this issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Important context to the start of Keen's activism

Referring to the removal of Keen's 2018 "adult human female" billboard, I added: The BBC said the conflict came about after the UK government asked for people's views on revisions to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, including changing gender on birth certificates. @Beccaynr removed it saying "rm WP:UNDUE - source does not connect this to Keen, get consensus on Talk to include this detail". The BBC source article is headlined "Woman billboard removed after transphobia row" about the removal of the billboard states: The row comes after the government announced it wanted people's views on changes to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act. While trans people already have the right to legally change their gender, the government is looking at ways of simplifying the process, including making it easier for people to change the gender on their birth certificate. The "row" (a serious disagreement between people or organisations) directly connects Keen to the information. E James Bowman (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The source does not state Keen identified the request by the UK government for comment on the 2004 Gender Recognition Act as a reason for the billboard, it states, When asked why the poster was erected in Liverpool, where the Labour Party's annual conference is taking place, Ms Keen-Minshull said it was in response to the city's mayor, Joe Anderson, who recently voiced his support for the trans community. A close paraphrase of her additional comments have also been added to the article; the source writes: Ms Keen-Minshull said her "main concern" was that the word "woman" was "being appropriated to mean anything". She added the purpose of the poster had been to "start a conversation" about women's rights. The article now includes: "Keen said she was concerned the word "woman" was "being appropriated to mean anything" and that poster was intended to "start a conversation" about women's rights." Beccaynr (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

And as a side note, it also does not seem to accurately reflect the source to write "revisions to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, including changing gender on birth certificates" when the source says trans people already have the right to legally change their gender, the government is looking at ways of simplifying the process, including making it easier for people to change the gender on their birth certificate - without including the additional clarification about how legal changes are already possible, and the revisions are intended to make the process easier, the text that was added might be read to imply the right does not already exist. Beccaynr (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

In 2018 LeedsLive said: The row follows a consultation on changes to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act which would make it easier for people to change the gender on their birth certificate.

In 2019 HuffPost said: Many British TERFs, like Parker and Long, believe that the Gender Recognition Act would put cis women in danger by allowing men to change their identities and inflict more violence on women.

In 2022 GB News summarised their interview with Keen calling for the repeal of the 2004 GRA: Founder of Standing For Women, Kellie-Jay Keen, says the Gender Recognition Act is not fit for purpose.

In 2023 the NZ Herald says Keen is: a key figure in the movement against the UK’s Gender Recognition Act and has led rallies on both sides of the Atlantic.

I suggest adding: The conflict came about after the UK government asked for people's views on revisions to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, including making changes to gender on birth certificates easier. citing the BBC and LeedsLive articles. E James Bowman (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Incorporating a reliable source (not WP:HUFFPOST, which is excluded at WP:RSP for political topics and that entry seems to be a good example as to why), i.e. the NZ Herald, that offers actual secondary coverage of Keen and the UK Gender Recognition Act, seems fine, but the attempt to use the same line from two sources that do not directly state Keen's billboard was related or Keen acted in relation to the Gender Recognition Act in 2018 seems to be a WP:COATRACK, e.g. Articles about one thing shouldn't be loaded up with unrelated things to make a point.

I have previously suggested on this Talk page including more specific sourcing that identifies her opposition to specific laws, and there is a 2023 source that discusses her opposition, so I suggest incorporating that 2023 source appropriately into the article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

Does anyone know how to flag this article for lack of neutrality. It’s very much written by a biased point of view. Soliantu (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You can use the {{NPOV}} template for that, but you have to provide specific, actionable issues on this talk page at the same time. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Worth a read perhaps? I would offer quotes but the whole thing is available with the link below.

The Spectator Australia

Before we denigrate the Spectator as a right wing thing we should remember this Lukewarmbeer (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Spoiler alert: it's a column's worth of the same transphobic talking points we've all heard a million times before. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. And don't forget, according to Minshull the neo-Nazis were actually left-wing agitators or undercover police in disguse. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

This was written by a serious person, Petra Bueskens who has something to say. You may have heard it before, you may dismiss it. It's just there for anyone who wants to read it as I think it informs this conversation.

By the way - I agree that Minshull is "Anti Trans" by pretty much anybody's definition. However - I don't agree that people who hold the view that Trans Women and Women are not the same thing are also anti trans and I don't think people holding that view are transphobic.

See Gender-critical views are a protected belief Lukewarmbeer (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

And what does any of this have to do with improving the article? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

By trying to throw some light on peoples concerns about how the subject of the article is described and dealing with the views expressed about lack of neutrally generally.

It's not by batting various edits about that we are going to reach any consensus here. We need to widen the common ground a bit.

This isn't really the place to go into the broader issues* so I have stuck to addressing points other editors have made and sought to add a wider perspective to them.

If you would like to talk on those broader issues drop by my talk page and we can have a chat. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

By the way - I think your misreading 'forum', or you think I am - hence my suggestion we take the 'forum' aspect elsewhere. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how that column informs this conversation. It's just someone arguing for the same views as Keen-Minshull is. The author does not discuss weighing sources correctly, or any other aspect of Wikipedia policy. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

She isn't writing about Wikipedia. She's writing about the big wide world out there that we in here should be trying to reflect in an encyclopaedic way. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

that we in here should be trying to reflect – through the lense of reliable sources, not random opinion pieces. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

According to the WP:RSP entry WP:SPECTATOR, The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION, WP:RSEDITORIAL, and WP:NEWSBLOG. And the NPOV template usage notes include, The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. Beccaynr (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting that The Spectator has just published "The shameful persecution of Posie Parker in New Zealand", decrying "a truly chilling spectacle ... a ritualistic shaming of a witch, a violent purging of a heretic."[4] --Jmc (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an opinion piece - and one written by Brendan O'Neill (columnist). Enough said, I think. Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you find reliable sources that balance the article in the way you think it should be, and add that info. E James Bowman (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Finding sources that suggest that she isn't 'anti trans' would be a tough call because - as I've said - that's what I think she is.

