Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Lesbian erasure

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Lesbian erasure

[edit]
(
)
  • ... that some LGBTQ activists have opposed the use of the term "lesbian erasure", due to its use in opposition to transgender rights? Source: "Over the past two months, 12 editors and publishers from eight of the most prominent lesbian publications in the U.S., Canada, Australia and the U.K. have signed on to a joint statement titled “Not in our name” condemning the idea of “lesbian erasure,” viewed by many LGBTQ activists as anti-transgender.
    “DIVA, Curve, Autostraddle, LOTL, Tagg, Lez Spread The Word, DapperQ and GO Magazine believe that trans women are women and that trans people belong in our community,” the statement reads. “We do not think supporting trans women erases our lesbian identities; rather we are enriched by trans friends and lovers, parents, children, colleagues and siblings.”
    “We strongly condemn writers and editors who seek to foster division and hate within the LGBTQI community with trans misogynistic content, and who believe ‘lesbian’ is an identity for them alone to define,” the statement continues. “We also strongly condemn the current narrative peddled by some feminists, painting trans people as bullies and aggressors — one which reinforces transphobia and which must be challenged so that feminism can move forward.”" [1]
    • ALT1:... that, according to Anna Marie Smith, lesbian identities have been erased from the 'official discourse' in Britain? Source: ""Resisting the Erasure of Lesbian Sexuality: A challenge for queer activism"." from Modern Homosexualities

Created by StudiesWorld (talk). Self-nominated at 15:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC).

  • This looks good on the whole. The article was created on the same day it was nominated, appears to be well-cited, and I corrected the small issues I noticed with the style. The main hook is more interesting than ALT1, I think, and despite the controversial topic I think the source is adequate to the claim. My one issue is that if this is to be run on the main page, the phrase "some LGBT activists" should probably be expanded on in the article itself, e.g. with specific examples like the "12 editors and publishers" mentioned in the source. A description of their reasoning might be useful as well, as it's sort of left to the reader's inference at the moment. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 16:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Nizolan, thanks for the review. What information about the reasoning do you think should be added? StudiesWorld (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@StudiesWorld: Just a short sentence or phrase specifying why they think it's anti-transgender would be fine I think. Maybe the quote "We do not think supporting trans women erases our lesbian identities"? —Nizolan (talk · c.) 18:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Nizolan, I've added to the article. It is the same, verbatim wording, but I believe that there is no other way to word it that wouldn't seem clunky. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me, I'd say this is ready to go. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 12:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Nizolan, I'm not sold on the hook; this is because there are many lesbians who wouldn't state that they are using the term "lesbian erasure" with regard to transgender women due to opposition to transgender rights. For example, one aspect concerns lesbian women not being sexually attracted to trans women (especially those who still physically appear to be male) and not liking being called transphobic or other such names because their sexual orientation is sex-based (based on the physical sex of the person) rather than based on a person's gender identity. I touched on this at Talk:Lesbian erasure. And although those publications stated what they stated, mainly in reference to AfterEllen.com's articles, AfterEllen.com replied on the matter. There are significant passages on trans women in relation to lesbians and lesbian erasure in the 2016 book "The Disappearing L: Erasure of Lesbian Spaces and Culture," from SUNY Press. Just search "trans women" and "TERF" separately in the "Search in this book" field on Google Books. Regarding the hook, it might be better to state "due to what they argue is in opposition to transgender rights" or "due to what they see as opposition to transgender rights," or similar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion is also all over social media. Even trans man Buck Angel had a discussion with people about it on his Twitter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: Thanks for raising these concerns—looking at your sources I think you're right the main hook might be seen as POV in favour of the activists mentioned. The alternatives sound a bit clunky (as does "due to what they see as its use in opposition"), so maybe a better phrasing would be something like "because they see its use as contrary to transgender rights"? @StudiesWorld: Is that OK? —Nizolan (talk · c.) 17:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome, Nizolan. And, yes, your suggestion of "because they see its use as contrary to transgender rights" works better. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Nizolan, or maybe "because it is sometimes used in opposition to transgender rights"? I think that's more accurate. And, after all, the term is not only used in relation to transgender women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Nizolan and Flyer22 Reborn:, I'm not sure that I like this change because it seems to suggest that the activists view its very existence as problematic, whereas I interpret the letter as being opposition to its general use as a result of a specific usage. In other words, I think that they would think that some uses are not anti-trans, but should be avoided because of its separate anti-trans use. Does that make sense? StudiesWorld (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@StudiesWorld: Happy to drop my "because they see its use" idea; I think Flyer's latest suggestion covers your concern though, if I'm not mistaken ("because it is sometimes used in opposition to transgender rights"). —Nizolan (talk · c.) 18:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) StudiesWorld, do you object to the "because it is sometimes used in opposition to transgender rights" suggestion? I prefer it because it is more accurate and clearer. Stating "due to its use in opposition to transgender rights" can make readers think that the term/topic is solely about opposition to transgender rights. Your "view its very existence as problematic" piece is what I get when reading "due to its use in opposition to transgender rights." Of course, the reader can read the article and see other uses of the term, but the article does not yet cover other aspects it should cover, including the aspect I mentioned above. Well, yeah, the article does note that "Get the L Out" "asserts that lesbians are 'constantly vilified and excluded from the GBT community for stating their exclusive sexual preference.'" But I'm not talking about Get the L Out. I don't understand what you mean by "the letter as being opposition to its general use as a result of a specific usage." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Flyer22 Reborn and Nizolan:, how about?:

ALT2: ... that some LGBTQ activists have opposed the use of the term "lesbian erasure", because it has sometimes been used in opposition to transgender rights? StudiesWorld (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

That's what I suggested, minus the past tense aspect. I don't see a need for the past change, but I'm fine with going with either the present tense or past tense wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@StudiesWorld: Either tense is fine I think. I've struck the original main hook for the benefit of the promoter; if you want to withdraw ALT1 too we can settle on this one (though ALT1 is fine imo, just less interesting for a casual reader). —Nizolan (talk · c.) 18:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I have struck ALT1. I don't care about the tense, I just wanted to write it out to make sure that we were all on the same page. Thanks for the help, StudiesWorld (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Lesbian_erasure&oldid=1021756933"