Jump to content

Talk:Graham Linehan

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

Edit request: Lead and body revision for neutral, attributed terminology (“gender-critical” / “anti-transgender” activist)

[edit]
I'm closing this discussion which has been WP:BLUDGEONed to the moon and back as I don't see that this is leading to any consensus for change. If editors want to pursue this, I would suggest starting an WP:RFC. However, I would suggest self-restraint if and when that does occur so that the resulting discussion doesn't end up looking like a mess like this one. TarnishedPathtalk 11:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello editors,

I am proposing a compromise revision to the article’s lead and early background to ensure it reflects the terminology used in recent, reputable media coverage and aligns with Wikipedia’s core policies on neutrality (WP:NPOV), verifiability (WP:V), and biographies of living persons (WP:BLP).

Background & Rationale

A range of respected news outlets have used differing descriptors for Linehan’s activism, with both “anti-transgender activist” and “gender-critical activist” prominent in recent coverage. Wikipedia policy calls for such significant viewpoints to be presented with clear attribution, avoiding Wikipedia’s own editorial judgment. While “anti-transgender” appears in a number of sources, there is ample recent coverage by high-quality outlets using “gender critical” as the main descriptor.

Reliable sources using “gender critical” or similar: 

  Linehan, seen by transgender rights activists as hateful and extreme in his gender-critical views

The Guardian, August 2023 

  It is widely believed the protests centred on Linehan’s gender critical views.

The Guardian, August 2023 

  Gender-critical comic wants Leith Arches to apologise for calling off his appearance

The Times, August 2023 

  At least that is how the renowned comedy writer — now better known for his gender-critical positions on transgender issues that have cost him much of his career.

The Times, May 2023 

  gender-critical campaigner Graham Linehan

Pink News, April 2025 

  prominent gender-critical voices including Father Ted writer Graham Linehan

BBC, April 2025

Discussion history and FAQ context

I recognize that this topic has been discussed on the talk page before, and there is an FAQ. However, it appears the FAQ only references not changing "anti-transgender" to "women's rights campaigner." There is currently no mention in the FAQ about the use of “gender critical,” nor does it address the increasing use of this language by high-quality sources in recent years. As reliable sourcing evolves, Wikipedia policy encourages periodic review to ensure that article terminology remains both neutral and reflective of the current media landscape.

Proposed Changes

1. Lead/Intro Sentence

Current: 

  Graham George Linehan (/ˈlɪnəhæn/; born May 1968)[1][2] is an Irish comedy writer and anti-transgender activist.

Proposed: 

  Graham George Linehan (/ˈlɪnəhæn/; born May 1968)[1][2] is an Irish comedy writer who has been described in the media both as a "gender-critical activist" [3][4][5][6][7][8] and as an "anti-transgender activist." [ref existing sources]


2. Background/Context Paragraph

Current: 

  After an episode of The IT Crowd was criticised as transphobic, Linehan became involved in anti-transgender activism. He argues that transgender activism endangers women, and has likened the use of puberty blockers to Nazi eugenics. Linehan says his views have lost him work and ended his marriage.

Proposed: 

  After an episode of The IT Crowd was criticised as transphobic, Linehan became active on issues relating to gender and transgender rights, which has led to him being described in the media as both "gender-critical"[3][4][5][6][7][8] and "anti-transgender"[ref existing sources]. He argues that transgender activism endangers women, and has likened the use of puberty blockers to Nazi eugenics. Linehan says his views have lost him work and ended his marriage.

Policy and Precedent

  • This language follows WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, as it uses attribution, uses major reputable sources, and avoids Wikipedia’s voice passing judgment.
  • It reflects current editorial practices in comparable cases involving living people and disputed terminology.
  • This ensures a balanced, comprehensive overview guided by reliable sourcing.

