Talk:Graham Linehan

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2025

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.

---

Linehan is not ‘anti-transgender’. This is opinion, not able to be substantiated without ignoring the many reasonable points made about the impact of transgender demands on the rights of women, kids and LGB, and is openly defamatory. It also reflects a profound ignorance of Linehan’s personal friendships with transgender people. And to lock the page so that edits cannot be made is a clear illustration of the bias Wikipedia is prepared to support. I have donated many times in the past as I see this page as a good resource, but I won’t donate again. I suggest you remove the defamatory wording. I expected better. 159.196.227.96 (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done read the FAQ ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ser! what FAQ are you referring to? I would be helpful if you could link to the exact page and section of the page you are sending people to and shutting down discussion on.

Regardless, Gender Critical IS the correct term here, not anti transgender. Gender critical is how Graham would describe himself. A lot of Graham Linehans views are now considered mainstream and law in the UK since the Supreme Court decision recently, unless you're calling an entire country transphobic, which is quite a claim... Icecold (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

It’s the bottom one among the notices at the top of the talk page. If you’re on mobile, they’re under “Learn more about this page”, at the bottom. Current consensus among editors (as can be seen in talk page archives) is to use the current terminology, as is widely used in WP:RSes. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ser! I'm not seeing any FAQ. The talk page on mobile and desktop mode shows 5 discussions, none of which is a FAQ and there's no "Learn more about this page" link.

Either way it's incorrect. He is a gender critical activist. That is the correct term. It's also used by reliable sources

"Gender-critical campaigner Graham Linehan charged with harassment and criminal damage"

https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/04/28/gender-critical-campaigner-graham-linehan-charged-with-harassment-and-criminal-damage/

"renowned gender critical activist Graham Linehan"

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/graham-linehan-announces-uk-exit/

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

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/aug/17/second-edinburgh-venue-cancels-graham-linehan-show

"Father Ted creator Graham Linehan blasts 'satirists' for 'not being brave enough to lance the trans boil' - as he insists his gender-critical views have been 'proved f***ing right'"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13485185/Father-Ted-creator-Graham-Linehan-blasts-satirists-not-brave-lance-trans-boil-insists-gender-critical-views-proved-f-ing-right.html

Just some examples from various publications on both sides of the political spectrum and debate on this issue, all referring to him as Gender Critical.

Transphobic is a very loaded and biased term and actually makes Wikipedia appear to be taking a view on the issue, gender critical is more netural.

If you keep the transphobic word, you're just showing Wikipedia is biased on this topic. Icecold (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I would agree.

However a bit more research required I'm afraid.

The only RS you have there that would carry weight here is the Pink News. The arcticle you cite is interesting in the PN seem to have changed tack on this. As have many now.

As an RS The Spectator is no consensus. The Guardian, while good, is quoting the man himself and the Mail is deprecated.

I think RS that have moved on from the dog whistle "transphobic" tag will get easier to find. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Lukewarmbeer I don't really understand why the only RS that would carry weight here in Pink News, The Spectator has been going since 1828, and is the oldest surviving magazine in the world. That has to carry quite a bit of weight?

I purposefully tried to find sources on both sides, The Guardian, Pink News both being left and largely more pro-TRA, and the Spectator and The Mail both right and more gender critical. It's weird how both the right wing sources get immediately discounted..

But that was from a quick search. The BBC has also referred to Linehan as Gender Critical in a live blog which seems to have since been deleted (live blogs are hard to go back and read after the fact so it might just be that). It seems to be the way he's being referred to because it's a less loaded term than "transphobic"

This is especially true since the Supreme Court judgement which has determined that the Equality Act refers to sex and as such same sex spaces are related to the sex assigned at birth and not gender identity. That would have been considered a transphobic view last year, but is now the law in the UK, and a lot of institutions are now banning trans people from same sex spaces / teams (in the case of sport) that they weren't born as. This is fundamentally what gender critical activists have been arguing for, so if we're going with the transphobic label then that means that Wikipedia is calling UK Law, the FA, the cricket board, and other sporting bodies transphobic, which seems very much to be taking a position on this issue rather than presenting it neturally and factually. Icecold (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