I'm not suggesting that the article needs more content. It needs a bit less overall and a slightly different presentation. It's the pile on overkill that's making the article look so bad.

How does adding paragraphs such as the below 20 times help the article.

Rallies, speaker events, and protests

A 15 May 2022 rally organised by Keen was interrupted by a woman, posing as a speaker, who took the microphone to say: "I just wanna say that I am a cis female and I recognise trans women in women's spaces as alright, and I don't think we need to protest that, I don't think we need the vitriolic hate. Trans women are women!" The microphone was eventually recovered by Keen after the woman was chased by rally organisers and the crowd booed and chanted. Allie Crew, an artist whose work the speakers stood in front of during the rally, tweeted in response to it: "I am greatly saddened that my work was re-appropriated like this and I do not share their views. I promote all human rights". Keen said in response that counter-protesters had blocked access to the Emmeline Pankhurst statue.

Remove the 20, pick two or three illustrative examples to quote in full and add a short summary.

Possibly form a list to the rest at the bottom of the article if you think important to include the rest somewhere.

The Posters section isn't so bad but do we really need ALL of that on how nice people won't (might not) print or display her posters. She gets them done somewhere.

Add her core message without too much additional comment (we already say what she's opposed to in some detail).

Our sex is female. The sex that bears children. The sex that requires maternity rights, privacy rights, equality with the male sex in the work place, specific health care issues, reproductive rights, and so on. If our rights become dependent upon "gender" then they are no longer women's rights, they are "feminine" rights.

Have Standing for Women linked in the text

Add that she is supported by groups such as Women's Declaration International WDI statement in support of Kellie-Jay Keen and J.K.Rowling in the New York Post

Add a little more to the rest of the article, for example to her personal life, that the revelation of her personal information, including her name and address was condemned by Trans campaigners etc etc. (from the existing citation). Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

My reply was to @Soliantu. I haven't seen sources supporting Keen being anti-trans. Sources show she's against transgender women's rights taking away women's rights. And people not allowing her to say that. I agree with the article changes you've outlined. E James Bowman (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree. I also think the Biography section should be reworded. The framing of her views as "anti-trans" instead of "pro-women" is fundamentally at the core of the neutrality issue here. agomulka (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Can we have some more input on these specific points and would anyone like to assist me with putting something together for a firm proposal. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lukewarmbeer, I think it would help with the structure of discussion generally if there are separate sections per topic - for example, if you could create a specific section to discuss concerns about or proposed changes to the structure or content of the article (e.g. the rallies, speakers, protests, etc.), I think that would be helpful. I would like to reply to further explain how including the information and the structure appears e.g. encyclopedic, reliably sourced, and WP:DUE from my view, but I am concerned that with everything else being discussed in this section, it will make the discussion more difficult to follow and to participate in effectively. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the advice. Thanks. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be quite tough to claim she is working for women's rights or being "pro women" given her statements on abortion.

https://abload.de/img/_fwlrb96wyaanw_6rxcwx.jpeg

~~ 77.20.46.10 (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

If you want to note how she is supported by WDI, etc., you might also want to note how she is supported by CPAC.

https://abload.de/img/fqs6qnpxgaar2kb3keg1.jpeg

~~ 77.20.46.10 (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

This article reads like a hit piece

I would recommend getting someone who isn't a biased transactivist, if you can possibly find one on Wikipedia, to review this article. It's shamefully one-sided and probably even libellous in places. 2A01:4C8:805:3697:1940:5DB2:DB81:6201 (talk) 21:03, 20 March 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. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 21:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Change “anti-transgender activist” to “womens rights activist” as per her work, her continued focus on women and girls in all her media content and her events - where the sole purpose is to facilitate women wanting to speak about their rights. Would it be accurate to describe those who come out to violently oppose her as “anti-women activists”? 79.73.141.88 (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. DanielRigal (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Would it be accurate to describe those who come out to violently oppose her as “anti-women activists”? ... no, because the thing they're protesting against is neither women nor pro-women activism? ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 01:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair point Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That's kind of my point. You wouldn't call the transgender rights activists 'anti women' because that's not what they are campaigning for. Why is Kelly deemed anti transgender, when she is campaigning for women's rights? 165.0.1.188 (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not how most reliable sources cited in the article see it. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

What rights, specifically, is she campaigning for? Please answer without referring to men or trans people (by any term). That is, "she thinks women should have the right to [...]" is obviously a position on women's rights, while "she thinks [group] should not [claim to be women/be in women's spaces/...]" is obviously a position on [group] and not on women's rights.

Then, if we're missing reliable sources that credibly say she is expressing those views, we can and should add that information in addition to the other true and sourced information that's there. But first we have to figure out what you're trying to say. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 17:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

She is campaigning to keep prisons, hospital wards, raped crisis centres, sports, change rooms, and bathrooms all single sex. All of those relate to a woman's right to safety. Nothing to do with hating transgender people, or wanting them dead like the media claims. If you listen to her interviews, she is purely trying to protect women only place. In short, she thinks women should have the right to single sex spaces. Happy to send links to interviews where she says this very clearly. 165.0.1.188 (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

If you listen to her interviews – that could fall foul of Wikipedia:No original research. We're mostly interested in what independent, reliable sources have to say about our subjects, not what they claim about themselves. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Surely no one knows what they believe better than they do? Interviews are often used as good sources of information in academia. It would still be an independent source since it isn't coming from Wikipedia. 165.0.1.188 (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Independent sources refers to independence from the subject, not from Wikipedia. Yes, interviews could be used to support information on what she describes of herself, while keeping in mind WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. But when we choose how we describe her, we turn to independent secondary sources that have done the analysis for us. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

So if someone like Elon Musk is interviewed by the BBC onhis takeover of Twitter, is this not seen as a reliable source? 165.0.1.188 (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've read the article, and they talk about self published sources. So any interview conducted by someone (such as for a podcast) should be absolutely fine. 165.0.1.188 (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

A reliably published interview with her would be a reliable source for what she says in that interview. It is not an objective assessment of her activism. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Happy to share some interviews, although on her Wikipedia page someone is already citing her youtube channel. Wikipedia is also supposed to be balanced. Approximately 1/6 references are from Pink News, which obviously has it's own agenda, so it's not exactly balanced. Don't get me wrong, it's fair to keep that in, but then make sure you include sources from the other side to maintain a balanced article. 165.0.1.188 (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Pink news is GREL so if you have concerns you should take them up on RSN. Filiforme1312 (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Totally putting the trans topic aside, which women's rights has she advocated for?

