Talk:Vancouver Rape Relief & Women's Shelter

Funding Pulled

@Newimpartial: The source article for this information in fact does not use the term "cisgender women" at all, as you have stated in the editing notes when reverting other user's edits in order to insert that term. It says (copied and pasted from source article):

Canada’s oldest rape crisis centre will see its city funding slashed if does not remove its policy of only serving female-born women. The Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter faced off with city councillors and transgender activists last week over its policy on not accepting trans women into its shelter. The shelter’s services are available to all “born females” who have experienced male violence.

It goes on to use the terms "female-born woman" and "women who are born female" at other points in the article, but never "cisgender women" at all. "Cisgender women" is not used anywhere else in this Wikipedia entry, either, so that couldn't be what you meant when you said it is "the language used in the article".

As it is not used in the source material to describe the affected people in this case, I am at a loss as to why you keep changing the descriptors to one you like better and claiming that's what the article says when it does not. Lilipo25 (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that Global News did not use the term "cisgender women" in its coverage does not change the appropriateness of its use, as the reliably sourced, neutral term in such a case. The news source documents what happened, and we use encyclopedic language to describe what happened, or else we offer attribution ("what news reports referred to as 'female-born women'", for example, or "those the Crisis Centre calls 'born females'"). The latter approach does not seem justified to me in this instance, but that would be the policy-compliant alternative. We do not use controversial, ideologically-laden terms such as "female-born women" or "women-born women" in Wikivoice when we have widely-accepted, more neutral terms available. Newimpartial (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, the edit I originally reverted as "unsourced" stated that the centre's funding was revoked "because of its policy of serving only women" which, to the best of my knowledge, no source has ever suggested. Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You stated in the editing notes that we have to use "cisgender women" because that is what is "used in the article". As it is not used in either the source article or elsewhere in this article, I still have no idea what you were talking about.

If your contention is now that "cisgender women" is the established WP:NPOV "encyclopedic language" or "Wikivoice", please provide the source for that. "Cisgender women" is a very controversial term that is still argued over in numerous places all over Wikipedia. I haven't found where it has been officially deemed by Wikipedia to be either neutral or encyclopedic.

In the meantime, you have reverted other user's edits of it four times already, which is a direct violation of the WP:3RR rule and constitutes edit warring. Please stop. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

3RR is a bright-line rule over 24 hours, and I have respected that rule. In the mean time, User:Lilipo25, you have insisted on your novel wording for the text of the article in flagrant violation of the spirit and the letter of WP:BRD. Also, your statement You stated in the editing notes that we have to use "cisgender women" because that is what is "used in the article" is entirely false; please retract and strikethrough your false assertion. As indicated here, I was responding to a rather broader change the one time I commented on sourcing in this article's edit history, so please don't make assertions about my editing unsupported by diffs. I made my first revert because the edit was unsupported by sources, made my second revert because you made a Bold change that needed to be discussed, and made my third revert because you refused to leave the stable version in place pending discussion. I would suggest that you revert yourself now, at least until someone else supports your bold change to the article. Newimpartial (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as the term "cisgender" is concerned, its use in this article, which is widely watched and edited by both trans-inclusionary and trans-exclusionary feminists, could be seen as paradigmatic. If what would be needed to end this discussion is a better source than Global News, which actually uses the term "cisgender" to describe the Crisis Centre's restrictive practices, then I'm sure one could be found, but this strikes me as an unnecessary effort that policy does not at all require where common sense will do. Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I will not be striking anything through as my statement was correct. You wrote in the editing notes that This is the stable, NPOV language used in the article.Thus far, the only "article" you have provided which used that language (and which you have only now provided after much prompting) is one not used for the information in the entry.

As I am one of three different editors who have already supported the wording of the article that is currently up over the last 48 hours - the other two being @Notanipokay: and @Carbon Caryatid: - and you have reverted all three of us, it is rather disingenuous for you to say that I must revert myself "at least until someone else supports" this wording. It is also disingenuous for you to call it 'your novel wording', when it is in fact the wording the source itself uses for the information. And I really think your use of "bold" here is hyperbole. This is a minor wording change that you dislike and numerous other people prefer. It's not bold editing by a long shot.

Since I can see that you are not one to let something go no matter how small, I will suggest a compromise just to try to end this. How about we change the source to the CTV story https://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-cuts-funding-to-rape-crisis-centre-over-policy-excluding-transgender-women-1.4339524 and make the wording this:

Following complaints from transgender activists, the Vancouver City Council pulled future funding from the organization in March 2019 and ruled that it would only be restored if Vancouver Rape Relief extends all of its services, including housing in its women's crisis shelter, to transgender women. Hilla Kerner of VRR stated that while the staff always makes sure any trans person who asks for their help is safe, "Our core work, our core services and the way we organize, is based on that particular oppression of being born as female. That's why our services are for only for women who are born as female."

