Spectator Australia: JK Rowling puts Wikipedia’s neutrality to the test

[rnu]

Spectator Australia: JK Rowling puts Wikipedia’s neutrality to the test
(archive)

The JK Rowling Wikipedia article has been embroiled in a heated debate over the last month regarding its representation of her political views. Despite having a separate article solely dedicated to her politics, many editors still believe that the main biography article, which covers Rowling’s life and career, should include more of her views going as far as labelling Rowling an ‘anti-trans activist’. The debate has seen some 50 editors take to the article Talk Page debating sourcing, POV (point-of-view) pushing and balance, with some citing Wikipedia is ‘Not the News’. Failing to uphold this policy would mean articles fall into a phenomenon called ‘recentism’ where disproportionate balance is given to breaking news reports and controversy, blurring the lines between up-to-date encyclopedic information and sensationalism. Currently, Rowling’s article is not the only page at risk of such trends.

User boxes get a shout out too.

[Vigilant]

Come on, en.wp, try giving Rowling the Brandt treatment.

I dare you.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Hava Mendele, the author of the Spectator piece, interviewed about Wikipedia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niHKAmNMNO0

[rnu]

Hava Mendele, the author of the Spectator piece, interviewed about Wikipedia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niHKAmNMNO0
[...]

"Even AI programs are collating their 'brains' from information stored on Wikipedia. It's a situation where computers are learning from computers."
Could someone please explain what training data is to the "interviewer"*.

Mendelle has written several pieces on Wikipedia for Spectator Australia: https://www.spectator.com.au/author/hava-mendelle/

I use scare quotes because she's pushing opinion as much as she is asking.

[Kraken]

The political views article really is a blatant violation of NPOV.

On 1 April 2024, in response to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 going into effect, Rowling posted a Twitter thread in which she listed several transgender women. The women included several public figures as well as convicted sexual offenders. Clarissa-Jan Lim said Rowling grouping them together was "an apparent attempt to draw a connection between trans people and sexual perversion".[121][122] Throughout the thread, Rowling sarcastically referred to all the people as female, but at the end clarified, "Obviously, the people mentioned in the above tweets aren't women at all, but men, every last one of them."[123][124] Rowling said that, if her comments were illegal under the new law, she "looked forward to being arrested".[125] Later, a spokesperson for Scotland Police said that Rowling's statements were "not assessed to be criminal and no further action will be taken."[126] An editorial expressing the view of The Times (of London) spoke favourably of Rowling's stance on the law, which they called "one of the most confused, ill-drafted and unnecessary pieces of legislation enacted by the Scottish National Party government".[127] Prime Minister Rishi Sunak defended Rowling saying "people should not be criminalised for stating simple facts on biology".[128]

In no way does this garbage reflect the truth of the matter as explained by the good old BBC......

The Harry Potter author described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.

......

Reacting to the news, Ms Rowling posted on X: "I hope every woman in Scotland who wishes to speak up for the reality and importance of biological sex will be reassured by this announcement, and I trust that all women - irrespective of profile or financial means - will be treated equally under the law."

....

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 makes it an offence to behave in a threatening or abusive manner with the intention of "stirring up hatred" based on disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.

......

Katie Neeves, a trans woman who was appointed a UN Women UK delegate, ..... said: "JK Rowling is a bully and this act was designed to stop bullying, and if they're not going to enforce it then that's very disappointing."

"She listed me and some other trans people along with some sex offenders and put it out to 14 million of her followers.

"That was inciting hatred and it resulted in me receiving thousands of messages of hate. So it's done what she set out for it to do."

........

Ms Neeves also confirmed she would be making a complaint to the police but had not done so yet.

.......

Scotland's First Minister Humza Yousaf said...... the law was designed to deal with what he called a "rising tide of hatred" in society.

A spokesperson for the first minister said: ...... "The legislation does not prevent people expressing controversial, challenging or offensive views, nor does it seek to stifle criticism or rigorous debate in any way."

.......

The law ...... also references the right to freedom of expression in the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes protection for "ideas that offend, shock or disturb."

In other words, neither Rowling or her critics had any real understanding of the purpose of the law, but her critics are the ones in the wrong here by literally lying about what the law says to make it seem like both Rowling and the Police are in cahoots a part of an establishment plot to actually do the literal opposite of what the law is designed to prevent.

This all also shows quite well that anyone claiming that deliberately misgendering someone on Twitter is in any way a violation of trans rights as they are currently understood in the country Rowling resides in, is talking utter shit. To even describe it as "anti-trans activism" without saying that it can equally be described in that context as "free speech activism" is a blatant breach of neutrality.

Problems like this no doubt plague the entire article.