UK court rulings don’t mean we have to change our wording. We have a significant body of reliable sources referring to Linehan accurately as an “anti-transgender activist”. This has been litigated over and over again if you consult the talk page archives, hence the FAQ. GraziePrego (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@GraziePrego UK court rulings are clearly relevant when talking about someone who has been resident in the UK for a large part of their life. You should be judging someone based on the context of where they live and the laws and social convention there. The Overton window is country specific. In the UK, by law, Grahams views are now considered mainstream, and his view that Trans Woman aren't Women, are shared by The FA (oldest football association in the world), the English cricket board, the UK government and prime minister. Based on Wikipedias rules, according to you, you can now describe all of the above as transphobic which is clearly ridiculous. This is quite simply Wikipedia taking a political stance. I also don't care if this has been litigated before, this is a constantly changing thing, and like I said saying "trans women aren't women" was considered transphobic last year, now the Prime Minister of the UK has said it and it's the law of the land, so it can therefore no longer be considered transphobic, and by implication that casts doubt on Wikipedia calling Graham Linehan a transphobe. Icecold (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

By that logic, we could never write any article with a critical tone of the Russian government because Putin's policies are popular in Russia and supported by most major institutions. Likewise, we couldn't write anything about Saudi Arabia that doesn't echo hard wahhabism. Simply put, Wikipedia is not beheld to the British government or the British Overton window - just as it's not for Russia or Saudi Arabia Snokalok (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The Mail is such a poor source it can't be used anywhere on Wikipedia. The article does not call Linehan a transphobe, it describes him, accurately, as an anti-transgender activist, which is well referenced. Wikipedia is neutral, reporting on what reliable sources say, and as such, has no position on the UK's Supreme Court or its decisions. Any inference you are making is on you, not WP. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bastun it is calling him a transphobe because the anti-transgender link links to the article on transphobia. How is that my inference? It's quite clearly Wikipedias inference. In that case, keep saying he's anti transgender but update the link to gender critical then. That's not then inferring he's a bigot Icecold (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

It's your inference because this article, and Wikipedia, makes no statement about the UK courts, other than reporting on cases and verdicts, cited to WP:RS. You need and understand to read our policies on sourcing, neutrality, and WP:SYNTHESIS. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

If his only action had been to say "Trans women aren't women" we would not be calling him an anti-trans activist, let alone anything else - just like we wouldn't for Starmer or anyone else who had restricted themselves to that. However, it is probably worth reading the article to acquaint yourself with Linehan's sustained behaviour towards, and statements about, transgender people. That's why he's defined like that. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Black Kite an encyclopedia shouldn't be passing judgement though. Present the facts and let people make up their own minds Icecold (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

We're not passing judgement, though. We're following what reliable sources say about his behaviour. I'm pointing out that RS would not call someone a transphobe, or even the silly phrase "gender-critical", without them having done far more than opined on whether they considered trans women to be women. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Well I guess you see what I mean User:Icecold. You need some more RS to start to move the wording 'we' use toward the gender critical end of things. Do keep working at it though. Note that the respondents didn't mention the Pink News article. You need a few more like that. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The court case said that in the case of the equality act woman referred to biological women. It did not legitimise abuse and harassment of transgender people based on their transgender status.

A referable source on this is a recent interview with Jimmy Mulville in a recent podcast where he says how the Father Ted musical fell apart. It was because (and I paraphrase) he wouldn't stop banging on about trans people and what a menace they are, both online and in person. When asked to tone it down and step off social media he flew into a rage. That's documented. It's not holding a gender critical views it is transphobia. You can argue that last point is WP:SYNTH and should not go in the article, but no more than the idea that the supreme court ruling means he is not transphobic.

Linehan defines himself as a journalist and campaigner, but this 90% consists of haranguing people who disagree with him via twitter and his substack, calling people who agree with transgender rights groomers and misogynists and homophobes. People dislike him for his views but he has lost work not because of them, but because of the aggressive and abusive way he has expressed those views. It may not be (legally) transphobic to believe trans men are women and trans women are men. It may not be transphobic to say so. But it is certainly not true to say that is all he does and has done.Rankersbo (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rankersbo that's passing judgement though. You might think he's a transphobe, but that doesn't mean on what is supposed to be a fact based encyclopedia you can factually call him a transphobe. Like I said his views that "trans women aren't women" are now the views of the UK state, so you cannot call him transphobic based on that alone. Icecold (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The assessment given of him is based on reliable sources, not picking out comments of his and saying he’s transphobic based on that. We have a body of reliable sources correctly describing him as anti-transgender. We can personally assess his comments however we like, but reliable sources determine what we write on his page. GraziePrego (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC

It is a personal assessment (as I flag within it), hence why that wording is not used in the article. No less so that the supreme court ruling means the article should change though. Rankersbo (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rankersbo "we correctly describing him as anti-transgender" your mask is slipping there, you've clearly decided what he is Icecold (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Icecold When you say "on what is supposed to be a fact based encyclopaedia" you might be forgetting that Wikipedia is not 'truth' Wikipedia:NOTTRUTH

It is a collection of information that various editors have seen fit to include and support with what are termed reliable sources which they have selected.