In Conclusion

I have taken on board the feedback provided in earlier discussions and, as suggested by other editors, have searched for and cited several reliable sources that back this proposed change. My suggested wording is intended to be balanced, strictly fact-based, and to acknowledge both the "anti-trans" and "gender critical" descriptors as they appear in mainstream reporting. I hope this approach resolves prior concerns and moves the article toward the highest standards of neutrality and verifiability. Icecold (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree to proposed edits. Softening our description with scare quotes and saying ‘described as “anti-transgender”’- multiple layers of distancing ourselves from an accurate description. It’s not appropriate given the evidence we have.
“Became active on issues” is exceedingly exonerative and an innocent-sounding description when we’re talking about a man who tweets “GROOMER!” at transgender people 12 hours a day…
Also “led to him being described” makes it sound like it was nothing to do with him or his actions, rather something done to him without his knowledge. “Became involved in anti-trans activism is succinct, direct, and accurate. GraziePrego (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My intent here is to ensure that the article’s lead and background reflect the actual diversity of terminology in reputable mainstream sources, and uphold Wikipedia’s core policies, especially on biographies of living people (WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV).
The use of “described as…” is a standard Wikipedia technique for summarizing terminology or characterizations that are in active dispute or have a range of coverage in the press, and helps maintain neutrality and avoid in-article editorializing (see also current approaches to the BLPs of other public figures in high-profile debates, such as the lead on JK Rowling).
This language is not meant to “soften” or exonerate, but to accurately represent that both “gender-critical activist” and “anti-transgender activist” are widely used, and that not all reliable sources assign only one descriptor in all cases. “Became active on issues relating to gender and transgender rights” also avoids Wikipedia in its own voice making a direct legal or moral finding, which as you know is required for living people and contentious subjects.
If you prefer alternative wording that is still neutral, fact-based, and reflects major sources, I am very open to discussing those—my proposed wording is offered precisely to capture the breadth and shift in language seen in major reliable outlets. Icecold (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd propose that we add somewhere that Linehan has gender-critical views, cited to the strong sources you provided. Adding that descriptor will improve the article, and we can link to gender critical feminism. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would not oppose an addition that he describes himself as GC, with a link to that article, but I strongly oppose softening the rest of the article to gloss over his blatant anti-trans rhetoric and behavior. There's a reason we have our FAQ at the top of the page, a large number of people show up to WP:RGW and try to whitewash his reputation, while we have many more reliable sources describing him as an anti-transgender activist. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ya. I should say I also oppose the op proposal. This is an alternative. I don't think it needs to be attributed to Linehan, since its used by RS in their own voice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to clarify that my proposal does not remove or dilute the description “anti-transgender activist” from the lead or body. It simply adds that Linehan is also described in multiple reputable sources, cited above, as “gender-critical.” Including both terms, with attribution and links, fully reflects the current landscape in high-quality sources and is standard BLP and NPOV practice.
Wikipedia’s biographies of living persons and neutrality policy (WP:NPOV, WP:BLP) both support giving due weight to all high-quality sourcing, not just the most critical or frequent. This proposed edit is based purely on reliable, independent sources.
@GraziePrego:, @HandThatFeeds:, and others have raised points about the sourcing for “anti-trans” and the comparative number of reliable references. I have reviewed the reliable sources referenced by the article as supporting the “anti-trans” label. Here is what I found:
  • Several outlets (for example, The Guardian and Pink News) are indeed reliable and use “anti-trans activist/activism” at times. However, as shown in my initial list, these same publications also describe Linehan as “gender critical”—suggesting that both terms are used interchangeably by reputable sources.
  • Some cited sources (e.g., the New York Observer and rabble.ca) are not considered reliable for biographies of living persons on Wikipedia (see WP:RS), and would not meet the standard for BLPs.
  • One of the sources cited (The Independent) actually refers to Linehan as a “gender critical hardliner,” specifically stating: “Father Ted creator Graham Linehan, a gender critical hardliner who was kicked off Twitter in 2020 for ‘hateful conduct’.” Thus, it does not support the “anti-trans” label, but rather adds to the weight of “gender critical.”
Based on this, among the eight sources referenced that cover “Linehan’s anti-transgender views,” only five are actually reliable sources backing the “anti-trans” label. One explicitly backs the “gender critical” label, bringing the number of reliable sources for “gender critical” to at least seven—now the majority among the strongest, most relevant sources.
This demonstrates that both “gender critical” and “anti-trans activist” appear in recent coverage from reputable sources—sometimes within the same outlets. My request remains simply to reflect what is actually present in high-quality, mainstream sourcing: supplementing, not removing, the “anti-transgender activist” label, as policy (WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP) prescribes.