~~ 77.20.46.10 (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

This whole article is obviously meant to smear Keen and the vast majority of it should be deleted. If the Trans Activists want a hate page then let it be somewhere else. You can provide a link to it from this if you want. We should ask her what she stands for and put that info here. The rest needs to go! Philmorgan (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, we summarize what reliable sources say about her, not what she claims about herself. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE would be good reading to understand why the article reads how it does. Filiforme1312 (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I have come across this in many articles now and have concluded that there are some editors more motivated than I. Readers of the article can and will make up their own minds about the quality. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you find reliable sources that balance the article in the way you think it should be, and add that info. E James Bowman (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! She is not anti transgender. She is a women’s rights activist. She is campaigning to keep men out of women's prisons, sports, hospital wards, change rooms, bathrooms, and anything else where biology matters. This is not the same as saying no one should be allowed to be transgender.

Several transgender people support her position, and agree that a biological man cannot become a woman just by transitioning (and obviously the other way around).

Supporting women's rights should never be seen as hate speech! 165.0.1.188 (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Philmorgan. It's a hit piece on Keen that needs to be re-written from a more neutral point of view. It opens by calling her an "anti-trans activist." She may hold controversial views that other activists consider anti-trans, but what is anti-trans is a matter of opinion. It also cites Pink News a wopping 14 times to back up some of the more controversial points. Pink News is is advocacy, or if we're being generous, has a heavy editorial slant on its coverage. Both Kathleen Stock and Helen Joyce hold similar views, and their biographies are handled in more neutral fashion. Take the Lesbian Project section of Stock's article as an example about how to write about this issue in a neutral way.Sugarcoma 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sugarcoma: WP:PINKNEWS is a strong reliable source. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It's hardly an unbiased source. They very clearly have an agenda. Not that it doesn't mean their information isn't accurate, and shouldn't be used. Rather acknowledge they might be biased, and try to get information from both sides of the argument. Wikipedia is not supposed to be pushing any political (or otherwise) agenda. 165.0.1.188 (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

An example of the problem we have with this article is nicely summed up here and why the "Hit" Heading has some validity. In a nutshell - Our text here doesn't remotely represent the sources.

Please have a read through the sources cited - which I have included as links.

I would suggest that the first job is to align the article with the sources.

From Rallies, speaker events, and protests

On 5 February 2023, Keen organised a "Let Women Speak" protest in Glasgow's George Square in response to the passage of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill and the Isla Bryson case; hundreds of protesters and counterprotestors attended, and the counterprotestors were organised by the Cabaret Against The Hate Speech.This next is a classic example of why I am unhappy with how this article has developed.

That paragraph has three citations:

One from The Pink news is really an opinion piece and bears little relation to the news coverage of the other two - but it has given our text most of it's 'thrust'

The headline....

"Cis woman interrupts anti-trans protest and instantly becomes an icon: ‘Trans women are women!’"

One, far more 'journalistic' reporting The National That portrays the rally from both sides.

"Glasgow gender critical rally met with trans activist counter-protest"

One from the Herald - again I'd say 'journalistic' and more balanced overall.

"Hundreds join rally against gender recognition reforms"

Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lukewarmbeer, during our recent discussion [5], I had noted the article graf you quote above does not cite that Pink News source; it cites a different Pink News source which is the only source for that graf which identifies the rally as a 'Let Women Speak' event. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. You pointed that out before and I totally forgot. This is the correct one Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, and this is the previous discussion I was referring to about a possible split of the article: Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull#Article becoming overly long - potential to split? - beyond the verification needed to keep the 'Let Women Speak' text in the graf quoted above, a potential split would also need a reference identifying the rally as a 'Let Women Speak' event. Beccaynr (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this is the place for this though as it's addressing the "hit piece" title of this section. (I stand to be corrected).

With regard to the split I think we can reduce the length of the article without splitting. See my comment in that section below.....

Rallies, speaker events, and protests

Remove the 20, pick two or three illustrative examples to quote in full and add a short summary.

Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think a discussion about this issue could be better placed in its own section. I do not have time at the moment to address this specific issue related to the article structure and content, but some aspects of policy to consider is that per WP:NOT policy, we do not write essays based on personal preference - we instead look to the reliable sources to determine structure and weight, as well as balance, per WP:NPOV policy. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Opposition to Gender Recognition Act 2004

@Beccaynr has deleted the following from the article: Since 2019, Keen has stood against the Gender Recognition Act 2004 saying it allows men to change their identities and then inflict more violence on cis women.^{[Opposition_to_Gender_Recognition_Act_2004 1]} In 2022 she called for the repeal of the Act, saying the state had created "a legal fiction" and that she wanted males kept out of female-only spaces. She said since the Act became law in the UK, the rights of women have been eroded, and referred to men in women's prisons, police having to call male rapists 'women' and not being able to keep men out of the Girl Guides.^{[Opposition_to_Gender_Recognition_Act_2004 2]} The HuffPost article is critical of Keen's actions. There is no reason to believe this information isn't reliable, so its inclusion is appropriate. The info sourced from the GB News interview objectively outlines Keen's views about the Act. It is not promoting them. Its inclusion creates a more neutral point of view in the article which is focussed on criticism against Keen's views, but omits these notable views. Many editors have called for this more neutral POV in this Talk page. This information helps achieve that. E James Bowman (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I think you forgot to include the source for the new prose. Filiforme1312 (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

We had discussed in the above section how WP:HUFFPO is not a reliable source for politics and that source seemed to be a particular example as to why. And this article is not a promotional brochure for Keen, so our own transcriptions of her promotional appearances on television are not acceptable sources for this article. We need secondary content from reliable sources. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

For the record, in response to discussions here I added this to the article:

In a 2022 GB News interview, Keen called for the repeal of the UK's Gender Recognition Act 2004, saying she wanted "males" kept out of "female-only spaces". She said since the Act became law, the rights of women had been eroded and specifically referred to transgender women in women's prisons and in the Girl Guides.

