Jump to content

Talk:What Is a Woman?

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

"Anti-transgender"

[edit]

@User:Firefangledfeathers https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Is_a_Woman%3F&diff=prev&oldid=1174308363 The ref doesnt say "anti-transgender" either. --FMSky (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It says "anti-trans". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that could mean anything, such as anti-transvestite or anti-transglutaminase antibodies --FMSky (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a reasonable reading. Does anyone else agree with that suggestion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's reasonable. The first example is on point, and the second satirically adds emphasis. You can ignore the satire if you wish, but the point remains. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Pending further input, I removed Pink News from the set of citations for "anti-transgender" in the lead and separated out its wording choice in the body. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In context, suggesting “anti-trans” means anything other than “anti-transgender” is a ludicrous supposition. Surely that's not a serious suggestion? — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's just ridiculous to say that when Pink News says "anti-trans" they don't mean "anti-transgender". Loki (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
its doesnt say anti-transgender so its WP:OR --FMSky (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it is OR, then adding "anti-trans" as a third description in the sentence would be the compromise. Llll5032 (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Loki (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FMSky Please list all "anti-trans" meanings that have come up to your head. Then please post your explanation here why any reasonable reader may confuse anti-trans for any of the concepts that you believe may be shortened to "anti-trans". I dare you.
Actually, I can help find more ideas for these: "anti-trans fat campaign", "anti-Trans propaganda", "anti-trans protests in Belfast", to name a few.
I'm particularly intrigued about anti-trans being a shorthand for "anti-transglutaminase antibodies" though, given that you likely haven't heard of them before and simply learned that they exist using Wikipedia's search function in which you typed an "anti-trans" query. But I may be wrong. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have enough sources for "anti-trans" and "transphobic" combined that we should say it in Wikivoice. We have a whole bunch of sources for this claim that are green at RSP. Unless significant contradictory sourcing exists it's clear that the balance of the sources are calling this movie "anti-trans" or something that means the same thing. Loki (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead addition

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
consensus was reached to not add the following to the lead. participants also agreed that this rfc was disruptive, as the previous discussion was also opposed to adding the text. ltbdl (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to gain consensus to add the following to the lead. Previous discussion didnt lead to anything:

What Is a Woman? is a 2022 American online film about gender and transgender issues presented by conservative political commentator Matt Walsh. The film was released by conservative website The Daily Wire, with direction by Justin Folk. In the film, Walsh asks various people "What is a woman?", which most of the interviewees are unable to answer.[1][2][3][4]

(or similar wording)