As the FAQ does not mention “gender critical,” and major outlets now employ both terms, the most policy-aligned approach is to neutrally and accurately attribute both descriptors, with links and citations, in the lead and body as appropriate. Icecold (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are not going to promote WP:FALSEBALANCE in the article. It doesn't matter how much you try to pretend this is "neutral", it is in fact whitewashing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please counter why you think this is white washing? As I have pointed out, the existing sources on this article that claim Linehan is 'anti-trans' actually only amount to 5 reliable sources, where as the sources I have found for 'gender critical' amount to 7 reliable sources. This is not a case of WP:FALSEBALANCE, this is a case of the reliable sources pointing to gender critical, and wanting to follow WP:NPOV. I'm also not even suggesting a removal of anti-trans wording, just to put it into a NPOV and not speak in wikipedia's voice, and to say he's also been referred to as gender critical. I honestly don't know how you can argue to keep the article how it is given the body of evidence I have provided and the wikipedia guidelines. Icecold (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not NPOV when you're trying to skew his article by using a euphemism anti-trans people came up with to soften their image. The "body of evidence" you posted does not negate that. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
???
You're bringing your own prejudices into this, and no matter what anyone says you've made up your mind.
The facts are this:
  • I've found more reliable sources than were reliable sources for justification for the 'anti-trans' wording
  • The wording I've provided is very similar to wording on J.K.Rowling's article, so it's consistent with existing articles.
  • It's following the NPOV guidance
  • There's an existing article on Gender-critical_feminism, it's a term acknowledged by wikipedia
I think I've proven that there's enough justification for including some mention of 'gender critical' wording, if you don't like mine, suggest something better? I've been open to working on wording that satisfies everyone. Icecold (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've only proven your WP:RGW stance. As you can see, you've not changed the consensus here. We're just going in circles at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HandThatFeeds I don't think you've read that article you've linked me to have you?
"...you'll have to wait until it's been reported by reliable sources or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. Finding neutral ways of presenting them is what we do. "
That's literally word for word what I have done. Literally what other evidence do you want from me? I have proven that gender critical has been used by Wikipedia approved reputable sources, pink news, BBC, the guardian, the times, the independent. You're acting as if I trying to rewrite the article to make him appear like a deity. I'm not, I'm just trying to bring the language into a more NPOV.
Meanwhile you're guilty of
"Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose your own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system
I've jumped through the hoops for fact sourcing my suggestion, writing it in a NPOV, making sure it's verifiable. I've literally done everything asked of ME. Nothing I can provide will meet your standard, because in your eyes Linehan is a morally offensive person that must be described in the most disparaging way possible. I think it's clear that even if all the world's press released a statement tomorrow saying that everyone will only refer to Linehan as Gender Critical going forward, that still wouldn't be enough to convince you. So I ask you, what more evidence do you need?
Let me point again to NPOV
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Morally_offensive_views
"The fact that an idea or topic is morally outrageous is not a reason to leave it out of Wikipedia. If a morally outrageous idea or practice has received notable coverage from independent sources (not just its originator), we provide a valuable service by describing it as well as the criticisms and opposition it has received. Remember, we only have to be neutral in the tone and content what we write; we have no responsibility for how neutral content we write is generally perceived."
Just because you find what he says offensive, that doesn't mean that you cannot be neutral with the language. Remember Wikipedia isn't truth it's verifiability, which I've proven.
Also I've only posted this topic today, I've had some editors warm to the idea of changing something, even if they don't like my proposed wording. If you don't agree, that's fine, you've made your point, unless you have a suggested change (which I've asked of you on multiple occasions) I don't know what repeating your objections over and over is hoping to achieve tbh. You don't own the article Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content. Icecold (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HandThatFeeds just to add, I'd argue it's wp:disrupt for you to raise questions, I then write reasoned responses, and you ignore my responses and just accuse me of various Wikipedia violations. Icecold (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, you're sealioning and I'm done with this. Also, you don't have to ping me for every damn message, I'm watching the talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HandThatFeeds um, hitting reply on mobile automatically pings the user you're replying to. Don't accuse me of doing things that are done by the app please. I've registered your opposition, that's great, you don't need to keep reiterating it. Icecold (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of that, so I do apologize. That's another mark against he mobile app, but not your fault. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HandThatFeeds just want to point out it's a term used by the UK government too
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/employment-tribunal-rulings-on-gender-critical-beliefs-in-the-workplace/
And MP's in parliament
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-03-11/debates/0DC93310-7660-4E07-8FE6-5A4DB4422104/GenderCriticalBeliefsEqualityAct2010
So regardless of who created the term, it's being used by the media and the UK government. Icecold (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd propose that we add somewhere that Linehan has gender-critical views, cited to the strong sources you provided. Adding that descriptor will improve the article, and we can link to gender critical feminism. Firefangledfeathers"
I could certainly go with that. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lukewarmbeer do you have a suggestion for how this should look like? Just trying to build a consensus. Icecold (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Firefangledfeathers how do you propose this is structured? I thought I'd made this as neutral and fact based as possible already, i'm not sure how I can make it any more neutral? (Not having a go, just not following) Icecold (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we move forward with:
I'd propose that we add somewhere that Linehan has gender-critical views, cited to the strong sources you provided. Adding that descriptor will improve the article, and we can link to gender critical feminism. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Can I suggest this small addition....
