Talk:Sarah McBride/Archive 1

Archive 1

Retroactivity or gender identity vs. historical fact

Where does the balance lie between respecting transgender individuals and their right to their identity and the statement of historical fact? Is it enough to assume that people will understand the necessity of the retroactive female pronouns by the use of the word 'transgender'? Should historical fact be ignored or denied in order to respect a person's stated identity? It seems to me that an encyclopedia should include all relevant, well-sourced biographical information, even at the risk of offending individuals. After all, if someone is famous enough to merit inclusion here, their original identity will most probably be widely known and ignoring or denying it - as if things were never any different - would seem an odd, and unencyclopedic, omission. Dysfunctional Human Unit (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

See MOS:GENDERID. Any change to policy should be discussed centrally, rather than on this article. meamemg (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Correction: 2nd Openly Transgender State US Legislator (not first)

When she is sworn in, Sarah McBride will become the second openly transgender state senator in the country.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danica_Roem

Danica Roem: "She is the first openly transgender person to be elected to the Virginia General Assembly, and in January 2018 became the first to both be elected and serve while openly transgender in any U.S. state legislature." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.186.125 (talk) 64.38.186.125 (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Danica Roem is a legislator but not a state senator. She's a member of her state's assembly not her state's senate. Rab V (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Point taken. Thanks for clarification.64.38.186.125 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Birth name ***** not important to the article?

As I'm an old fogey and I didn't really understand the basics of "transgender", I had to look it up. After learning what the word transgender means, I assumed, and correctly, that a "female transgender" must have started out as a male, and thus in the highest probability was given a different name at birth, and in the case of the present subject, that would be *** (unsuccessful in finding a reference to "*******"). But, I'm already on the Wikipedia page. I shouldn't have to look up facts about the subject somewhere else. I'm already here! I think this fact should be disclosed in the Early Life section. giggle (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi giggle, please check out MOS:MULTIPLENAMES to learn more about Wikipedia guidelines for handling the names of transgender people:

In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name...If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. (See also: WP:Manual of Style § Identity, and the article Deadnaming.)

More precisely, MOS:DEADNAME. KevTYD (wake up) 20:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

This is line with the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." In short, it's generally respectful of a trans person's privacy and identity to not refer to their "deadname" unless absolutely necessary for some reason. We don't need to do it in this article - people's curiosity is not a good enough reason to include it. McBride's life in the public eye has been under her name of Sarah, so that's the right name to use consistently throughout the article. Dreamyshade (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing private about anybody stating to the world that he or she is now transgender. The fact that it is public information makes the argument for privacy pointless. 50.107.148.21 (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

There was recently a RfC on this issue. In my understanding the consensus is to generally exclude deadnames from articles unless the subject is notable under the previous name, and I've seen no evidence of this in McBride's case. We exclude private information unless we have good reason to include it, and the consensus on DEADNAME tells us to consider trans/NB people's deadnames private. Just because someone is out as trans doesn't mean that all the details of their transition are no longer private. SreySros (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY

Sarah came out in college but she was always female - and under MOS:Identity - gender-neutral language should not be used when describing a trans person before they came out. Ergo, "child" in the paragraph describing her girlhood should be replaced with 'girl'. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Point taken, though I think "later attended as a girl" could create some confusion regarding when she transitioned/became open about her identity. How about a reword to "Her mother was a guidance counselor and a founder of the Cab Calloway School of the Arts. Sarah graduated from Cab Calloway in 2009 and earned a bachelor's degree from the American University in 2013." Cannolis (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think that reword should happen. Regardless of your intentions - which I know were in good faith - we should not alter the article just because some cis people might not understand how being trans actually works. They should learn instead, and we should not violate the MOS:GENDERID policy - which states to avoid being vague about trans people's gender before they came out, only using their assigned name on the occasion they were notable. I'm not upset at you of course, but please revert your changes with this wording, as by avoiding gendering Sarah you are violating that policy. Avoiding gendering her because of cis people's misconception about what being trans is actually like only validates that misinformation, which not only harms a marginalised group regardless of your selfless intention - but goes against Wikipedia's purpose as a fact-based encyclopedia.92.10.13.209 (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that WP:GENDERID is an essay, not a policy. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I meant to say MOS:GENDERID, sorry 92.10.13.209 (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a style guideline, not a Wikipedia policy. And where does that guideline suggest that "gender-neutral language should not be used when describing a trans person before they came out"? It notes that one should use gendered words "that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification" but that doesn't mean a gender-neutral word is necessarily problematic. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Look at the page for Caitlyn Jenner. If you try to edit her page, you will get a notice saying "The article currently uses feminine pronouns throughout, as per the applicable guideline, MOS:IDENTITY. Please do not change feminine to masculine pronouns, or attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether. See the talk page for further discussion." The same procedure applies here. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Right, and that's because some editors were trying to use masculine pronouns when discussing Jenner's activities before she identified as Caitlyn. But that's not what this article was doing. In the end, what edit are you advocating for? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not upset at you and I mean this as constructive criticism - if you are going to edit articles about trans people, you need to understand that being trans isn't a choice. Trans women have always been female - including Caitlyn Jenner and Sarah McBride - that's why we say trans people were 'in the closet' before they came out. By avoiding gendering Sarah before she came out, this article is doing the exact same thing as those editors who were using he/him pronouns for Caitlyn - regardless of your and Cannoli's intentions, which I know were selfless. By avoiding gendering Sarah when discussing her life before she came out, you are both invalidating the fact that she was always female, which not only contributes to misinformation about a marginalised group (trans people) but also goes against Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia. Non-gendered language should not be used at any point. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I also know we can write sentences that don't need gendered language just due to creating a varied reading experience (put another way, one does not need to use a gendered term at every opportunity, and that's ok). Regardless, I repeat my question: what edit are you advocating for? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

To continue my comment, I disagree that "Non-gendered language should not be used at any point". Mis-gendering is wrong, certainly, but we do not need to strain to always reflect one's gender at every possible moment. That's just not good writing. As for this article, I'm fine with saying "she graduated" or "she attended" when referencing her high school. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm advocating for Cannolis' edits to be reverted back to @Rab V's edits, which is the revision before Cannoli edited the page. You misunderstood me - I was not saying gendered language doesn't need to be used at any point - I was saying that Cannoli edited the page to remove mentions of Sarah being a girl, which is transphobic even though I know they didn't intend to be transphobic and were editing in good faith. They have been nice to me in their interactions with me and I mean my criticisms as constructive.

People always reflect cis people's gender at every possible moment off Wikipedia (i.e. if talking about a cis woman named Paula (she/her) they would write "Paula drove to her friend Marie's" or "she drove to her friend Marie's"). In casual writing, people never avoid gendered language for cis people (i.e. calling Paula by her surname in this instance) and the same thing applies to trans people. However, Wikipedia is written formally. As a trans woman myself, I don't use gendered language to refer to trans people - or cis people - all of the time when writing Wikipedia. I use surnames regularly because Wikipedia is written formally. I also use pronouns (i.e. "In April 2022, he announced he would be reprising his role as Walter White on Season 6 of Better Call Saul") with the same level of regularity - a lot of the times to vary my vocabulary, the same way as you do.

However, that's not why Cannolis didn't use gendered language. Cannolis excised the word "girl" in the sentence because cis people might not know that trans women have always been female and subsequently get confused (specifically, Cannolis said "...could create some confusion regarding when she transitioned/became open about her identity"). This does not change harmful, unscientific misconceptions about what being trans is actually like - it structures the sentence around them rather than dismantling them - and it goes against Wikipedia's purpose as a fact-based encyclopedia. Avoiding gendering Sarah when talking about before she came out - in the specific way and for the specific reason Cannolis did it - is misgendering, regardless of their intention which I know was in good faith. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree with your interpretation of my concerns and intentions. I'm not saying that "McBride was a boy then, and is now a girl", my concern is that "as a girl" could easily be misunderstood that she was openly attending school as a girl. From the cited sources, this does not appear to be true. To use that phrase without potential confusion would require multiple qualifying statements about how she was always female but at that time was living under her deadname until she publicly came out, and even then we could be incorrect as she may have came out to her family and/or friends at earlier points. Going into that detail is not particularly pertinent to her notability and as MOS:GENDERID also says "generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent" I think it best to avoid everything but when she chose to publicly come out. A recent edit made it so the sentence leads with "She graduated from..." - I feel this is an improvement to my change, do you feel that is sufficient?