The only way to change the content of an article is to come up with your own reliable sources. Then you can make the argument that the existing content doesn't reflect the sources. Even then you will find editors will use a variety of arguments to thwart you.

BTW talk pages are (should be) about simply about improving the article so there is no where further to go here without a couple more good RS that can counter, or at least provide some context to, the wording you object to. Find those and we would have something to discuss.

LWB out. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Lukewarmbeer I mean how many sources do you want?

I've already provided 4

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/aug/15/edinburgh-venue-cancels-graham-linehan-event-complaints

"Leith Arches said it cancelled comedy listing at which gender-critical writer was due to appear"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/05/author-john-boyne-apologises-to-graham-linehan-trans-debate/

"At the time, he wrote a newspaper column in which he criticised Linehan’s gender-critical views"

https://www.thetimes.com/culture/comedy/article/graham-linehan-stages-fringe-show-in-street-after-row-over-trans-views-j9bpwbmc8

"gender critical comic"

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/10/12/tough-crowd-the-tragedy-of-graham-linehan/

"The gender-critical writer’s autobiography exposes the brutality of cancel culture."

How many more sources do you want? I've provided 8 now. Icecold (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.itv.com/news/utv/2024-09-16/father-ted-writer-linehan-discriminated-against-in-pub-after-rally

"Graham Linehan were allegedly subjected to discrimination in a Belfast pub because of their gender critical beliefs, a court heard today."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/father-ted-co-creator-graham-35123877

"He has previously claimed that his career and marriage have been destroyed over his gender-critical views." Icecold (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

No, you haven't. You've provided eight web pages that contain the words "gender critical" in relation to Linehan, but that doesn't mean they're all reliable sources that can be used. You've still not actually read WP:RS, have you? The Mail can't be used as a source for anything. Spiked and The Spectator are opinion pieces. The Telegraph is generally regarded as reliable - except when dealing with trans issues, where the editorial board has clearly taken a stance. Yes, there are reliable sources that describe Linehan as "gender critical"; there are also many reliable sources that describe him as an anti-trans activist. If all you're concerned about is including a statement that Linehan has been described as "gender critical", we can certainly come up with a suitable wording, referenced to an actual RS, but we certainly won't be removing the fact that he is - per his reported actions, all reliable sourced - an anti-trans activist. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bastun the wording is very biased. J K Rowling has this wording "Her comments, described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations" which seems more neutral. I do not like that Wikipedia just outright calls Linehan an anti trans activist with a link to Transphobia. That is biased, and clearly pushing a view.

I've provided a few sources that have matched Wikipedias arbitrary definition of what is considered a reliable source.

There are more sources

Another guardian source

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/aug/16/graham-linehan-mulls-legal-action-against-edinburgh-arts-venue-leith-arches

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

Another Times article

https://www.thetimes.com/culture/theatre-dance/article/graham-linehan-on-the-father-ted-musical-no-ones-seen-3txltc66s

"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"

• 2x The Guardian
• the Pink News (it's pretty laughable this source is considered reliable by Wikipedia imo)
• 2x The Times
• The Mirror which has no consensus.

"but we certainly won't be removing the fact that he is - per his reported actions, all reliable sourced - an anti-trans activist"

Except that terms change. Gender Critical wasn't a term a few years ago. Now Gender Critical is seen as the correct term because it's more neutral. And as pointed out the biggest issue is that it then links to Transphobia, which explicitly calls it bigotry, and is therefore Wikipedia making a judgement. The Supreme Court case in the UK is very relevant, because now it shows that Linehan’s view that Trans-Women aren't Women is now established UK law and is echoed by the prime minister

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crldey0z00ro

It's extremely important that he is viewed in the context of the Overton window surrounding him. All the sources I have provided are recent (last few years).