--FMSky (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Sources

  1. ^ Burkhardt, Kai (August 29, 2022). "'Die einfache Frage, die Amerikas Gender-Experten in die Verzweiflung treibt'". Die Welt. Retrieved August 31, 2022.
  2. ^ Schneible, Ann (July 27, 2022). "'What Is a Woman?'". National Catholic Register. Retrieved August 6, 2022.
  3. ^ "What is a Woman? And the rise of liberal intolerance".
  4. ^ "What is a woman? A question even the courts are afraid to answer". 28 August 2023.
Are you kidding me? Whose idea was it to make this an RFC? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussion didnt lead to anything --FMSky (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Its factually correct, sourced and describes the film's plot. Its esentially all the movie is about - no one being able to define the term. Its also already mentioned in the article's body and serves as an additional summary for the lead. --FMSky (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you quote the parts of the sources that best support the proposal? Where in the body is this already mentioned? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kai Burkhardt of the German newspaper Die Welt called Walsh a "conservative Michael Moore" and praised the film for stirring up America's "gender war" by efficiently asking seemingly effortless questions to supposed experts in the field, who are unable to answer.
"how easily it breaks through the cognitive dissonance exhibited by supporters of gender ideologies and their inability or unwillingness to answer the simplest questions on this topic"--FMSky (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there more in the sources that might support "most of the interviewees"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be fine with that experts on the field are unable to answer. this is just a suggestion --FMSky (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. It's not a significant viewpoint, it's a minority viewpoint, and we shouldn't be cherry-picking two opinions/reviews, for their subjective viewpoint in the lead. It's properly attributed to the two authors making that allegation in the body of the article, and that's where it should remain. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a fringe viewpoint, its esentially all the movie is about. No one being able to define the term. Why are you voting if you havent even watched the film? NPOV also doesnt make any sense at all --FMSky (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't a minority viewpoint, then you should have been able to produce multiple reliable sources to show it is a widely held view. And then we have Walsh himself who is quoted as saying: “Most of the people we talked to either didn’t want to talk about it, or they appeared to be confused about something as simple as what a woman is”. So the guy who actually made this film contradicts the proposed text you want to add. It's fine in the body of the article where is is properly attributed as the opinions of the authors making that allegation. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people we talked to either didn’t want to talk about it, or they appeared to be confused about something as simple as what a woman is - that literally means that most interviewees were unable to answer. you actually proved my point. maybe it could be reworded to "unable or unwilling to answer". --FMSky (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it actually disproves your point. Dr. Marci Bowers, a gynecologist and surgeon, said womanhood is “a combination of your physical attributes and what you’re showing to the world and the gender clues you give.” Patrick Grzanka, an associate professor at the University of Tennessee, said a woman is “a person who identifies as a woman” Some of the people Walsh interviews in the film say that gender cannot and should not be assigned by doctors at birth and that children should be encouraged to explore different forms of gender expression without being influenced by their parents or society. So the premise that most of the interviewees are unable to answer has been debunked. They answered, but Walsh just didn't like the answers they gave, because their answers didn't align with his own beliefs, which is the whole point of his anti-trans documentary. Like I said, it is undue to say "most people" as a widely held viewpoint, when it clearly isn't, as evidenced by your failure to provide multiple high quality reliable sources backing up your proposed text. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has been debunked. You have an example of 2 people answering the question (one with a rambling incoherent response), while the rest of the sources say none was able to answer. The makes the statement "most were unable to answer" true --FMSky (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They were able to answer, Walsh just didn't like the answers they gave, because their answers didn't align with his own beliefs. Welsh is well known for his beliefs, and as far as he is concerned, there is only one acceptable answer. Your proposal that people were unable to answer is not backed up by the weight of the reliable sources reporting on this. It's a subjective opinion of a tiny minority, and it has no business in the lead as an authoritative statement. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They were able to answer - source? Some of them stormed out of the interview after being asked the question. Again, watch the film, then comment on it --FMSky (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Watching the film and then commenting on it is WP:OR, which apparently is what your argument for inclusion of the content is based on, original research. One of the biggest lies promoted by the film is that the left is unable to answer the question: What is a woman? In reality, all of the trans-supportive people interviewed offered an answer; Walsh just didn’t like the responses he got. Walsh asks a question, but doesn’t like the answers. Again, the proposed content is a minority viewpoint, and it has no business in the lead as an authoritative statement. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should have read the entire thread before slapping your vote in. This isn't helpful at all. --FMSky (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by thread? I read this whole section, is there further discussion in another section? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isnt undue or a point of view as it is the film's plot. -FMSky (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"In the film, Walsh asks various people "What is a woman?"" would be probably be due and summarizes the film's plot, the use of the quote or similar after it appears to be favoring a particular POV (especially as the quote is unattributed in-text) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"In the film, Walsh asks various people "What is a woman?" - this is not an adequate plot summary --FMSky (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thats why we have an entire plot summary section. The second half of the proposed sentence isn't plot at all, its commentary. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Due weight is based on coverage in reliable sources, not emphasis in the material itself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... coverage which we have. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't appear to, of the four sources given we appear to have two questionable sources and two opinion pieces. We have a single mention of it in the body, as an opinion attributed to the writer (its the same opinion piece from the four above). How do you get from there to due weight? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, how is it UnDue when it is the central question of the whole film? Can anyone produce a source saying he received an answer?Gooseneck41 (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as a combination of undue per the above concerns, and being backed by sources not really reliable enough to back up a claim like this in a topic as contentious as this. The Das Welt source is probably the most credible as a reliable newspaper, but it comes from the Welt+ section, which is described by Welt itself as being a source for "starke und unkonventionelle Meinungen" (Eng: strong and unconventional opinions), indicating this is simply an opinion piece. Spiked's piece is again, just that, an opinion piece, and inveighs against "liberal intolerance", which kinda indicates its bias on this subject. The Washington Examiner is already listed as "no consensus" on WP:RSP, and I really don't think I need to begin to explain the litany of issues with sourcing a contentious claim in a GENSEX article to.... the National Catholic Register. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another one:https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/matt-walsh-stumps-the-left-with-one-simple-question/
Walsh struggles to find anyone who can answer what would appear to be a simple question. But given that incoming Supreme Court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dodged the same question during her confirmation hearings, claiming she was unable to answer it because she was “not a biologist,” it appears the question is indeed a complicated one.