In my view, this is neither promotional nor a transcript and it is from a reliable source. @Filiforme1312 pointing out the citation was missing suggested that user was comfortable with the edit, but @Beccaynr has removed it. E James Bowman (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

As also noted at your user Talk page [6], I had been (from my view, clearly) talking about the 2023 NZ Herald source in the section above, and the addition quoted immediately above was the second time this GB News content was added, just in a slightly-altered form and without an inline source.

I had previously removed the GBNews content with an edit summary noting 'youtube/WP:PROMO' [7] when the text was In 2022 she called for the repeal of the Act, saying the state had created "a legal fiction" and that she wanted males kept out of female-only spaces. She said since the Act became law in the UK, the rights of women have been eroded, and referred to men in women's prisons, police having to call male rapists 'women' and not being able to keep men out of the Girl Guides., cited to a GB News YouTube video with the summary "Founder of Standing For Women, Kellie-Jay Keen, says the Gender Recognition Act is not fit for purpose." So it appears to be an originally-produced transcript of a primary source aired on a channel with an RSN discussion started on 16 July 2022 that includes concerns about general unreliability.

I think further discussion is good about whether the content is WP:DUE, whether it is appropriate per WP:PROMO, and whether the sourcing is reliable; from my view, after further review of this source, it appears unsuitable to use, and it would be better to find a source that is independent, reliable, and secondary. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

My short reply was more just a courtesy since I noticed shortly after the edit was made and had only spotty cell service at the time. It does seem there are concerns about the reliability of GB News on RS. I also do not feel this particular interview, with her comments about herself, is DUE or a good fit for the biography section. Filiforme1312 (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

^ "2 Women Disrupt Meeting To Harass Transgender Activist In Appalling Video". HuffPost. 2019-01-31. Retrieved 2023-04-01.
^ 'The rights of women have persistently been ERODED' | Kellie-Jay Keen SLAMS gender legislation, retrieved 2023-04-01

Factually incorrect to suggest Keen is supported by neo-Nazis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The use of the words "supported by" in this sentence implies Keen is associated with neo-Nazis which is not factually correct - "Keen's Melbourne event on 18 March was supported by a group of at least 30 neo-Nazis..."

In the New Zealand Herald on 20th March 2023 she denounces Nazis and says: “They’re absolutely not associated with me whatsoever. “I absolutely abhor anything to do with Nazis. It’s preposterous they even exist in 2023.” Source: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/immigration-new-zealand-reviews-entry-for-uk-anti-trans-activist-kellie-jay-keen-minshull/FQNQMWZQ7NFKVMWIJ4RUUELZJ4/

A better way to incorporate this would be to say:

"A group of at least 30 neo-Nazis showed up at Keen's Melbourne event giving Nazi salutes and shouting at counter-protestors. Keen denounced the Nazis saying: "They’re absolutely not associated with me whatsoever. I absolutely abhor anything to do with Nazis. It’s preposterous they even exist in 2023.” Then reference the NZ Herald article. Maryewe (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The "supported by" language appears to be based on The Age, e.g. "About 30 people from neo-Nazi group the National Socialist Network, dressed in black and most with their faces covered, attended the protests on Spring Street supporting Keen-Minshull, repeatedly performing the salute and holding up a sign using offensive anti-trans language", and News.com.au e.g. "At least 30 members of the far-right Nationalist Socialist Movement were seen marching down Melbourne’s Spring St in support of Ms Keen-Minshull."

By contrast, The New York Times reports, "The 30 or so people, who later identified themselves as members of the Australian neo-Nazi group the National Socialist Network, appeared on Saturday amid a crowd of about 300 people at a protest against transgender rights that was led by the British anti-trans rights campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull." The Anti-trans activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull steadfast in coming as Immigration NZ reviews entry New Zealand Herald article includes: "Last week, the self-described women’s rights activist drew protests in Perth and Melbourne, with some people at the events seen giving Nazi salutes and shouting slurs at counter-protesters." I think it would be helpful to hear from more editors about how to incorporate these recent sources in accordance with various content policies, including WP:NPOV. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Support isn't commutative; that is, "neo-Nazis support her" does not imply "she supports neo-Nazis". It also does not imply "she is associated with Nazis". As such, this is factually correct as written: there are neo-Nazis that support her.

But I don't object to more clarity, if people are reading more information into the text than we intend to convey. My only objection to Maryewe's proposed wording is the informality of "showed up at"; I would prefer "attended".

n.b. I am aware of the discussion of the Barbie thing earlier on this talk page; I haven't read the whole thing or formed an opinion on her Nazi-ness in general. This comment is based solely on the sources quoted here. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 21:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The word support means to give assistance to, especially financially. The source given does not provide evidence that neo-Nazis provide financial assistance and given Keen has denounced their presence we also know they have not assisted her in a non-financial way. You are not assisting someone if you're unwelcome. Therefore they do not support her. Maryewe (talk) 08:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Support has a ton of definitions. I'm not sure anyone would read the current prose as stating that the Nazis financially supported her. The definition used in this case would be To back a cause, party, etc., mentally or with concrete aid.

The news.com.au source uses support in a similiar fashion.

It’s estimated there were about 400 people there to support Ms Keen-Minshull — but pro-transgender supporters outnumbered them at least 2:1. Filiforme1312 (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you support someone it implies that that someone wanted you there. Keen has made clear they were not welcome and not invited. If I organise a climate march and neo-Nazis attended and claimed to support me I would view it as misinformation if Wikipedia reported them as "supporting" me. Neo-Nazi views on women are regressive and tend not to be supportive of women.