Also I don't see how you can just state "we certainly won't be removing the fact", you cannot single handedly talk for Wikipedia and if reliable sources (like some I have provided) use the term gender critical, than to ignore that just shows your own opinion and isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia is it? Icecold (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

1) So propose a wording to add. 2) You keep making a weird assertion about a UK Supreme Court case. That case did not change UK law! It provided an interpretation of one UK law, only. The UK prime minister's position is irrelevant, as is your view that we should write this article according to some perceived UK-centric Overton window. The reason why we don't and won't do this has already been explained to you by Snokalok, above, but you appear to be ignoring it. 3) Read what I said again. I can state we certainly won't be removing the fact that Linehan has been described as an anti-trans activist because a) you don't like it is not a reason for removal, and b) Wikipedia is not censored! It is a fact that he has been described as an anti-trans activist, and there many examples listed in the article about why this might be so. It is reliably sourced, and is absolutely appropriate for inclusion. And still - none of that prevents the inclusion of a sentence along the lines of "Linehan has been described both as anti-trans activist and 'gender critical'" or similar. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

1) I think firstly the first sentence should be:

and then in the paragraph soon after:

I don't think he should be described as an anti-trans activist (linking to transphobia) in the first line. I think I have provided enough 'reliable' sources to prove that he is often referred to as gender critical. I am happy to conceed that mentioning he has been accused of transphobia, and tLineham has been described as both gender critical and anti-transdwith d that later on, but I don't think it should be used for the first introductory line. J K Rowling doesn't have a mention of her views in the first line of her article. I'm happy to debate the wording though.

2) I am aware it did not change UK Law dejure, but it has defacto - organisations have done 180 degree changes on their policies now that the supreme court has ruled that same sex spaces are to be protected. The UK Prime Ministers position is not irrelevant, I provided it to give a general idea of the overton window in the UK. Linehan has been a long term resident in the UK and was a resident in the UK when he became famous as a screenwriter, so the culture in the UK is important. The Democratic party in the US is seen to be left wing in the US, but in the UK it would be seen to be more of a centre right party, but we don't say that on it's article, like wise, the Conservative party in the UK would be seen to be more left wing by US Standards, but we describe it by UK standards as it's a UK party. I also provide it as context for his views not being seen to be as extreme or anti-Trans as they once were, because the overton window has shifted.

3)

a) I think it's factually dishonest to describe him in this way in 2025 with the changes in society. A better term has been created, and I have provided various reputable sources which use this term, you are just pushing your view that he is anti-trans and a transphobe - it hasn't been put into neutral language like 'he has been accused of' it's just stated as fact. To accuse me of "I DON'T LIKE IT" when I have actually provided sources to back my stance, is just ignoring my stance because you don't like it.

b) Then use that phrasing 'he has been described as an anti-trans activist' - it's the 100% true phrasing of "

It may be reliably sourced, but as I pointed out, language changes. He is more commonly described as gender critical in modern articles as I have pointed out. Icecold (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

“The UK prime minister says his views are ok” is certainly not enough nor relevant to overturn the large body of reliable sources we have that accurately and correctly describe him as an anti-trans activist. Bastun is completely correct here. GraziePrego (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I pointed at that simply as an example of the overton window shifting and what was once described as anti-trans is now gender critical (along with reliable sources I have provided that use this terminology) Icecold (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

You seem to have this view that the supreme court ruling is both wider-reaching than it is and that it's relevant here. It is neither.

It rules on one law only and does not apply beyond the context of that. Wikipedia is not regional so it truly does not change anything what the UK supreme court or prime minister says DeputyBeagle (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Icecold here. Something akin to Rowling's "Her comments, described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations..." would be much more balanced. Linehan counts numerous transgender people amongst his friends. Why would such a person have transgender friends if he were this supposed "anti-transgender (read Transphobia)" activist? Gazumpedheit (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Good point. I'd support that. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I wonder why this user would say that! GraziePrego (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't think why, can you? Imagine if that sentence had been "You haven't noticed that most articles on race have been heavily biased in favour of non-racist viewpoints?" Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

THANK YOU! I feel like ever since the Supreme Court ruling, so many GC editors have been coming out of the woodwork with this expectation that now that the British government has taken a stance that trans rights are bad and evil and this minority group is actually wrong to want basic dignity, we must all "admit" that GC views are actually the correct stance and prostrate ourselves in apology while rewriting the entire project to reflect this "vindication" Snokalok (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The basic dignity of the trans community is surely neither here nor there. We could discuss what that might mean forever. It's not a forum folks.

Can we stick to how best we might improve the article.