--FMSky (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the Washington Examiner, the National Review is listed as "no consensus" at RSP, so this isn't much help either. The fact that the only sources backing up this are a mixture of opinion pieces, non-reliable sources and opinion pieces from non-reliable sources indicate to me that this is not due for inclusion, not least in the lead. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That source is already in the article so it should be reliable (or be removed as well). Btw the reason that none of the mainstream outlets are stating this is because they (for whatever reason) refused to review the film, see https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/what_is_a_woman --FMSky (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews are opinions so they're of limited use to us, what we need are actual articles and we appear to have a large number of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you will need to review a film to analyse its plot --FMSky (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't, plenty of room for journalists and academics to analyze a work outside of the context of a review. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGLY SUPPORT Anybody who has watched this will know this is obviously true. I would recommend making it even stronger, saying something like "Most of the interviewees advanced pseudo-scientific theories when asked the titular question". 2001:569:7E69:DF00:7CEC:4090:DE5B:618E (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This user has made few or no edits besides trolling this particular topic Dronebogus (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do see this specific insertion was originally proposed on the 26th — for better or for worse. Addressing the merits of this proposal in a bit more detail, our colleagues opposite wish to foreground what, in their view, the film is about. A neutral description of the film is essential to the lead of any film article. This is not that. Including unattributed opinion content in the third sentence is inappropriate, no matter where that opinion is from. I'll refrain from naming specific publications, lest I dissatisfy my fellow editors with my choice, but even were it from the most authoritative in existence and authored by the most authoritative expert possible on the subject (the subject of expertise being, film criticism or whatever), if it is opinion, it does not belong there. Much less unattributed. We do not foreground editorialisation, even when it aligns with the message, the purpose of the subject of the article. It is just as inappropriate, and just as much editorialising as if we were to insert the National Post​'s "capturing 'gotcha' moments", Intelligencer​'s "just asking questions campaign" or (more overtly), exposing the lunacy of the trans agenda, duplicity is central to the film, full of transphobic lies, etc.[aside 1] A fringe viewpoint is no less a fringe viewpoint for being the subject of an article (not that unattributed opinion would be appropriate there even were it not fringe), or we would have to radically alter our current coverage on fringe subjects such as bigfoot or 9/11 conspiracy theories (or, for a recently discussed topic that also has a film related to it, Shivkar Bāpuji Talpade and Hawaizaada). Again, I cannot see how the proposer saw this as an appropriate use of the RfC process. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    “What is a bigfoot?” Most people couldn’t answer that one either when it’s so obvious! (SCP-1000) Dronebogus (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As noted by others above, there don't seem to be reliable sources covering this claim, just opinion pieces and non-reliable articles. Especially when considering the lede of the article, there is no backing to include this. SilverserenC 23:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yeah, that's what Matt Walsh would say, but that's mostly because he doesn't accept complicated gender studies answers (or any answer that doesn't align with his POV) as "real". We already have sourcing listed above (plus, I mean, the movie itself) there's plenty of people in it who do answer his question, they just answer in ways he doesn't want to accept. (Or to put it in shorter/Wikipedia terms, this addition is very WP:POV.) Loki (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - sourcing to weak to establish weight. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 18:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat support/comment For the sake of reducing the chance of any future conflicts, I do think it's important to include something more than just the fact that Walsh asks that question. If it stops there, then the true purpose of the film isn't adequately summarized. It would be like the lead for Religulous saying "In the film, Maher goes to various places and interviews people about their religious beliefs." Is there a way to satisfy both sides here? Could we include the idea proposed but word it differently? In the film, Walsh asks various people "What is a woman?" Some of the interviewees refuse to answer, while some do give answers that that the film portrays as unscientific or otherwise unsatisfactory. The documentary seeks to establish the argument that transgender advocates are unable to directly answer the question and that this weakens the integrity of the transgender movement. Could something along those lines be supported by both sides here? Kerdooskis (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like that suggestion, and actually if the lead addition is rejected i think this could be a good addition to the plot section --FMSky (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like any claim, it could be DUE if WP:GREL sources say it. But do they? Llll5032 (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plot descriptions dont need to be sourced, MOS:PLOTSOURCE --FMSky (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aside