Also would just like to note that featured articles on cis folks such as Christian Bale and Katharine Hepburn both use "as a child". Caitlyn Jenner also actually uses "as a young child". I don't feel it's a case of "avoiding gendered language" when people use the phrase, just another way of saying "when he/she/they were young". Don't feel it is necessary to revert the article back to that though, current wording works for me. Cannolis (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2024: updating outdated information

Change "As the first openly transgender state senator in the country, she is the highest-ranking transgender elected official in United States history." to "As the first openly transgender state senator in the country, she was the highest-ranking transgender elected official in United States history at the time of her inauguration. McBride is one of only two openly transgender state senators nationwide, the other being Danica Roem of Virginia." 173.79.133.194 (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - As McBride became a state senator before Danica Roem, she is still the highest-ranking elected official in the United States order of precedence as the ranking is based on first the position (which they share), and then by length of service, which places McBride above Roem. Raladic (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2024

In the section "Political electoral career", replace "10 September 2024" with "September 10, 2024" to follow United States date conventions. JaguarTears3003 (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Raladic (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request

1) Change all instances of the initialism LGBT in the article to LGBTQ as it recently became the consensus to do so.

2)

−

If elected in 2024, McBride would become the first openly transgender member of Congress.

+

McBride was elected to this position, and will be the first openly transgender member of Congress.

Cleebadee (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Raladic (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Reversal of my edit

@Notwally I saw you reversed my edit [[1]] that created a 'Political positions' section and 'Israel' subsection for the paragraph on McBride's position on Israel that was previously (and now is back) under 'Electoral politics', sandwiched between two paragraphs about her actual elections/runs. Your reasoning for this edit was: "a single paragraph does not needs its own section and subsection". I do not believe this reasoning is supported by Wikipedia policy nor common practice, and think this should be re-done at least in part. I am not reversing your edit, as that would just start an edit war, but want to hear your (and others) thoughts. I think the current placement is nonsensical and awkward, most other significant politician articles have a 'Political positions' section. Mason7512 (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:OVERSECTION says "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings." I personally feel that the "political positions" sections on most articles are usually poorly done and unencyclopedic, but at the very least I think it would be better to at least wait until there is more detail about her positions than 3 sentences about a single issue. – notwally (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Virtually every politician at her level has such a section, and significantly more content for it will almost certainly come soon. My recommendation would be to add the Political Positions heading now and add subsections in there as needed. meamemg (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I don't know why a section would be getting introduced when it's not appropriate. If there is a need for a separate section because of length at some point, then the section should be created at that point. – notwally (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a need for the section, since policy positions don't really fall under Electoral Politics". meamemg (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I changed the section heading to "Electoral career" then. If policy positions are not appropriate under "Electoral politics" or a similar name, then I don't see how any of that section is appropriate, especially considering that the political stances we are discussing were directly related to her political campaigning. – notwally (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Anti-transgender bathroom resolution at Capitol (18 November 2024)

 The page is currently protected, so I am adding here what I think should be added under Sarah_McBride#United_States_House_of_Representatives:

South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace introduced a resolution to amend the rules of the United States House of Representatives banning transgender women from women's restrooms at the United States Capitol. In response, she posted on X (19 November 2024), saying that "[e]very day Americans go to work with people who have life journeys different than their own and engage with them respectfully, I hope members of Congress can muster that same kindness." followed by, "This is a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing. We should be focused on bringing down the cost of housing, health care, and child care, not manufacturing culture wars."

Lulu-lists (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me this says more about Mace than it does about McBride. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

She didn't even enter the House of Representatives yet and they already want to block her from using the restrooms (which is a human right). This definitely shows the barriers she is facing in her political career. Lulu-lists (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we are not here to right great wrongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "right great wrongs". As the article states, "She will be the first openly transgender member of the United States Congress" and she is now facing a unique challenge because of being "the first openly transgender member of the United States Congress". I am not trying to correct this situation with wikipedia. I am trying to include in this article relevant information which is related to what's already said about her in the existing article. I have included reliable sources that report about this issue which is indeed important enough to make headlines. Lulu-lists (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

IMO, this may be relevant to include, especially if the bill goes somewhere, although the amount of quoted material from the article subject is excessive, especially if only citing social media posts. – notwally (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and fair enough. I added multiple sources and quoted her tweets extensively just to have all the relevant information available. This can definitely be made shorter and more concise. Lulu-lists (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a pretty rare occurrance where an incoming member of Congress is directly targeted by another congressperson through proposed legislation. I would assume additional news outlets will cover this story, which will allow for a better judgment as to what is appropriate to include. – notwally (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are a few more:

• Crane, Emily (19 November 2024). "Rep. Nancy Mace says Sarah McBride 'absolutely' reason for bathroom bill". New York Post.
• Brunner, Raven (19 November 2024). "Rep. Nancy Mace Proposes Trans Bathroom Ban at U.S. Capitol After Trans Woman's Historic Election to Congress". People.com.
• Mondeaux, Cami (19 November 2024). "Johnson clarifies position on House transgender bathroom spat: 'A man is a man'". Washington Examiner.
• Monteil, Abby (19 November 2024). "A House Republican Is Trying to Ban Sarah McBride From Capitol Bathrooms". them.
• Gracia, Eric (19 November 2024). "MTG supports Nancy Mace's controversial trans bathroom ban in Congress: 'That's what this election was all about'". The Independent.
• Slisco, Aila (19 November 2024). "Nancy Mace Wants to Bar Transgender Women From Capitol Bathrooms". Newsweek.
• Edwards, Joe (19 November 2024). "Marjorie Taylor Greene Misgenders First Openly Trans Congresswoman Sarah McBride: 'He's A Man'". newsweek.

Lulu-lists (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way, Nancy Mace's bathroom bill is already mentioned in Bathroom bill#Examples (last paragraph) where it says:

In November 2024, Representative Nancy Mace introduced a resolution to ban transgender people from using bathrooms other than those of their sex assigned at birth at the U.S. Capitol, in anticipation of the swearing in of U.S. House member-elect Sarah McBride from Delaware, who is the first trans woman elected to Congress.

Please note that it says "in anticipation of the swearing in of U.S. House member-elect Sarah McBride from Delaware, who is the first trans woman elected to Congress."

If it's relevant to mention her there as an example of a bathroom bill that's targeting her, it should probably be relevant to mention it here too.

Lulu-lists (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Lulu-lists (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense as the subject matter is the bathroom bill. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It specifically says that this bill was made in order to target Sarah McBride. This is also mentioned in the news articles that I shared.

Another place where this is mentioned, again while stating that this is meant specifically to target Sarah McBride, is under Nancy_Mace#Bathroom_bill_in_Congress.

I don't understand why you insist on ignoring the fact that this bill is meant to target Sarah McBride personally, so it is relevant information about Sarah McBride.

Lulu-lists (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

At the risk of making assumptions, I think Muboshgu may be more concerned about the possibility of this article giving too much focus to content discussing ways that people have tried to attack or target the article subject. That is certainly a concern that I have, and something that I think we need to be mindful to avoid. This article should be focused on the biography of Sarah McBride, rather than how others feel about her. I suspect, however, that these types of actions by her colleagues targeting her for her identity will continue. I will also note that some of the sources you provided earlier, such as Washington Examiner, New York Post, and Newsweek, are not considered generally reliable sources on WP:RSP (NYP is actually considered unreliable). Remember that there is no deadline here, and so waiting to allow for more coverage and fuller context can be helpful. – notwally (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

That is a good assessment, and I should have mentioned that a mere bill being introduced doesn't mean we should include it. Mace is seeking attention. Unfortunately, she's getting it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

But the bill itself did get mentioned otherwise in wikipedia. My point here wasn't to give Nancy Mace attention, but rather to focus on Sarah McBride's reaction to it. I think it is relevant that she got targeted with a bespoke law before she was even sworn in. I think it's even more relevant that she chose to respond by saying that this is an attempt to distract attention from the relevant political issues that she is advocating for.

Mentioning the bill here is not about discussing what other people think about her, but rather about the special challenges she has to face as a trans woman. This is relevant, because she is the first openly transgender US Congress representative.

I also find it very unpleasant that Muboshgu was only willing to present arguments in response to notwally and not directly to me.

I have only mentioned the sources from Washington Examiner, New York Post and Newsweek (along with articles from them, people.com and The Independent) when the first sources that I provided were ignored.