I also object to the word "attended" as again this implies they were welcome. The organisers have made clear they were not welcome, were not invited, and were asked to leave. They "showed up" or "turned up" - although I think gategrashed is more appropriate - and as a bonus make it clear they were not invited since that is factually correct.

Here is a reputable source published on 21st March (https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/total-aryan-victory-nazis-the-only-ones-happy-after-parliament-protest-20230320-p5cto9.html)

"Organiser Jones told The Age the Nazis from the National Socialist Network turned up about halfway through their rally and were “let in by police”. She said she initially thought they were Antifa (anti-fascist activists) seeking to join their mates in the counter-protest.

“Then the police opened up the line,” said Jones, who is Jewish and says she abhors Nazis. She worried they were there to attack the women, but they stood on the steps away from them."

Let's not give the Neo-Nazis what they want which is what is on Wikipedia currently. Tell the truth instead. Maryewe (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You are the only one reading these implications into these words. --Pokelova (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

That is not really an adequate response. I have provided evidence with links to sources to demonstrate the event was not supported by neo-Nazis and all you have to say is no one agrees with nothing else? Surely Wikipedia discussions are more evidence-based and robust than this? Maryewe (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The RS says the Neo-Nazis attended and supported Keen/her event so whatever language we use would have to reflect our understandings of those words. Filiforme1312 (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't the organisers of the event be the more reliable source as to whether they were supported by neo-Nazis? After all, an abatoir could claim to support animal rights activists who are protesting outside their abatoir but would you really believe them? Wouldn't you want to get the other side of the story too? Would you believe Posie Parker if she said she supports transgender people? Wouldn't you want to get the opinion of transgender people about that? Their opinion would carry greater weight as to whether they feel supported just as in this situation the organiser's opinion carries greater weight.

I have now provided two reliable sources from two organisers who say the Nazis were not welcome or invited. Maryewe (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

"Welcome or invited" are your words, this article does not make such a claim. --Pokelova (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you look up support in the dictionary it says,

bear all or part of the weight of; hold up.

give assistance to, especially financially.

There is no interpretation where the presence of Nazis meets that definition. If you want to quote a Nazi fine but it shouldn't be implied that it's factual and at the very least the quotes from the organisers in response to the Nazis should be included. Maryewe (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The definition I provided earlier is from wiktionary and is the one used by both the RS and this article. Filiforme1312 (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

"To back a cause, party, etc., mentally or with concrete aid."

There is no interpretation where the presence of Nazis meets this definition either. But to my second point, if you want to quote Nazis and why you would want to quote Nazis I do not understand at all, then shouldn't we also include the organisers response to said Nazis since this article is about the organisers and not about Nazis. Maryewe (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Macmillan: to approve of an idea or of a person or organization, Merriam-Webster: to promote the interests or cause of, Cambridge: to agree with and give encouragement to someone or something. Keen's alleged disapproval of the Nazis is already mentioned in the article. --Pokelova (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The RS is not nazis and the organizer's response is included. Filiforme1312 (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. I didn't see that Keen's quote had been added. Maryewe (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This is in of itself painting a narrative as it makes it seem like the nazis were just coincidentally there. Connecting her "denouncement" right after referring to the very real nazis that did attend her event almost frames her as a victim. Little Miss Desu (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Meh. This is one of those things where no matter how we word it, someone will read a narrative they don't like into it. Given the choice, and that constraint, I would err on the side of including true information rather than leaving it out, and leaving the reader to decide whether they believe her.

Do you have a different wording you would prefer? ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 04:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a recent article in the BBC which describes the Nazi involvement like this:

"The presence of neo-Nazis at that event, in apparent support of Ms Keen-Minshull, has triggered a huge backlash ..."

The BBC will not say outright that the Nazis were there in support. I propose:

"Keen's Melbourne event on 18 March was attended by a group of at least 30 neo-Nazis in apparent support ..."

Also want to note that the BBC refers to her just as an "activist". I think both sides would agree with that.

Here's the source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-65034603 84.69.134.40 (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the section heading of this discussion doesn't clearly frame the issue, because the article does not state Keen is supported by neo-Nazis, it says her event was supported, based on various sources. There are also sources in the article that describe the event as e.g. "the anti-trans rights event", The Age, "a protest against transgender rights", New York Times, "an anti-transgender rally", news.com.au, and that could be clarified at the beginning of the paragraph - maybe e.g. Keen organized an anti-trans rights rally, and at least 30 neo-Nazis attended with expressions of support including a banner displaying anti-trans hate speech and Nazi salutes. Also, to write she is "an activist known for anti-transgender activism" (according to sources) seems unneccesarily wordy, especially in light of how most independent and reliable sources describe Keen, and per WP:NPOV policy. Beccaynr (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The idea that Nazis support feminism and women's rights is ludicrous. Wikipedia's own page on women in Nazi Germany says this:

"The ideal woman in Nazi Germany did not have a career outside her home. Instead, she was a good wife (however her husband defined that), a careful and conscientious mother (taking special care to raise her children in accordance with Nazi philosophies and ideals), and skilled at doing all domestic chores such as cleaning and cooking. "

And yet somehow you want to suggest here that Nazi's went to support a feminist and women's rights event in Melbourne? 84.69.134.40 (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You're right - I doubt if many of the NSN are avid feminists, but that's somewhat irrelevant because they attended (or were certainly under the impression that they were attending) an anti-transgender protest, as their banners make quite clear. Black Kite (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Didn't their banners refer to pedophilia and "freaks"? I don't recall seeing any banners in support of feminism and women's rights? 84.69.134.40 (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly - I was agreeing with you. Black Kite (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Obviously what I'm about to say is a huge pile of WP:OR and cannot be considered for inclusion in the article unless/until a reliable source documents this, but it might help contextualise some of the discussions surrounding this point for those editors unaware or who do not follow social media.