Fair? Lilipo25 (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

That text would be fine by me. Of course, when I referred to the "stable, NPOV language used in the article" I was referring to the language used in the WP article; I would not accuse Global News of using NPOV language without good reason. Why you insist that your reading of my Edit summary is correct and that mine - which I have explained three times now - is wrong, is difficult to explain. You also assert that Carbon Caryatid prefers your wording on this issue, but I have not seen any diffs supporting that assertion. The fact remains that a change from "cisgender" to "born female" is both bold and controversial, but clearly the only blind spots for which I can actually be accountable are my own. Newimpartial (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what source you use, User:Lilipo25. If you wish you insert ideologically heavily laden terms that are widely considered transphobic in use into the page because it is in the source material, you need attribute it, as User:Newimpartial dictated above. You can't simply use it because "it's in the source article". Moreover, User:Newimpartial is not the only one that has been editing the bias out of this particular page. I have had this page on watch for quite some time since my original edit to remove what was extremely biased wording. You and two others changing the wording without attribution over the course of a few days does not put you in the right.

As for "cisgender" being "very controversial", the fact that it has its own Wiki page ([1]), and has consensus among the medical and psychiatric communities as being the proper term to refer to those who are not transgender, would seem to dispute your claim. A few trans-exclusionary people arguing about it on Wikipedia doesn't change that. Stix2mallets (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Stix2mallets, your comment to me is heavily laden with personal attacks and offensive assumptions about me and other editors. You can disagree with the editing. You may not make slanderous statements about us being "trans-exclusionary" or leap to any other conclusions about our personal lives or beliefs. I dispute that "cisgender" has "consensus among the medical and psychiatric communities as being the proper term" or that "born female" is in any way transphobic, but that is neither here nor there. I will change the article to the wording and source that Newimpartial has agreed to, and I will ask politely, once, that you refrain from any further slander on me or other editors. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

digression

Why is it that editors who are quick to make (and slow to retract) faulty interpretations of other editors are the ones most likely to accuse others of "offensive assumptions"? In any case, anyone who would question publicly whether the term "'born female' is in any way transphobic" is clearly not very good at listening to trans people, and should probably learn to embrace the term "trans-exclusionary" since they are, objectively, engaged in suppressing or excluding trans perspectives. That isn't an "offensive assumption", it is a simple reality-based observation. Newimpartial (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Thank you, Newimpartial. Stix2mallets (talk) Sam 01:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC) User:Lilipo25 My statement regarding trans-exclusionary people was in reference to both your and Newimpartial's comments about the disputed nature of the term "cisgender" amongst those on Wikipedia. Newimpartial used "trans-exclusionary" as well. If you wish to infer any "slander" or "conclusions about our personal lives or beliefs" on my part for using that term, that's not on me. My statement was not directed at you, specifically. Further, you can dispute that cisgender has consensus all you want. That doesn't make you right. And as for "born female", it is absolutely transphobic. This is coming from a trans person. Cis people like yourself do not get to dictate what is or isn't transphobic. So I will ask politely, once, that you refrain from inserting what is clearly, in your own words, a personal belief, into your editing. Stix2mallets (talk) Sam 01:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not relevant whether the sources here use the term "cisgender" or not; this is a matter of Wikipedia's style guide, determined by what is globally most popular amongst contemporary reliable sources and style guides. (Consider for instance why we would still use a modern term over an archaic word when writing about a historical topic, even if most sources about that topic are historical so use the old term.) In that manner, the term "cisgender" is perfectly fine to use in Wikipedia's voice on this article, as it is elsewhere, if it's just a simple rephrasing of a fact verified by the given source.

I object to the current text's unverified assertion that the council removed funding because of complaints from transgender activists. The given source provides the reason as, "To receive city funding, they need to be serving all women, and that includes trans women", and we should instead use this quote in the article (attributed to Boyle). — Bilorv (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I had forgotten that I made this comment, and I've now changed the article to conform to WP:V as there were no objections. While I'm here, given that the body of the article has five paragraphs and three of them are not summarised in the lead, violating MOS:LEAD, that we add to the lead the following text:

A 1995 tribunal found in favour of a woman who was rejected from the shelter's training programme because she was transgender, but this decision was overturned in 2005. Funding was withdrawn from the shelter in 2019 due to its policy of denying trans people access to its resources.

— Bilorv (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Targetted

Please note this page has been nominated for editing by individuals who believe VPP to be a hate group. https://archive.is/KC1qP Adhib (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)