Lulu-lists (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I would keep your focus on the article content rather than other editors. WP:AGF is important, and Muboshgu has responded to your arguments several times. I understand your concern about the challenges McBride has to face, but realize that there is no rush to add content into her biography. Will someone in 20 years care that this resolution was introduced when trying to learn about McBride? I think that's likely if it passes and changes the House rules. If it doesn't pass but has relevance to the challenges she had to face as the first woman who is transgender in Congress, then probably likely as well. Right now though, I think it's on the fence for its importance. Is having a sentence or two about this House resolution in this article is going to change anything in McBride's life? I would doubt that. Is having a sentence or two going to give more attention to this House resolution and the actions of Mace? I think that's more likely, and I think it's also likely that someone like Mace would want that. I have seen many instances on Wikipedia a topic is given undue attention, often to someone seeking attention for the wrong reasons, because of the desire of people who want to help show the response to it to show how wrong it is. It's a difficult balance, but the best results always come from patience and deliberation (two things that I am terrible at!). – notwally (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I've responded to you directly. I don't understand that comment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This from the speaker gets us more towards WP:DUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you think is given undue weight here? Lulu-lists (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say that it is undue there. I said that I think we're getting there, if we're not already there. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Could you please clarify? Where are we getting at? Lulu-lists (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Lulu-lists, you have valid point. I am very busy with my job to sift through everything and properly add them back in. However, I did some minor edits here and at Nancy Mace's article and talk page to address Mace's transphobia. Arbeiten8 (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

References

American Zionists category

The article itself details with sources McBride's stated Zionist views. Quote:

In an August 2023 interview with Jewish Insider, McBride "framed herself as a staunch supporter of Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship, as well as a committed fighter against antisemitism". She supports the Abraham Accords and has called for a new Iran nuclear deal. She also supports the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and was a co-sponsor of Delaware legislation to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day and celebrate the 75th anniversary of the creation of Israel.

Considering this has already been established, I would argue that the American Zionists category is an appropriate category to place her in. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The category itself is a WP:BLPCAT violation without a self-identification from the BLP in question referring to themself as such, the category should actually be tagged that only BLPs that do so can be included in it, as is customary for other such potentially contentious categories. Raladic (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

So the person specifically has to refer to themself as a "Zionist" in order to qualify? "Staunch supporter of Israel and the US-Israel relationship" should suffice as being Zionist, since that is precisely what Zionism is. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources using this term or reporting its use by the article subject? We don't include labels in Wikipedia articles based on interpretation by other editors. – notwally (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

That's right; as Raladic has pointed out above, per WP:BLPCAT we do not categorize biographies of living people under such contentious topics as racism, sexism, extremism, and the like. See also MOS:LABEL; per our article on Zionism, it is often considered a colonial/racist movement. AviationFreak💬 00:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Transphobia is a perception not a fact

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NPA

The section called "transphobia…" should be renamed either "house bathroom controversy" or "women's bathroom bill" or something less opinionated. As currently titled, it aims to editorialize that the reason for the bill is "fear" of trans people. Regardless of how one feels about the bill, or McBride, or Mace, Mace, herself has said she's advocating for it to protect women. Even if one doesn't agree that the bill does that, we shouldn't put opinion and conjecture into Wikipedia. George R. Brumder (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC) Mace would say that, wouldn't she? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC) I don't follow. I'm simply saying that Wikipedia isn't (wasn't, shouldn't be) a place for opinion. Using the hot-button word "transphobia" in reference to a proposed bill being clearly suggests that the proposer is afraid of trans people and that the bill has one goal in mind. I'm telling you, if y'all don't remember Jimbo's original intent with Wikipedia, this beloved, shared, and community-policed site will go the way of the dodo. Please seriously contemplate that advice. George R. Brumder (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC) It's not opinion. It's cited in WP:RS. Here's a couple: [2][3] We require secondary sources because why would we ever take a subject at their word? No, Wikipedia has always been about neutrally reflecting what is in RS. And Mace admitted that she targeted McBride specifically. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC) Use of the word transphobia especially in the subject header ("Transphobia in US House") is not cited. (Personal attack removed) The heading is wrong and should be changed. Otherwise, Wikipedia isn't being used correctly. George R. Brumder (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC) Trans women are not "men who think they're women". Such hate speech is not permitted on Wikipedia, including talk pages. Funcrunch (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC) Transphobia is about prejudice and discrimination, which, according to reliable sources, is exactly what this bathroom bill proposes to enact. It's not necessarily or solely about fear. Funcrunch (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)