There's what I would describe as an emerging conspiracy theory on social media, particularly on Twitter, from those who either support or are broadly sympathetic to Keen-Minshull, that the neo-Nazis who were documented as attending and supporting Keen-Minshull's Victoria event were some sort of false flag operation or psyop (seen both terms used). Like all good conspiracy theories there's a multiple choice answer for exactly who organised it, with accusations being made against the counter protestors, Victoria Police, and members of the Australian government/political establishment. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Maybe not so much OR. According to The Spinoff, a reliable source per an November 2020 RSN discussion, some of the false flag accusations are coming from Counterspin, a far-right conspiracy theory platform active in New Zealand. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Ironically, the issue might be somewhat solved by simply recovering previous parts of the articles in regards of her relations to the far rights and conservatives. Such as a selfie with

Hans Jørgen Lysglimt Johansen and the proud boy Edgar J Delatorre, being in Youtube interviews with Jean-François Gariépy and Avi Yemini, Hearts of Oak at her Let Women Speak rally (I think it was in Brighton), interview with Tucker Carlson, Hearts of Oak at her rally and her letting the Proud Boys Chris Barcenas speak at her rally.

I am writing this because including this information would simply allow the reader to make one's own conclusion based on this.

~~ 77.20.46.10 (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Why doesn't the article say that she used to be a Labour party member and that her events are attended by people on both sides of the political spectrum including left-wing feminists and academics. It's not impartial and has made me question other things I read on Wikipedia now. It's like people want her to be a far-right nazi because it gives them an excuse to dismiss her views without thinking critically about what she says. But the reality is that Nazis do not support or campaign for feminism and women's rights and they never have. 213.246.153.158 (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
We include things based on WP:RS and WP:DUE. RS is more likely to mention some things, which is why the article is more likely to include neo-nazi supporters/attendees or those wearing the insignia of terrorist groups than just average people. Filiforme1312 (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification of the use of the term "gender."

The word "gender" is ambiguous, especially in contexts where it is used to mean something like "being a woman" or "being a man." In order to avoid confusion, I have in a couple place added the qualifier "self-declared" to clarify that we're talking about the gender someone claims to be without prejudicing the question of self-declaration is sufficient for really being a woman. Adding the qualifier "self-declared" leaves that question open, which is appropriate given the unresolved controversies surrounding this issue. FritFerret (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no question to leave open. Adding "self-declared" reads as "Ha ha. Not really. (Wink, wink.)". It is snide and weaselly and we are not going to do that. We are not bothsidsing people's genders. If you have any doubt whether that is reasonable then all I ask is that you consider how you would like it if somebody did it to you. DanielRigal (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No. It's not weaselly. it's an attempt to reconcile two virtually irreconcilable views. It seems an intractable problem but we are getting a bit to inclined to forget Good faith here and (as has been requested quite reasonably of me) stick to developing the article without denigrating the contributions people make.

That is what we will not have. Otherwise the whole thing falls apart.

The UK (as an example) if evenly split (YouGov) even on the question of wether the law should allow people to change their legal gender. That has to be navigated here and that is why this is a contentious topic. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Polls don't decide how we write our articles, though; reliable sources do. And in reliable sources, these positions are far from equal and do not need to be "reconciled". ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 10:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The position that they don't is just untenable.

“Decisions are always difficult when they involve conflicting needs and rights between different groups"

The Guardian Lukewarmbeer (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not following how this is relevant to the proposed language, which just seems to be a way to cast doubt on trans people's gender. Filiforme1312 (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. How does an article on the World Athletics Council's decision to ban trans women have anything to do with whether we should say "gender" or "self-declared gender"? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 11:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought I was addressing the development of this thread to have some 'talk'ing about the topic but as I'm not succeeding I'll have to support "self-declared gender" Lukewarmbeer (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Not at all, there are two different genders, the one they are declared to have at birth and the one that they are, for want of a better term "identifying with"/choosing/happy with. Sometimes this is permanent and sometimes not and that's an individual's personal experience of their own gender. However if we are to talk about what it is that Keen is opposing herself, it is people having the choice of their own gender, right? So... it's literally about self-declared gender. Butheremails (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I say "two different genders" in this case meaning that the one people have been told they have and the one they are... not "man" and "woman". To be clear. Butheremails (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

What a fantastic point! Thanks for that. You have finally found the 'sweet spot' in all of this. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I should have said "found sweet spot for us". Lukewarmbeer (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't appear to have independent sources for the phrase "self-declared" gender for the text at issue, and it appears to be original research to add the phrase. And as FritFerret notes, this is not a matter of clarification for grammar or ease of reading, "self-declared" is a contentious political issue, i.e. the question of self-declaration is sufficient for really being a woman and i.e. unresolved controversies, so we need to be especially careful to stick to the available independent and reliable sources.

I made a suggestion in a discussion above about conducting further research related to specific Gender Recognition Acts that Keen has opposed to help add further detail to the introductory section, and this research could be developed on this Talk page in the meantime. It may help resolve this issue to add further detail from independent and reliable sources. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Gender identity

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=irs3BAAAQBAJ&dq=978-0-231-50186-6&pg=PA8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

I know you have mentioned this before but looking at our article and the citation there, and given the objections to self-declared gender, that looks like it would do nicely?

It is "ones personal sense of identity" according to our accepted source.

Ever the optimist. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

We also cannot add original research, or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources in this article, so this includes adding information that is not supported by sources, or using sources as if they say something that they do not. Beccaynr (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

What about sidestepping this debate entirely and just saying change their legal gender or change their gender marker? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a change is 100% necessary, but "legal gender" does seem like an improvement on the current phrasing where we're talking about the legal issues of gender recognition (i.e. laws/court cases addressing gender) or the gender listed on legal documents. More precision is usually a good thing. I also agree that "self-declared" would be highly inappropriate in this case outside of very specific circumstances, per WP:WEASEL The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

So could that look vaguely like (in the opening paragraph):

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, also known as Posie Parker, the founder of the group Standing for Women. Keen and campaigns in opposition to (fully recognising?) the ability (validity of?) to legally change gender. She has used posters, billboards, stickers, and social media to promote that message, and has organised events in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. These have met with protests by supporters of transgender rights. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about the first paragraph of the "Biography" section? No, I don't think we should remove anti-trans from the lead sentence. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I was thinking about consistency. Don't let me get in the way as it looks like progress is being made. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

So I'll try this.