Anti-transgender activism
Linehan is involved in anti-transgender (sometimes described as Gender Critical) activism. He began making anti-trans statements[clarification needed] online after the 2008 episode "The Speech" of The IT Crowd, written by Linehan, was widely criticised as transphobic and sexist.
We can insert the best couple of citations provided by Icecold
How's that? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for the suggestion - I think the evidence does support going further, but I'm willing to compromise given the strength of feeling here. I can support this. Icecold (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GraziePrego's characterization. These proposed changes go out of their way to paint the best possible picture of Graham Linehan in a way that compromises the quality of the article. Snokalok (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Snokalok: I want to clarify that my proposal doesn’t aim to paint Linehan in a better or worse light, but to ensure the article accurately and neutrally reflects all terminology used by high-quality, reliable sources, as Wikipedia policy requires. Both “anti-transgender” and “gender-critical” are widely-used descriptors in the sources, so including both is intended to maintain accuracy and balance, not to compromise it. Icecold (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just point out that some of this section flags as being AI-generated, especially the "Discussion" section ("As reliable sourcing evolves, Wikipedia policy encourages periodic review to ensure that article terminology remains both neutral and reflective of the current media landscape...") Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did run it through AI to reword it and make sure the wording was neutral, fact based, well structured and well worded. But the core arguments and research came from me, I thoroughly reviewed the wording and I stand by the wording 100%. I'm not aware of any rules saying I can't use AI to help improve my arguments. Icecold (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that when you use AI to word it, it ends up sounding ... well, computer-generated, and not a genuine comment from a human; I spotted that section straight away. A human would also not say something like "the most policy-aligned approach is to neutrally and accurately attribute both descriptors", as above. I would strongly suggest not using it; it weakens your arguments straight away. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't make the argument in your own words, it's a terrible argument. Don't expect a machine that doesn't actually think to do the thinking for you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See I would argue that is quite a biased and ill spirited thing to say. I have made the argument previously in my own words as you well know. I just used AI to help generate the request to make sure it was well worded and structured. Also, without doxing myself, I actually am well aware of the pros, cons, strengths and weaknesses of AI, as I'm actually involved in developing AI products - like I said, I did the thinking and the research, AI did the wording. I've verified everything that the AI has written and removed anything that was incorrect. This is no-way invalidates my argument. Icecold (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two things:
1/ I admire the time and effort you are putting in here. You are making some good arguments and I wouldn't want the negative reception you are getting to put you off. It happens every time with an article like this.
Please folks, don't pile on with stuff like trying to pull Icecold down because they ran it through chat or something to tidy it up. Many original writers and thinkers (some here even??) do.
2/ As I understand it an anti transgender activist means someone who publicly stands up for, (promotes, argues for, campaigns for) what are now becoming known as 'gender critical views'. The terminology in RS is changing as society's perspective changes and therefor over time so will what is appropriate wording in this article as we reflect the sources.
Firefangled has a good proposal. How about wording up for us Icecold.
Dissenters could propose amendments if they wish. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not asking them to stop discussing. I was asking them to stop using an LLM to do it, because as I said it weakens their own argument. Make your points yourself, please. (Incidentally, I have just closed a discussion on another page because the OP was using nothing but AI to make their arguments; I haven't done that here because they're using it to assist). Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lukewarmbeer thanks.
Unfortunately I'm giving up here. I feel like the burden of proof has basically been set to an impossible level, even though I've found more reputable articles that use the gender critical term than were using the anti trans term, even though I've followed guidance to the letter on NPOV, including following an example on J. K. Rowlings page which shows precident, it's apparently not good enough.
Now I'm being accused on blugeoning (because I am, shockingly apparently, replying to everyone who replies to me), so it's impossible for me to get a new consensus on a new wording as it's basically been heavily implied I'm not allowed to participate anymore, and it's likely that this discussion will be shut down shortly as they want.
I'm also being accused of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT despite the fact the points I've raised are well cited and supported by evidence. I've had editors give away that they have a moral position on the term gender critical and it's apparent that no amount of usage by the media would convince them to use it.
Unfortunately it seems that Wikipedia is captured by activist editors who won't see past their own prejudice and won't listen to evidence. I'm sure in a few years time this article will be using gender critical, but the editors will hold out for as long as possible. Icecold (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the "activist editors" line (from long experience, this is usually code for "a lot of people that don't agree with me"). I agree that it's mostly irrelevant though, since "gender-critical" and "anti-trans" are effectively synonyms anyway. Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not that, I have no issues with people disagreeing with me, but when an editor says:
"Yes, I am absolutely taking a moral view, because I don't like bigotry. There is nothing "blinding" me, but I'm not going to bend to the whims of transphobes. And it's not "as I call them," GC are transphobes trying to soften their image by using another term. Plain and simple. I'm done with this argument."