  1. ^ It is also raised, seemingly more to score a point, that if a source is not suitable for the lead then the same for the body (and the contrapositive). While it is not strictly true that the lead must contain everything in the body, the reception section is nonetheless highly excessive and shows the opposite of the appropriate caution about basing large passages. Taking a few context-less quotes from what seems close enough to every published opinion that could be found is more "reckless abandon" than caution. While such a task is made difficult by the absence of a framework provided by secondary sources themselves summarising and compiling (and, of course, the environment) that section should three, at most four paragraphs. Certainly not twelve.
Only if the descriptions are uncontroversial and not being challenged for accuracy. That's clearly not the case here. SilverserenC 00:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the descriptions are uncontroversial and not being challenged for accuracy. Could you cite the guideline for this? --FMSky (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:PLOTSOURCE is for works of fiction, as the guideline makes clear. Even if the WP:WAF guideline did apply, it states analysis and interpretation require secondary sourcing. CIreland (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: this is not an accurate summary of the film, as he clearly does get several answers. Just because Matt Walsh (or his intended audience) doesn't like those answers doesn't mean they're not answers. Loki (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You probably havent watched the film --FMSky (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, mainly as it is undue as pointed out by others. Source reliability isn't an issue for me as these are 'reviews' or other opinion pieces and whether the "What Is a Woman?" question is answered adequately/clearly is obviously inherently a value judgement. Even those sources offered - such as the Catholic register review, don't actually endorse the claim that "most interviewees are unable to answer". The reviewer there thinks that a particular small set of interviewees are unable to answer clearly and adequately, and are defensive/evasive in the answers they do offer. On a purely factual level, most interviewees do offer an answer - whether Walsh/individual reviewers or the film's audience find the answers adequate is as subjective as whether one thinks a joke in a comedy is funny and subjective content of that kind shouldn't be presented as fact and should only be included in the lead and unattributed when the response is near-universal. This doesn't come close to that. The opinions advanced by these reviewers should be included as opinion in the appropriate section, proportionate to WEIGHT, as with other film reviews. Pincrete (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I echo the most recent comment entirely. Much too subjective. Handpigdad (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because it’s implicitly endorsing the film’s central, intended “GOTCHA” of “people don’t know what a woman is anymore b/c libs trololol”. The film isn’t trying to answer that increasingly difficult question from a philosophical or scientific perspective, it’s trying to make a predetermined point (trans women aren’t real women, obv.), so what the interviewers (who I’m pretty sure were mostly complete non-experts) actually think is moot. Dronebogus (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PLS CLOSEAlmost all of them were experts on the field. Your other points are wrong as well and show that you obviously haven't even watched the film you're commenting about. But i have accepted now that people want the info suppressed from this page to make them feel better, so whatever --FMSky (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t watched it and I don’t need to in order to say it’s NPOV and anti-trans Dronebogus (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Asking a question isn't anti-trans --FMSky (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your increasingly bludgeoning comments are showing you only want to push a POV based on original research with this unnecessary RFC. Dronebogus (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider striking "people want the info suppressed from this page to make them feel better"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second this request. It was a very unfortunate way of talking about your fellow editors. Handpigdad (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

No "premise summary"? What?

[edit]

The first sentence of the section is a darn good summary of what the film is about. Can someone explain to me what the problem is, because if I removed the tag I will be violating some guideline or whatever? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the template can be removed. More could be summarized if secondary RS describe any other aspects in depth, but a template is not necessary. Llll5032 (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no objections to removing the tag, so I removed it. Llll5032 (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Soh

[edit]

My account is too new to make the changes, but I would suggest to add Debra Soh to the starring she has a wikipedia article herself. BenDoleman (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Phoenix51291 (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity color scheme?

[edit]

Would it be worth mentioning that the graphic design for the documentary (as well as the associated book) all use a black-and-yellow color scheme? Could likely be an intent to imitate/co-opt the aesthetic of the documentary QAnon: The Search for Q, which debuted shortly earlier. NicolinoChess31415926 (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth mentioning if it's just your idea. Has it been mentioned in reputable sources? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C0BC:297D:5E0:B113 (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:What_Is_a_Woman%3F&oldid=1253406460"