Keen opposes laws and policies that allow people to change their legal gender and thereby opposes their use of public facilities, participation in sports, drag performances etc. that accord to that legal gender, including in locations that may be viewed by children. She also opposes the use of puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy for transgender children. (Would 'youths' be better as that is what the current link is to and she objects to anyone receiving such treatment until they are adults?)

Anything there you can work with? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd just do:

Keen opposes laws and policies that allow transgender people to be change their legal gender, the use of public bathrooms by transgender people according to their gender, the participation of transgender people in sports that align with their gender, and drag performances, including in locations that may be viewed by children.[3] She also opposes the use of puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy for transgender children.

Most places do not have laws limiting the use of toilets or participation in sports to those of a certain legal gender, so it's incorrect to say that she opposes trans people doing those as a consequence of her opposition to change of legal gender. I think you also misread the part about drag; she outright opposes drag, not trans people in gender-segregated drag (which I doubt even is a thing).

(Just realized I actually forgot to implement the proposed change in the quote. Here we go) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"I think you also misread the part about drag; she outright opposes drag, not trans people in gender-segregated drag (which I doubt even is a thing)"

I actually did. I'm sure it's a thing somewhere though :) Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

One of the things about getting into Keen's views on medical standards of care is it may be necessary to frame this in a way that aligns with FRINGE. As she has no medical background and her views on this are against broader medical consensus. Filiforme1312 (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"opposes laws and policies that allow people to change their legal gender" is a pretty accurate and non-emotive phrasing, IMO. Butheremails (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

My concern is legal gender is potentially more confusing. Quick google search and it does see some limited use, but "gender marker" or "legal gender marker" is more common.

I'm curious if there is actually anything wrong with the current wording. The initial concern was that someone felt trans people's gender was disputed and I'm not sold on that being a valid reason to make a change. Filiforme1312 (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not about trans people's gender being disputed, it's about clearly identifying what it is that Keen opposes. Butheremails (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It does seem the conversation may have moved from that original point to concerns about clarity, but I'm not sure the proposed language with "legal gender" is more clear. It doesn't seem to be a term in wide use, at least in that form.

When it is used, "legal gender recognition" or "legal gender marker changes" seem to be the complete phrasing.

The current prose is more in line with RS, which states

She has also voiced her opposition to allowing transgender people to have changes to their gender legally recognised. Filiforme1312 (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the point was about confusion regarding gender, what does gender refer to when Keen is "opposing it". Keen isn't a gender abolitionist, as far as the references suggest, I don't think, in the radical feminist tradition. In fact, Keen has stated she's "not a feminist." It's the changing of gender in law that she's opposed to. Butheremails (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Re: the above "not a feminist" statement. I want to reference that from KJK herself to show I am not making any kind of statement out of bias because I realise it may annoy people. https://twitter.com/ThePosieParker/status/1639372056042299398 Butheremails (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

fyi, from the article: Anti-trans activist Posie Parker wants to stand as an MP against Eddie Izzard to ‘obliterate gender’ (Pink News, 23 Sept 2022) - this source quotes Keen's statements and adds context. By contrast, that WP:SELFSOURCE tweet involves claims about third parties, so it does not appear suitable as a source, and this article only currently states that she is an anti-transgender rights activist and that she claims to be a woman's rights activist. Based on available independent and reliable sources, it does not appear that we currently have sufficient secondary support to describe her as broadly known for more than this. Beccaynr (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I am just writing to note that I have more that I would like to contribute to this discussion, but I am busy for the next several hours, so I will not have time to construct an in-depth reply before then. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources for consensus

Is everyone happy for these sources being used to improve this article? Particularly you @Beccaynr?

E James Bowman (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Daily Mail is a deprecated source. It's not trustworthy.-gadfium 20:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The National Review is also a questionable source, as there's no consensus on its reliablilty and its partisanship would require any statements from it to be attributed.

The Yahoo News article seems to be a rehost of a London Evening Standard article, which is also a source on which there's no consensus for its reliability. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Beyond excluding obviously inappropriate sources, the appropriate answer to 'can we use this' is generally 'what for?'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Gadfium and @Sideswipe9th, good to know. @AndyTheGrump I've had numerous good faith edits to this article removed by @Beccaynr because they think the sources are inappropriate. If these sources are deemed appropriate for consideration I'm going to look to use them to improve this article, to address the multiple concerns on this page about not having a neutral POV and adding noteworthy info about Keen that is missing. E James Bowman (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the article history, all of the removals by Beccaynr seem to be for specific policy and guideline reasons. Much of the content that was added seems to have been either unsourced or poorly sourced, gave undue weight to minor aspects, and was overly promotional. Given the circumstances and how much clean up Beccaynr had to do last night, it would be better I think if you propose specific changes and additions here so that they can be checked in advance.

It's important to remember that just because a source is reliable, it's still possible to inadvertently misuse it in a way that violates other core content policies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The list of repeatedly discussed sources includes entries for e.g. WP:DAILYMAIL (deprecated), NBC News (generally reliable), WP:PINKNEWS (generally reliable, with additional considerations), and WP:NATIONALREVIEW (no consensus, with additional considerations). The Reliable Sources Noticeboard can also be searched for sources that are not listed; Glamour does not appear to have been discussed much, but the source listed above seems to clearly be an opinion piece, so WP:RSOPINION could apply, e.g. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. I have not yet reviewed all of the listed sources, so these are initial thoughts. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Based on the above feedback, I edited the article to contain:

In 2019, National Review said Keen was co-organiser of the Women Stand Up event in Washington DC and the Standing for Women group.^[1] In 2020, National Review said Standing for Women were campaigning against the reform of the UK's Gender Recognition Act 2004 as it "would have in effect changed 'woman' to mean 'any person who identifies as a woman' effectively making women-only refuges, changing rooms and hospital wards mixed sex".^[2]