That's clearly an activist stance and no matter what evidence I present they've taken a stance based on their own moral position making them blind to anything I could possibly say. Icecold (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AI did the wording
Yeah, don't do that. As Black Kite says, that undermines your own argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, for comments I'm mostly using my own wording, but for writing the initial proposal it was helpful to structure it in a way that makes sense. I'm not an professional writer and AI is helpful for giving me a structure to work with. It's just a tool I use, along with spell checkers and grammar checkers. I'm not relying on the tool to make my arguments, just to help me express them in a coherent, neutral and well structured way. I'm a professional software developer, and I use AI to help there too - it's fine as long as you verify and check what it produces (which I did). Icecold (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you'll find Wikipedians are generally not fans of people trying to talk to us through an LLM. It immediately makes your edits suspect, just don't do it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HandThatFeeds I get the feeling you're not really a fan of anything I say to be honest, LLM or no LLM.. Icecold (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Experienced editors are actually trying to help you here. You can take their advice, or not. Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite I appreciate your advice and as you can see I'm not using AI for my comments. If you're referring to my responses to a certain other editor on this thread, I honestly don't think they are trying to help and are engaging in bad faith discussion, raising issues, which I then answer, then ignoring my answer and accuse me of biased editing and ignoring all my reliable sources. That user has already shut down me trying to discuss this issue before and is anxious to do it again. It's frustrating to put a lot of time and thought into a response to valid questions to then have my responses ignored and then be accused of bias, when I've bent over backwards to be as neutral as I can possibly be with my wording. Icecold (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it’s frustrating when other users don’t support your proposed changes. However, that is often just the way it is, and it doesn’t mean you just keep relitigating the discussion until they give in. I’ve been helpful above and picked out which bits I object to and explained how they’re not neutral wording. GraziePrego (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GraziePrego I wasn't referring to you. I have no problem with debate and people arguing my points. I have a problem with people raising points, I counter them, and then they ignore my responses and just accuse me of being biased. It's bad faith. Icecold (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you've made that point several times now. We heard you. Don't keep making this personal. As to your proposal, I am also opposed. You say you don't want to dilute or soften the article, but that's exactly what your currently worded proposal would do. Linehan isn't just "described in the media as an anti-trans activist", he is an anti-trans activist, as is reflected by the actions described in the rest of the article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun I'm not the one making it personal. Said user banned me off their talk page before I opened this, that's pretty personal. But regardless.
It's not softening the article, it's being factual and following established patterns. I've based the wording on J. K. Rowlings article, and NPOV states
"Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and must not be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited."
I don't believe you can factually say he's "anti-trans" its a loaded term. Rewording it as I have to say (correctly) that the media has described him as anti-transgender (which they have) and also gender-critical (which they also have) is factually correct. Sources, including the BBC, Pink News, guardian are using the term "gender critical" to describe him. These are high quality reputable sources according to Wikipedia, so why are my sources being ignored? I've proven there's more sources backing the use of gender critical than anti-trans on this page now. So why the constant resistance to adding gender critical? I'm not proposing to remove the anti-trans label. Icecold (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You really don’t believe we can factually say he’s “anti-trans”? We have strong evidence for that, it’s obvious from his actions in the rest of the article, and any softening of that description is inappropriate. We’re just going in circles now. GraziePrego (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GraziePrego no I don't. You don't have strong evidence that he's been referred to as anti-transgender, there's only 5 reputable articles saying that, I found 7 for "gender critical".
His actions can be interpreted as either anti-trans or gender critical depending on (let's be honest) the wishes of the person doing doing the interpreting. It's a highly emotive topic, so Wikipedias voice shouldn't be used to pass judgement. I'm only asking for the same treatment that J. K. Rowling
"Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about her gender-critical opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. Her comments have been described as transphobic, which she disputes, and have fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the culture sector."
Why is that okay for J. K. Rowling but not for Linehan? They're very similar figures who have been levelled with the same accusations. Yet I'm having a real battle to just bring this article in line with that one, surely Rowlings article shows what I'm suggesting has precedent? I don't understand the pushback given the precedent, my evidence, the NPOV rules etc.
Gender critical is also a valid term in the UK often used by Parliament and MP's.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/employment-tribunal-rulings-on-gender-critical-beliefs-in-the-workplace/ Icecold (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read your opening again. There are 5 separate reliable sources describing him as anti-trans. That’s more than enough for us to use direct language, and not try to soften the description with scare quotes or anything.
Also whatever they say in UK parliament is not relevant here.
Anyway, this is entirely circular and I don’t think I need to keep replying. Time for an admin to close this? GraziePrego (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GraziePrego there are 5 separate reliable sources describing him as anti-transgender but there's 7 sources describing him as gender-critical. Why is 5 enough for him to be described as anti-trans, but 7 isn't enough for him to be described as gender critical?! Why are you holding both terms at different levels of proof needed?