[rnu]

[...]
In other words, neither Rowling or her critics had any real understanding of the purpose of the law
[...]

People having, and expressing, strong opinions about things they don't understand. I am shocked! "Shocked", I say!

[Vigilant]

[...]
In other words, neither Rowling or her critics had any real understanding of the purpose of the law
[...]

People having, and expressing, strong opinions about things they don't understand. I am shocked! "Shocked", I say!

Even worse, about shit that's none of their god damned business.

[Anroth]

Even worse, about shit that's none of their god damned business.

Well thats the problem. It is indeed, not anyone else's business in the vast majority of cases. The problems are where it very much becomes someone else's business is where it puts someone else at risk of harm. And yes, this is a small amount in the grand scheme of things.

The issue that set Rowling off is a very real and unfortunately serious one (and a personal one for her). Biological women who are at risk from abuse by biological men. The vast majority of trans women (particularly the politically active), they dont consider the biological aspect a problem. Because most of the time it isnt. Except on the rare occasions when it is, it does actual real world physical and mental harm to biological women. So they fear biological men. They dont fear trans people, they fear someone who looks like a woman (and not even 'looks like' is necessary under the attempted Scots laws - self identification) assaulting them in a space they previously considered safe from biological men - and by extension abuse/assault.

That is realistically not an easily solveable problem by legislation. You cant wave your hand and say "I'm a woman too, you dont need to fear me" - thats not how fear and people who have been abused think. And when you force them to, what you are saying is "your very real fears do not matter".

Now add on TOP of that, the issue with lesbians and their pushback against being made to feel ashamed/guilty for not wanting to have relationships with trans women, and we have now reached a point where the trans women community in the UK, particularly in Scotland, is alienated from LGBT groups, women's support groups etc etc.

Eventually I do forsee a point where the straight biological man has to pick a side, and I honestly dont think its going to be the trans-women's one. Pretty much every single biological man in existence knows what it is like to be feared by a woman you dont know, just because of your sex. Every man who has been out late at night and walking peacefully home has seen a woman cross over/speed up because they fear you. And we all understand that while personally its an unjustified fear, its not an irrational one for the woman concerned. There is a risk they are not willing to leave unmitigated because the consequences are too great if they choose wrong. So the more intelligent of us can at least understand the fear, which trans-women (the visible activist ones anyway) have so far not shown any indication they do.

And if you cant even understand the motivation of your opponent, you are not likely to win the fight in the long run without a lot of harm to both sides.

[Vigilant]

As you explain, there's an edge case there.

The VAST majority of 'concerned opinions' held about this are simply garden variety bigotry.

[Anroth]

As you explain, there's an edge case there.

The VAST majority of 'concerned opinions' held about this are simply garden variety bigotry.

Well Scotland still is a very conservative country compared to the rest of the UK, so you could slip 'religious' into that sentence quite easily and not bat an eye.

The issue directly related to Rowling of course is because she is an outspoken survivor of abuse, so its not an edge case for her, and what certain wikipedia editors would like to gloss over and misrepresent is that she has consistently and in detail explained the reasons behind her views, which are neither irrational or bigotry (which is not the same as 'discriminatory'). But yes, statistically unlikely,

Of course the problem with that is statistically unlikely is not the same as never happens. Which is why the sane UK lawmakers have allowed exemptions for discrimination in places like women's shelters etc. This does of course lead to the issue of where does a trans-women abuse victim go for help?

[Elinruby]

As you explain, there's an edge case there.

The VAST majority of 'concerned opinions' held about this are simply garden variety bigotry.

Well Scotland still is a very conservative country compared to the rest of the UK, so you could slip 'religious' into that sentence quite easily and not bat an eye.

The issue directly related to Rowling of course is because she is an outspoken survivor of abuse, so its not an edge case for her, and what certain wikipedia editors would like to gloss over and misrepresent is that she has consistently and in detail explained the reasons behind her views, which are neither irrational or bigotry (which is not the same as 'discriminatory'). But yes, statistically unlikely,

Of course the problem with that is statistically unlikely is not the same as never happens. Which is why the sane UK lawmakers have allowed exemptions for discrimination in places like women's shelters etc. This does of course lead to the issue of where does a trans-women abuse victim go for help?

