User:TaylanUB

Born 1993, male, one quarter Aegean Turk, one quarter Hessian German, two quarters Internetian.

Computer scientist. Schemer in particular.

Free software enthusiast. GNUist in particular.

Pseudo-autist with a special interest in radical feminism. Dworkinist in particular.

Documenting bias in transgender-related articles

I'll abuse my user page for this as I don't know where else to put it for now. Might or might not turn this into an official complaint.

Disclaimers

• I am far from immune to bias, as I feel strongly about the topic at hand. However, I try. I try to be as humble as I'm being bold. Explain to me in clear terms how I'm being biased, and I'll give an equally polite response.

• None of the below is to demonize any particular editors I will name, claim ill intentions, or the like. I dislike personal conflicts, and the problem I see is an organic and cultural one in which many editors with minor and major biases come together to create altogether biased content.

• In the part where I showcase the (in my view) biased behavior of editors, I won't give a full retelling of every edit and undo that was done. If you find that I omitted something important that undermines my point, please point it out to me.

Preliminary facts

(These aren't too difficult to verify through some Googling. Tell me if you feel the need and I will provide citations.)

• Feminist Current really is (like it claims itself) Canada's biggest feminist website. Not just biggest radical feminist website, but biggest feminist website in general. This can be verified through Alexa rankings, Google rankings, and social media follower counts. In fact, Feminist Current is higher on Alexa than Feministing as I'm writing this. (In my opinion, the absence of any representation of Feminist Current on Wikipedia is likely due to the general male bias on Wikipedia.)

• Meghan Murphy runs Feminist Current. She also appeared as one of the major figures in public government hearings on gender identity related legal reform in Canada, has worked with Julie Bindel and Rachel R. Moran (who led the successful Irish campaign to criminalize the buying of sex, and founded SPACE International), and has published co-podcasts with Sheila Jeffreys and Robert Jensen on Feminist Current. Meghan Murphy also wrote for rabble.ca until she quit over their handling of transgender related controversies.

• Sarah Ditum is a radical feminist journalist who has written for The Guardian, New Statesman, The Independent, and Feminist Current.

• The incident at Speakers' Corner in which trans activists assaulted a woman has had coverage in several high-profile news sources such as The Guardian, The Times, New Statesman, and smaller ones like Morning Star UK, Pink News, and Feminist Current. There was also a statement by major LGBT organization Stonewall UK relating to the incident. Regarding what exactly happened at Speakers' Corner, there is clear footage of how the assault began: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_d3ozhSE-U This one and other videos relating to the assault are found in some of the news articles about the incident.

In line with the above facts, I would conclude:

• Feminist Current is a relatively reliable source in general, a reliable source on feminism, and a highly reliable source on radical feminism.
• Meghan Murphy is a relatively notable feminist figure and in particular a notable radical feminist.
• Sarah Ditum is a relatively notable feminist figure and in particular a notable radical feminist.
• The incident at Speakers' Corner is a highly notable incident with regard to the debate between radical feminists and transgender activists.

Behavior of "pro-trans" editors

Events in article Transphobia and its talk page

• On September 24-25 I made some changes to the article to add mention of feminist critique of the term "TERF" and the Speakers' Corner incident.
• On September 25, Roscelese understandably removed part of what I had added, which was about a self-published piece by Rebecca Reilly-Cooper.
• On the same day, Rab V removed mention of the Speakers' Corner incident, which was only sourced via Feminist Current.
• On September 26, I added back reworded content, asking whether it was better this time (making it clearer what is whose opinion). I then added an additional citation from Morning Star Online regarding the Speakers' Corner incident. (Note: the original citation went 404 due to a restructuring of Morning Star's website; here's a working link: [1])
• On the same day, EvergreenFir undid my two edits again.
• On the same day, I did a larger change in which I added back the content, restructured the page a bit, and added more reliable sources regarding the Speakers' Corner incident, from New Statesman and The Times.
• On September 27, Rab V removed parts of the content related to Sarah Ditum's and Meghan Murphy's opinions, stating that Feminist Current is not RS and the persons in question not notable.
• On the same day, Rab V changed the page to claim that the assault was a "fight between" the two sides, stating that this was in line with the non-opinion piece on New Statesman, despite the piece explaining that the woman in question was punched.
• On October 25-27 I undid Rab V's changes and added an additional citation from The Guardian to further verify that the assault was an assault.
• On November 29, an anonymous editor I'll refer to as IP80 for brevity removed mention of the Speakers' Corner incident from the TERF section which I had added.
• On the same day, IP80 added a talk page section titled "Can we take care to stop this article itself falling prey to transphobic bias?" in which they stated that the incident was irrelevant and that I probably added the content to "demonize trans people". I responded explaining that an event with such major coverage can't be considered irrelevant and asked them to keep an eye on their own biases, and I added back the content.
• While I was away, Arglebargle IV, Rab V, and -sche continued the discussion on the talk page alone, and on December 1, -sche removed the content again by claiming consent was achieved despite that I had not responded yet. Reasons given in the edit log and talk page were that the incident was not notable, that there was original research, that the sources were not reliable, that the sources were opinion pieces, etc., when in fact the event is highly notable and was reliably sourced with factual news articles.
• On the same day later I added back the content and pointed out on the talk page that the other editors had removed the content on the grounds of false claims.
• On December 2, IP80 removed the content again, saying in the edit log: No. We have had consensus on this. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to push your ideology. Do NOT revert this edit until you obtain consensus in talk. In my opinion you have no place editing this article in the first place.
• We had some edit warring with IP80 after which they tried to report me but it was ultimately closed because no violation was found.
• Again on December 2, Rab V removed the content from the TERF section of the Transphobia article on the grounds of supposed consensus, without even adding anything to the talk page.
• Some more "discussion" happened in the talk page which I won't go over piece by piece. In my view, the other editors kept trying to assert their previous claims which I had already explained to be factually mistaken, and continued to assert "consensus" mostly without opposing any points I raised in the discussion. (Note: there were parallel events in other talk pages which I reference in the discussion because I confused the pages / failed to clearly separate them. Don't let it confuse you if you read the full exchange on a single talk page.)
• On December 3 here and here, an anonymous editor I'll call IP82 removed more content from the TERF section that was mentioning the radical feminist position. They did not give any reason in the edit log or talk page. Thankfully, another editor soon reverted the changes.
• Later on December 3, I added brief mentions of the vandalization of the Vancouver Women's Library and the Speakers' Corner incident to the page, instead of a long-winded account of what happened at Speakers' Corner.
• On December 11, EvergreenFir removed the abovementioned content from the page, claiming that it's original research and point-of-view pushing.