What the UK Parliament says is relevant. It's another source.
Lastly, er, no? There have been a few editors open to wording change and I'm talking to them about what they think the wording should be. Just because you're refusing to listen to my evidence and won't change your mind, that doesn't mean you can request the whole discussion is shut down. Icecold (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern is softening the description of “anti-trans”, so not sure what you mean about holding the two to different standards. Also no, UK parliament is not a reliable source, people say all kinds of things in parliament. GraziePrego (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GraziePrego but I'm only arguing we use similar language to J. K. Rowlings, why is it okay for her article but not Linehan’s they've both been accused of the same things Icecold (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because Rowling has the money to sue the hell out of other people, so fewer sources are willing to use the term. So our hands are tied there. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HandThatFeeds but I've proven there's more sources using gender critical than anti-trans so surely both deserve a mention like Rowling? Icecold (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't simply count sources, we apply due weight to avoid giving a minority viewpoint undeserved representation. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except several high profile reliable sources using 'gender critical' is hardly a minority opinion. I've proven that it's at least equal to, if not a majority opinion. But as you've admitted, you're biased. Icecold (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm biased against bigots. You'll find that's normal. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're accusing anyone that's 'Gender Critical' is bigoted then are you? Icecold (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also regardless of if YOU think it's bigoted - it's not a minority opinion. Thanks for just constantly confirming that your bias is whats informing your opinion on this, and confirming to me my opinion that you're an activist editor. Icecold (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a minority opinion. And I wouldn't be throwing stones in glass houses, if I were you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can point out any times I've brought my own personal feelings into this, then I'll take the point. I've gone to pains to keep my own personal feelings out of this discussion, where you have actively admitted to bringing in your own personal feelings and bias into the discussion. The only person in a glass house is you I'm afraid. Icecold (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also as for 'gender critical' being a minority term... I was focusing on reference to Linehan being gender critical, but if you're going to argue it's a minority term that is only used by transphobes...
The judge mentioned gender critical being protected in this judgment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forstater_v_Centre_for_Global_Development_Europe
So the British Justice System is using the term 'Gender Critical'.
The wikipedia article here refers to the one side as gender critical
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Women_Scotland_Ltd_v_The_Scottish_Ministers
As mentioned J. K. Rowling is called gender critical
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling
Just a quick google search shows how the BBC often uses the term:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22gender+critical%22+site%3Awww.bbc.co.uk
as does the Guardian
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22gender+critical%22+site%3Awww.theguardian.com
as does the Times
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22gender+critical%22+site%3Awww.thetimes.com
as does CNN
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22gender+critical%22+site%3Awww.cnn.com
as does AP
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22gender+critical%22+site%3Aapnews.com
as does bloomberg
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22gender+critical%22+site%3Abloomberg.com
as does the Financial Times
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22gender+critical%22+site%3Aft.com
as does Forbes
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22gender+critical%22+site%3Aforbes.com
I stopped here because life is too short.
So unless Wikipedia, the Guardian, the Times, CNN, AP, Bloomberg, the FT, Forbes and the British courts are all ran and edited by transphobes, it's a term that is used. The only possible reason you could argue against this is because you are editing Wikipedia with your own POV, which you've already admitted on this discussion. Icecold (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes Contributors are not reliable sources in the way Forbes reporting is. Instead of just looking at google results to confirm your priors, you should really try clicking through and reading the sources you link. Parabolist (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have for the actual sources I used for the article, I was just proving that Gender Critical is a phrase used generally, I'm not going to go through and read all those articles, the quantity of results make my point for me Icecold (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you holding both terms at different levels of proof needed?
Because one is accurate, and the other is a euphemism transphobes use to soften their image. I object to adding it the same way we would never add "race realist" to describe an abject racist, no matter how many sources are provided using that term. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HandThatFeeds In your judgement. That's not objectively true though is it, others would disagrees with your interpretation there. Icecold (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a fact that "gender critical" was invented by transphobes when the term TERF was turned around against them. Doesn't matter how many people disagree, the facts are solid on that. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HandThatFeeds I didn't say they didn't create the term, but it's not just used by transphobes as you call them, as I've pointed out the BBC, the guardian, the times, pink news, the UK parliament (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/employment-tribunal-rulings-on-gender-critical-beliefs-in-the-workplace/ that's an editorial guide on gender critical stuff not a discussion in parliament) use the term, so it's no longer the preserve of transphobes as you call them.