I just don't see the issue. A woman could also conceivably be abused by another woman. And under law there is no difference, is there? In practice the penalties are weighted against men I am sure, but that's on the theory that there is a disparity in the potential for lethality. A female MMA fighter is probably as dangerous as the average man though, and if the case law doesn't reflect that perhaps it should. I just don't see segregating out someone who defines as female because they have a masculine build unless there is some reason to do, so specific to that person

[Anroth]

I just don't see the issue. A woman could also conceivably be abused by another woman. And under law there is no difference, is there? In practice the penalties are weighted against men I am sure, but that's on the theory that there is a disparity in the potential for lethality. A female MMA fighter is probably as dangerous as the average man though, and if the case law doesn't reflect that perhaps it should. I just don't see segregating out someone who defines as female because they have a masculine build unless there is some reason to do, so specific to that person

Yes and no. Rape is defined (in English/Welsh law unless they have changed it recently, there have been calls to do so because of the exact problem, so without looking it up my knowledge is current as of studying law 10 years ago. No idea on scots law.) as penetrative. So in practice, female-to-female assault will be under a sexual assault rather than 'rape' if there is no penetration (or more cynically, no way to prove it). And there is a sentencing disparity there. Obviously with a trans-woman who is still biologically male, 'rape' can still be comitted. Ultimately what biological wome who fear trans-women fear, is the penis rather than the masculine build. But no one is actually having THAT discussion. And it is largely irrelevant, because they fear and want to prevent the assault from ever taking place, not quibble over how its prosecuted.

In practice the penalties are weighted against men because juries are more likely to believe a man can rape a woman. Where rape is comitted by a woman against a man, there still has to be penetration for it to be 'rape'. Otherwise its sexual assault. And those convictions are even less likely than male-to-female rape, which is hard enough to begin with.

You can see why they have been trying to get the law clarified/changed.

[rnu]

[...]
A female MMA fighter is probably as dangerous as the average man though,
[...]

[Elinruby]

I just don't see the issue. A woman could also conceivably be abused by another woman. And under law there is no difference, is there? In practice the penalties are weighted against men I am sure, but that's on the theory that there is a disparity in the potential for lethality. A female MMA fighter is probably as dangerous as the average man though, and if the case law doesn't reflect that perhaps it should. I just don't see segregating out someone who defines as female because they have a masculine build unless there is some reason to do, so specific to that person

Yes and no. Rape is defined (unless they have changed it recently, there have been calls to do so because of the exact problem, so without looking it up my knowledge is current as of studying law 10 years ago) as penetrative. So in practice, female-to-female assault will be under a sexual assault rather than 'rape' if there is no penetration (or more cynically, no way to prove it). And there is a sentencing disparity there. Obviously with a trans-woman who is still biologically male, 'rape' can still be comitted. Ultimately what biological wome who fear trans-women fear, is the penis rather than the masculine build. But no one is actually having THAT discussion. And it is largely irrelevant, because they fear and want to prevent the assault from ever taking place, not quibble over how its prosecuted.

In practice the penalties are weighted against men because juries are more likely to believe a man can rape a woman. Where rape is comitted by a woman against a man, there still has to be penetration for it to be 'rape'. Otherwise its sexual assault. And those convictions are even less likely than male-to-female rape, which is hard enough to begin with.

You can see why they have been trying to get the law clarified/changed.

Kind of. I didn't realize we were specifically talking about rape. But someone with male genitals who identifies as female does not to my mind seem likely to play the rape power game. I just don't see the problem. A couple of years ago I shared a hostel dorm with a male to female trans for about a week. I found the explosion of false eyelashes and special underwear mildly annoying, but I wasn't afraid of him/her. Where this usually comes up in public discourse is in relation to teen-aged girls, and as an extension of the fear of sexual assault in public restrooms, which is a thing, but it isn't clear to me that women as group specifically fear *trans* women outside of PTA meetings in Arkansas... that said, the same deed should get the same penalty, but I realize this is easily said

[Anroth]

It's not a hypothetical, we already have convictions of Male to female Trans sexual offenders in the UK. Scotland had to rethink their basic prison policy because of it.

[Yngvadottir]

Recent case that was mentioned here, Isla Bryson, although the offences were committed before Bryson came out as trans. Also, not just rape or fear of rape; perverts exist, including cis het perverts, some of whom enjoy cross-dressing. But Jessica Yaniv (T-H-L) is an instructive case who is trans; I learned about her on this forum, there's this 2019 thread and I see other mentions from the same time (I haven't looked for non-public discussions).

Too close to politics for me, so I'll bow out of this now.

[Randy from Boise]

"A database that's built over time and continuously updated."

There you go.

t

[Anroth]

Too close to politics for me, so I'll bow out of this now.

Very much a politics thing I am afraid. The current self-immolation of the Scottish devolved government is in part due to the transgender laws issues. (The other main problem being climate change/environment. Who knew when you are in a power sharing agreement with a green party, that renouncing your green policies would have consequences!)

[rnu]

Unsurprisingly Wikipedia editors are taking the "any form of criticism is inherently illegitimate" stance.