Events in article Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people and its talk page

• On September 24-26, I began making some changes to the page.
• On September 26, EvergreenFir understandably removed part of the content that wasn't of good encyclopedic quality.
• On the same day, Rab V removed other content that was quite well-cited, saying "RS issues and unclear whether Ditum is notable".
• On the same day, I added back the part Rab V removed, and added an improved version of the part EvergreenFir had removed, with citations from New Statesman and The Times among others, and also clarifying why Ditum should be considered notable.
• On October 3, Rab V removed most of the content again, leaving a very stripped down version of it, claiming RS issues. Among the removed parts there was content relying on Feminist Current and Sarah Ditum as sources, but also content relying on New Statesman and The Times.
• On October 5, I added back the content and started a talk page section titled "A frustrated beg for neutrality" in which I mentioned some of my observations of biased behavior. Rab V responded stating that Ditum was not sufficiently notable and talked about RS in general but did not take any immediate action.
• On October 11, Rab V removed all content that was related to Sarah Ditum's or Meghan Murphy's positions and using Feminist Current as a source.
• Earlier the same day, an anonymous editor I'll call IP2600 edited content related to the Speakers' Corner incident, saying (among other things) that it was an "altercation" rather than an "assault", despite both New Statesman and The Times reporting that the woman in question suffered a punch in the face.
• On October 25, I undid IP2600's change mentioned above and some others that were incompatible with the citations.
• I went on to add back content over several edits which Rab V had removed, then elaborated (here and here) on the talk page regarding the reasons.
• Rab V responded by suggesting that the positions of Murphy may be considered "extremist" positions, stating that Feminist Current is not RS and that Murphy publishing on FC would quality as "self-publishing" since she owns it, and claimed that the citations I provided regarding the Speakers' Corner incident were invalid due to being "opinion pieces" or that they didn't support the claim that the incident was an assault, despite the articles on both New Statesman and The Times mentioning that the woman in question suffered a punch in the face. However, Rab V did not edit the page after this.
• On October 27 I responded to the above, suggesting that Rab V's logic was mistaken, giving reasons why Murphy should be considered a notable figure on radical feminist positions, why Feminist Current should be considered a major feminist website, and noted that The Guardian had now published a report on police looking for the assailants of the assault at Speakers' Corner, further evidencing that it was indeed a physical assault. I went on to add said information to the page citing The Guardian.
• On November 11, Rab V reinstated his claim that FC should not be considered RS and that the citations I was using were opinion pieces, removing some of the page content again.
• On November 12, I explained in more detail why FC should be considered RS and reinstated my claim that several citations verified the incident to be an assault. I added back the removed content.
• On November 25, I edited the article to include more detail on the Speakers' Corner incident and clarification on Murphy's position regarding it. The next day, Mathglot apparently mistook the section in which I made the changes for the lead section of the article and removed the changes.
• On November 27, an anonymous editor I'll call IP74 changed the article to once again claim that the incident was an "altercation" rather than an assault, and made some other minor changes with a bias against radical feminist positions.
• On the same day, IP74 removed some parts of the content saying "Feminist Current is in no way a reliable source." IP74 did not join the discussion on the talk page while making these changes.
• On the same day, IP74 added citations from "PlanetTransgender.com" and "The Queerness" as sources for the claim that the incident was an "altercation" and not an assault. One of the sources included a video focusing on a very limited part of the assault, where the target of the assault holds on to one of the assailants who just snatched her camera, to claim that the victim was in fact the perpetrator, which I'd say is literally Fake News(TM) (and honestly scares me a bit).
• On November 30, I undid all of IP74's changes and started another talk page section to once more list some of the bias that I observed.
• Skimming a bit; look up details if interested: I tried to add a link to a YouTube video uploaded by Miranda Yardley which contains clear footage of how the assault began. After some back and forth, it was agreed upon to leave it out and I instead added back the Feminist Current article on the incident as a citation which contains said video.

What kind of sources / persons DO these editors consider reliable / notable?

• In the previous section I've mentioned editors trying to use PlanetTransgender and The Queerness as sources in place of New Statesman and The Times. Both websites are very very low on Alexa (at about the 1.3 millionth position as I'm writing this, whereas FC is at about 150 thousand). I think (hope) this was just an extreme outlier.
• Articles published by Cristan Williams on TransAdvocate (which is run by Williams). The page is much lower than Feminist Current on Alexa (at about 360 thousand), obviously ideological (like Feminist Current), most articles are written by Williams themself, and articles often contain a highly hyperbolic, dramatic, memetic, hostile tone towards feminists. (As a side note: I think it has been doing this long before Feminist Current started publishing so-called "TERF" articles.) Williams also runs TheTERFs.com where they likes to post long lists of crude memes about Lierre Keith.[2]
• Op-eds by not very well known people. E.g. this piece was used for a factual claim regarding Janice Raymond before I fixed this.