Many thanks. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Certainly. I would suggest that one of the ways of improving the article is not to support the suggestions of editors who post stuff like that, but clearly your mileage may vary. The fact that we describe the comments of an obvious transphobe like Rowling by using the language that RS use to ensure they're not sued by her, is not relevant here. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

In your opinion J K Rowling is an "obvious transphobe" but this is supposed to be a fact based resource, not based on your opinions Icecold (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that even those on the far edge of the "gender-critical" spectrum don't believe that she isn't. I mean, you only have to read her own social media posts... Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

It depends how you define transphobia - but we're going off topic really, this isn't about J K Rowling Icecold (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

This is not an argument that would be made if it was any other marginalized group. If a white celebrity went on a rant in which he said the N word a hundred times, made monkey noises, and said we should bring back racial slavery - saying they're an "obvious racist" would in no way be in dispute. As far as I can see, as it relates to Graham Linehan, the argument against him being called an anti-trans activist is not that he hasn't engaged in a long and sustained campaign anti-trans activism, it's that his beliefs are common enough and widely supported enough that they should be given a less scary sounding name than "anti-trans" even if that's not actually an inaccurate characterization. That is, the argument is simply that it's wrong to give his beliefs a name that makes them sound like the wrong side of history because in the United Kingdom they have won. Snokalok (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

"That is, the argument is simply that it's wrong to give his beliefs a name that makes them sound like the wrong side of history"

The editors on this page are really showing their activist stances here.

"If a white celebrity went on a rant in which he said the N word a

hundred times, made monkey noises, and said we should bring back racial

slavery - saying they're an "obvious racist" would in no way be in

dispute"

Except it's not the same at all. Making the argument that same sex spaces should be protected, is not the same as advocating for slavery is it? If Linehan started advocating for slavery of trans people, then yeah I'd agree with you, but he hasn't.

Regardless of if you think he's on the wrong side of history or not - Gender Critical, as I have pointed out with reliable sources is a valid and less emotive term for describing him - therefore we should be using that term. Icecold (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

If you actually read the article you're talking about, you'll see he's done far more things and far more hateful things than just saying that same sex spaces should be protected. That's what makes him anti-trans DeputyBeagle (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, I think watering down the language currently being used would be a good start. Using language like "some have argued that Linehans Gender Critical views are transphobic" would be a good way to make the wording more neutral. Indirectly calling him a transphobe I don't think is what a neutral body should be doing. Icecold (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Given that "gender-critical" and "transphobic" are in the vast majority of cases, synonyms, I'm unsure how that would work. Have you read Gender critical feminism? Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Gender Critical is seen as the more neutral term. It's debatable what is and isn't transphobic, but if you believe they are synonyms then why not change it to the more neutral term? Icecold (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

How does the "more neutral" term work, then? Is it "bigoted against trans people, but not as bigoted as transphobes"? Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you're talking in good faith here. I've explained previously what I think would be better language. Changing the introduction to say he's "gender critical" rather than "anti-Trans" and qualifying that "critics and some LGBT organizations have accused Linehan of Transphobia" or words to that effect. That seems like a more good faith way to describe him to me - but I don't feel like you've asked that question in good faith to try to come to a resolution, have you? Icecold (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I am absolutely commenting in good faith here. This is not a person who made one or two random comments that could be seen to be transphobic (or gender-critical, or whatever). This is a person who has for many years used social media and his Substack to attack transgender people and their community. He was cautioned by police for repeatedly attacking a trans person. He has equated trans medical treatment with Nazi eugenics. He has joined dating agencies that attract trans people, and then posted the images of those who he thinks are "women that look like men" with links to their profiles so that his followers could abuse them. I mean, the guy has admitted that his extreme views have lost him work, friends, and his marriage; I would have felt sorry for him if he hadn't simply continued doing exactly the same thing ever since. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Hard against. We should not be rewriting this article to make his stated beliefs sound nicer or less concrete just because those beliefs have found broad institutional backing. Wikipedia is not a PR firm, our job is not to rehabilitate the image of celebrities that go on rants against minority groups by making the underlying beliefs sound more palatable just because the British govt says they're okay now. Snokalok (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral fact based encylopedia. Branding someone with what is now becoming a mainstream view, as "anti-trans" with a link to transphobia, is not neutral, and is clearly leading. Watering down the language in order to keep things to the facts is completely valid - this isn't reddit, if you want to have opinions on things, post about them there. Icecold (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