My issue here is that you seem to be taking a moral view on the term gender critical that is blinding you to it's valid use here. Icecold (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am absolutely taking a moral view, because I don't like bigotry. There is nothing "blinding" me, but I'm not going to bend to the whims of transphobes.
And it's not "as I call them," GC are transphobes trying to soften their image by using another term. Plain and simple. I'm done with this argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Yes, I am absolutely taking a moral view, because I don't like bigotry. There is nothing "blinding" me, but I'm not going to bend to the whims of transphobes."
Thanks for admitting that I'm wasting my time as no matter of evidence or argument I could present is never going to change your opinion.
"And it's not "as I call them,""
It is.
"because I don't like bigotry."
Except your own, clearly.
I'm also done with this argument, my position is fact and evidence based and your position is based on feels. Icecold (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh not this bullshit. You're not a fucking robot, and your "facts" are cherry-picked to support your own agenda. Yeah, we're done here because this WP:POVPUSH is not going to work. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can cite irrelevant rules as much as you want.
"
It's not a minor or fringe idea/phrase, no matter how much you wish it were.
I don't have← an agenda. I may take a personal view on matters, but my suggested edits are based on well sourced reputable sources in a NPOV. I've gone to pains to make sure my own opinion isn't included in the proposed text. You however want to make sure the article only shows your POV. It's ironic you keep accusing me of things that you're actually guilty of. Icecold (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas." was the missing quote there. Icecold (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly feel strongly about this but you're really getting into WP:BLUDGEONING territory here. You've made your points and there's not a consensus for your changes, I'd suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK, but if not WP:DR has information on other options, it's not useful going around in circles here. JaggedHamster (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JaggedHamster how is it bludegoning to be responding to points people have raised about my proposal? I'm just countering the points? You'd expect that if I don't agree with the points being raised surely?
Also, there's a few editors open to a language change, even if it's not my proposal Icecold (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 54 comments in this section, you've written just under half of them, and eyeballing it they're well over 50% of the total text. Please have a read of the "Dealing with being accused of bludgeoning the process" section of WP:BLUDGEONING, it covers your questions and has helpful advice. Continuing with this approach is just going to end up frustrating other editors and yourself. JaggedHamster (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JaggedHamster I don't think that's fair, most comments are directly responding to my comments, so I then respond back to them. Obviously as it's my proposal the questions are going to be directed at me, and as I spent quite a bit of time on my proposal I'm obviously going to defend it. Also I was trying to create long verbose comments that adequately responded, with citations, to every point people have raised. I've also responded to people who have been open to a language change asking for their opinions on how the language should be changed in their view. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be doing, make a proposal and then ignore any questions / points raised about it? I'm sure I'd have been criticised for that if I'd have done that as well. Icecold (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rowling's article is irrelevant. We're talking about this article. I agree with JaggedHamster - the immediately prior talk-page section that was closed as "no consensus" has no fewer than 25 contributions from you. Three days later, you've opened this section which has already 26 contributions from you. This is absolutely a case of WP:BLUDGEON and verging on WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Enough. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun well no it's not the same, because I raised this proposal with different language. It's also not irrelevant, surely Wikipedia strives to he consistent in its approach to articles, having two articles deal with similar issues but be dealt with in completely inconsistent ways is not a good thing?
Like I said, if people are responding directly to my comment (like you've just done) and accusing me of things or whatever, am I not allowed to defend myself? Icecold (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Rowling's article is irrelevant and indeed so is everything (particularly editors POV) but the sources.
I get Icecold's point that there are good sources supporting his 'Gender critical' point
I have read all of the above but I can't really get is what the nub of the argument against including that?
Can I ask you to sum it up in a few words for me. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really haven't seen a convincing argument for changing to Gender Critical, something about an overton window which is more to do with the political landscape than language, and that to say "men aren't women" is not legally transphobic is not that relevant as it is not a fair and accurate summary of Linehan's behaviour and activism.
The arguments for are stated as "objective fact" while the arguments against are dismissed as personal perspective and opinion. The latter is possibly true but the arguments for the change are no less a personal perspective than the arguments against, no matter how much text we are bombarded with to tell us otherwise.
I am still against change for two reasons. Gender critical is a euphemism used to describe a point of view and as such fails WP:Weasel. Also being the term he uses to describe himself is not relevant under WP:MANDY. But the current wording is the compromise between Gender Critical on one end of the spectrum and Transphobic. Gender Critical is NOT less loaded or WP:NPOV it is the language of one side.
But if the perspective that there is a reasonable that is a "gender critical" viewpoint that should be taken seriously there should come with it an acknowledgement that there is a line beyond which a view that trans men aren't men and trans women aren't women where being gender critical ceases and it becomes prejudice. Rankersbo (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2025 (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.