The above replaced replaced a this, which I mistakenly thought was a dead link, but Keen can't have founded SFW in 2020 if it existed in 2019, so it should still be replaced:

Keen founded the organisation Standing for Women in 2020.^[3]

I also added:

In January 2019, National Review said Standing for Women's latest campaign involved placing t-shirts with the same definition on UK statues of famous women.^[1]

@Beccaynr has deleted both saying: (rm facts sourced to WP:NATIONALREVIEWWP:RSOPINION; restore Washington Times ref - available at [URL]). While Beccaynr has been constructive in editing some improvements I and others have made to this article, they also seem to be WP:STONEWALLING certain content by reverting on procedural grounds. I've experienced this multiple times when adding clarity or notable information on Keen's objections to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and its proposed reforms, as I've outlined in four topics in this Talk section. E James Bowman (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

My reply to your comment to me at your user Talk page [8] addressed this edit with some additional explanation about the restoration of content and a source removed with an edit summary noting the source is dead [9], and I am glad you have brought the content issue here for further discussion. When I reviewed the National Review source, it appears to be an opinion (see e.g. the second graf and the last line, and it is filed in the Culture section).

According to WP:RSOPINION, Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact, and this is the WP:NATIONALREVIEW, without consensus for its reliability and considered a partisan source at WP:RSP, with a caution to take care per WP:BLP policy, which includes WP:BLPRS (which applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable). From my view, removing this source and the content it supported and restoring the sourced content that was removed with an edit summary describing the link as dead seems supported by policy and guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The other National Review source, by the same author, also appears to be an opinion, includes a YouTube video from Keen's account and also largely quotes The Critic, which has an About page stating the magazine "exists to push back against a self-regarding and dangerous consensus that finds critical voices troubling, triggering, insensitive and disrespectful" and generally presents as an opinion source. Beccaynr (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I attributed National Review as suggested in this Talk topic. Both articles were written by Madeline Kearns who is a staff writer for National Review. Kearns, writing for National Review here is used as a source for Wikipedia's Florida Parental Rights in Education Act article. Josephine Bartosch, writing for The Critic here is used as a source in Wikipedia's Incarceration of women article, and her article for The Telegraph here is a source for Wikipedia's NHS Gender Identity Development Service article. I propose adding back my two reverted edits along with the current Washington Times sourced info. Then adding Madeline Kearns to the third sentence, and Josephine Bartosch in the last using this source. So that would read:

In 2019, National Review said Keen was co-organiser of the Women Stand Up event in Washington DC and the Standing for Women group. The Washington Times says Keen founded the organisation Standing for Women in 2020. In 2020, Madeline Kearns wrote an op-ed for National Review that said Standing for Women were campaigning against the reform of the UK's Gender Recognition Act 2004. Josephine Bartosch wrote in The Critic that the "proposed legislative reform would have in effect changed 'woman' to mean 'any person who identifies as a woman' effectively making women-only refuges, changing rooms and hospital wards mixed sex".

E James Bowman (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason why this can't be restored, as it's not an opinion and National Review is attributed (although I don't think it need to be in this case):

•In January 2019, National Review said Standing for Women's latest campaign involved placing t-shirts with the same definition on UK statues of famous women.

This is preferable:

•In January 2019, Standing for Women campaigned with t-shirts printed with the same definition that were placed on UK statues of famous women. E James Bowman (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Before the addition of the Kearns sources from The National Review [10], [11], this discussion pointed to the RSP entry WP:NATIONALREVIEW (which has guidance beyond attribution to the publication), and WP:RSOPINION [12] (which were also then linked in my edit summary when I removed the content [13]). Also, each source should be examined individually, so usage in other articles does not necessarily support usage here; I did review the other usage of The Critic noted above and have commented at the article Talk page about my removal of that source from that article.

The Josephine Bartosch/The Critic source proposed for addition to this article appears to clearly be an opinion piece based on the commentary in the intro and final grafs and various other points; if The Critic can be considered a reliable source, WP:RSOPINION indicates it may only be reliable for the author's opinion, but not for statements of fact, and the opinion should be attributed to the author. We should also consider whether the opinion is WP:DUE and compliant with WP:BLP policy. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b "Bipartisan Women's Rights Groups Protest the Equality Act". National Review. 2019-01-30. Retrieved 2023-04-02.
^ "British Woman Arrested for 'Non-Political' Protest". National Review. 2020-09-21. Retrieved 2023-04-02.
^ Richardson, Valerie (10 April 2022). "Pressure to define 'woman' puts Democrats in a political quandary". Washington Times. Archived from the original on 19 October 2022. Retrieved 19 October 2022.

Discussion on the New Zealand television show Marae

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On a recent episode[14] of Marae, the presenter and guests discussed some of Posie Parker's hate speech against the transgender community: "Posie Parker has told her followers that due to the 'transgender agenda', cisgender women are being kidnapped, blended and put into meat for human consumption." This claim does not seem to be mentioned yet on this Wikipedia page. It should probably be added, to put the reaction to her New Zealand visit into context. 188.30.157.86 (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

That would probably be WP:UNDUE. --Pokelova (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] "2 Women Disrupt Meeting To Harass Transgender Activist In Appalling Video". HuffPost. 2019-01-31. Retrieved 2023-04-01.

[2] 'The rights of women have persistently been ERODED' | Kellie-Jay Keen SLAMS gender legislation, retrieved 2023-04-01

[:0-3] "Bipartisan Women's Rights Groups Protest the Equality Act". National Review. 2019-01-30. Retrieved 2023-04-02.

[4] "British Woman Arrested for 'Non-Political' Protest". National Review. 2020-09-21. Retrieved 2023-04-02.

[Richardson-5] Richardson, Valerie (10 April 2022). "Pressure to define 'woman' puts Democrats in a political quandary". Washington Times. Archived from the original on 19 October 2022. Retrieved 19 October 2022.

[Opposition_to_Gender_Recognition_Act_2004 1]

[Opposition_to_Gender_Recognition_Act_2004 2]

[1]

[2]

[3]