And just because it's a mainstream view, does not mean Wikipedia is under any obligation to call it something other than what it is. Hating Palestinians is a mainstream view in Israel, that doesn't mean we as editors are under any obligation to rehabilitate such a belief's image into anything other than hating Palestinians. Snokalok (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit emotive on this topic - you're reading far too much into what I have said. For people heavily ingrained in UK culture, the UK supreme court judgement is clearly extremely relevant. If you're calling someone a transphobe for saying "trans women aren't women" when that's now how the law has been clarified to mean, then you're essentially calling the entire UK Govt, the FA, the cricket board, the athletic boad all transphobic, which is quite a claim. Articles don't exist in a vacuum, the context around them is important. Icecold (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Except, as has been explained to you multiple times now, no-one is calling anyone transphobic purely for stating that they believe that "trans women aren't women". Please feel free to point out where Wikipedia does this (hint: you won't be able to). Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

then you're essentially calling the entire UK Govt, the FA, the cricket board, the athletic boad all transphobic, which is quite a claim Yes, because a first world western country has never been guilty of widespread abuse towards a villainized minority group. That's completely unprecedented throughout history. Why do so many editors nowadays say that because the British government takes a particular stance, we can't characterize that stance in any way that makes it read as anything but positive? Is the state truly the arbiter of right and wrong as this would imply? Honestly, even if all Linehan had done was say that trans women aren't women, the characterization would still be accurate, that is an objectively transphobic belief to hold, it just wouldn't be notable enough to warrant a place in the lead of the article. Snokalok (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

"that is an objectively transphobic belief to hold"

No, that's not objective, thats very much subjective. You're letting your own opinions cloud your judgement.

"Yes, because a first world western country has never been guilty of widespread abuse towards a villainized minority group."

Not to go off topic here, but there's a very real difference between denying that people can change their sex (which is what the supreme court judgement clarified) and 'widespread abuse towards a villanized minority'. You are free to personally judge the British stance anyway you like, but when you're talking about someone in the anglosphere on a supposedly netural site (yes I'm aware he's Irish and has recently moved to the US, but he was resident here for a long time, and his famous tv shows are all British) it's relevant what the society around the article is like Icecold (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

it's relevant what the society around the article is like

It is absolutely not relevant what the society around the article is like. We don't censor our articles about Kim Jong Un just because the society in which he lives says that Kim Jong Un can do no wrong. We don't classify female Saudi figures as animals just because Saudi Arabia might. We don't classify Nazis as good and upstanding heroes in the fight against the Jewish menace just because that was how their society viewed them.

No, that's not objective, thats very much subjective. You're letting your own opinions cloud your judgement.

I'm really not. Just because a belief is societally accepted and backed by the government does not make it not a bigoted belief. That's one thing I notice in these discussions, there's a contingent of editors who seem to assert that we can't call something transphobic because it's found widespread political support. Which is absolutely devoid logic, because that implies that transphobic means "fringe belief universally recognizable as wrong", and under this regime it's not transphobic to actively reduce the civil rights and equal protections of trans people because it's supported by the government, most major institutions, and a majority of the population. And by that logic, it's not racist to enact a policy of racial segregation in the US, because most white Americans support it. It's not anti-semitic to make jews identify themselves as jews everywhere they go in Germany, because most Germans support it. It's not sexist to make women wear burkas everywhere they go in Saudi Arabia because most Saudis are in favor of it. Your argument here, to my understanding, is that a policy directly and intentionally targeting a marginalized group stops being bigoted against that group once it finds enough mainstream support in country - which is an argument that one can only make if they actively ignore the entirely of recorded history.

Well I propose an alternative philosophy: I actively hate Nazis. By your logic, we couldn't call me Naziphobic, because hating Nazis is a mainstream opinion supported by most institutions. We'd have to say "Snokalok isn't Naziphobic, she just believes in the sanctity of spaces without Nazis in them" when, objectively speaking, I am Naziphobic. I'm proud of it, because being Naziphobic is arguably a moral obligation, but Naziphobic is not an unfair or inaccurate descriptor. Snokalok (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

"Some of my best friends are..." Really? Without a trace of irony. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

You're really doing the "I have a trans friend" argument? Also read WP:MANDY DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

???

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

"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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Yes, I'm biased against bigots. You'll find that's normal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

You're accusing anyone that's 'Gender Critical' is bigoted then are you? Icecold (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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

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. TarnishedPath^talk 11:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)