Suggestion for improvement

[edit]

Currently the content on the subject's early life/education is combined into the career section and only sentence is dedicated to it. I note however that the section on the subject's memoir details that the work goes into detail about their early life. I would suggest that if anyone has access to the work that they separate the early life/education from the career section and expand it. TarnishedPathtalk 11:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't anti trans

[edit]
This has already been discussed to death and no new information has been presented. See the FAQ, and note the comments, ably summarised by Black Kite: '"Gender-critical" and anti-trans are synonyms'. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

In the last topic there was enough information to explain how he is critical of a number of facets of the trans movement. He isn't anti anything, except forcing children into things.

Not sure why there is an agenda here to put any form of Scientific or intelligent criticism as hatred.

This site is becoming an absolute joke. 94.174.206.73 (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graham's "criticisms" are not scientific or intelligent, they're fear-mongering.
This topic has been discussed at length. If you have something better to add than "this site is becoming an absolute joke", feel free to raise a sensible topic. CurdyKai (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CurdyKai that's your opinion, however Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts so it's irrelevant.
Also it's a waste of time to raise a "sensible topic" because you can do that, and collate a lot of evidence that proves that "gender critical" is the valid term to use, and your discussion gets shut down by editors who are guided by their own moral judgement and not the facts. So until Wikipedia comes down on these editors that ignore facts for their own feelings, it's a waste of time engaging. Icecold (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@94.174.206.73 I agree, but despite a large amount of evidence that I collated a couple of months ago that shows that he's called Gender Critical more often than Anti-Trans in what Wikipedia defines as "reliable sources" my discussion got shut down. Icecold (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in multiple discussions above, "Gender-critical" and anti-trans are synonyms, but reliable sources quite often use GC because they know that a lot of these people are very litigious and may take "anti-trans" as libellous (see also: transphobic). Regardless of semantics, though, I am bemused as to how anyone could read the litany of events in the anti-trans activism section here and say "he's not anti anything"; that simply doesn't make sense. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. TarnishedPathtalk 11:02, 1 July 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Linehan&oldid=1298257981"