Talk:LGB Alliance: Difference between revisions

This page is not a forum for general discussion about LGB Alliance. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about LGB Alliance at the Reference desk.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 January 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is of interest to the following Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBT studies Start‑class

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Please see Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 6#RFC on opening sentence, where adding "hate group" as a descriptor in the lead was question 2. ... The first part of the RfC found clear consensus on describing the subject as an "advocacy group" in the opening sentence as a neutral term. The second part also found clear consensus against describing the subject as a "hate group" in the opening sentence.

Wikipedia has an objective to make the most informative statements that adhere to objectivity to serve the public civil purpose of contributing to knowledge. While statements can never be completely neutral, they are clear categorisations that we have established in the current literature and should adhere to them when discussing matters of public interest.

The LGB alliance is opposed to protecting the category of gender identity, and is publicly promoting the gatekeeping of medical resources for gender-affirming care and supports conversion therapy for trans people, and is considered transphobic by major human rights organisations and activists . I would like to bring attention to the editors the current wikipedia definition of hate group that includes discrimination against members of a certain nation, race or gender identity. The part of gender identity here is crucial. Thus, it seems imperative to correctly identity the LGB alliance as a hate group, rather than a campaign group. This is to be objective and neutral, rather than integrate biased views of the transgender population in editing practice. The other option to resolve this contradiction would be to edit the wikipedia entry of what constitutes a hate group, as it currently includes hate against people based on gender identity.

Proposed minor edit:

From:

The LGB Alliance is a campaign group founded in the UK in 2019, in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues.

To:

The LGB Alliance is a hate group founded in the UK in 2019, in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues.

OR

The LGB Alliance is a campaign hate group founded in the UK in 2019, in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ObjectiveBiology (talk • contribs) 14:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 6#RFC on opening sentence, where adding hate group as a descriptor in the lead was question 2. You'd need some strong sources that support calling the LGBA a hate group, and another RfC before it could be added. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just came here to do this. I think I'm going to pin this on this page. Thanks for linking it. -

☼ 20:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

> current wikipedia definition of hate group that includes discrimination against members of a certain nation, race or gender identity.

People discuss removing protection for religious beliefs and/or rolling them into a broader protection of personal beliefs. That isn't hate speech, it's a reasonable discussion of the specifics of laws required to protect the most people. Even if you are correct that the LGBA wants to remove or prevent gender-specific protections, your suggestion that this is from "hate", this wouldn't be an action that hurts anyone - it'd be a protected political opinion about the proper scope of protected categories.

This, and other panicked calls for action here and and in other articles, are generally because we refuse to actually quote the subject's words (LGBA here) in criticisms. So many of the "reliable sources" in this topic refuse to actually examine what was said and aren't, in all honesty, reliable at all. If they can't quote someone in context then they don't deserve to even be referenced, let alone in a meta-call for Wikipedia itself to explicitly label people a hate group. InverseZebra (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hashimashadoo has removed the phrase term "far-right" from "In August 2022, the Global Project against Hate and Extremism released a report in which it classified LGB Alliance Ireland as a far-right anti-transgender hate group." I believe this is because they're interpreting the report title of "Irish Far-right Hate and Extremist Groups" to mean it covers "Far-right Hate" groups and also "Extremist" groups and so don't think that all the groups covered by it are being stated to be far-right. This seems a misreading of the report and Irish Times article to me. Both sources says that the report is in a series "covering far-right movements" and repeatedly use the terms "far-right extremism" and "far-right extremist" when describing what the report covers. The GPAHE's description of the report at https://globalextremism.org/post/release-ireland-report/ is that it covers "12 far-right groups in Ireland". There are only 12 groups in the report, so they must mean they consider all 12 far-right, including LGB Alliance.

Any opinions on this? JaggedHamster (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a quote from the source/s which actually says that LGB Alliance is far-right. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already provided quotes for this. If a report is entirely about far-right groups, which the GPAHE say it is, it doesn't then need to say in the individual entry for each group "This group is far-right" in order for it to be labelling the group as far-right. Anyway, I've found an additional reliable source that directly states that the report is labelling them as far-right, so have updated the article to include it. JaggedHamster (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't provided any quote saying that LGB Alliance Ireland is far-right, and I can't find any such quote in the texts of any of the sources which supposedly support your statement. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in a list of far-right groups is an assertion (by the author/publisher) that a group is far right. It doesn't have to be stated in the form of a sentence. Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being purposefully disingenuous, Sweet6970? The group's report is on what they classify as "far-right extremist hate groups" and they include LGB Alliance in that list of such groups. If you can't understand that, then I have to question your competency with the English language. Silverseren^C 18:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

to Newimpartial: the list is of ‘far-right’ and ‘extremist’ groups. I repeat: I cannot find anything in the sources saying that LGB Alliance Ireland is a far-right group.

to Silver seren: No, I am not being disingenuous: I am being careful and cautious with the sources. And the only people who have ever questioned my competence with the English language have been editors on Wikipedia who disagree with me on a content matter. Please stick to the point.

As I said above, the list is of ‘far-right’ and ‘extremist’ groups. These are different things. I gather that in the USA, some people regard advocacy for homosexual rights as far-left extremism. The fact that some people regard advocacy for homosexual rights as extremist doesn’t mean that advocacy for homosexual rights is far-right. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the original report from GPAHE nor the secondary source provided by JaggedHamster supports the distinction you are making, which seems to be entirely

original. Both sources support the interpretation that all the listed groups are "far right", as is shown for example in the sentence (second paragraph) The report, Irish Far-right Hate and Extremist Groups, details 12 far-right groups in Ireland, of which the LGB Alliance is one. All the groups are far right, and they may be hate groups and/or extremist groups, depending on the context. Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed with JaggedHamster here: while it might not be clear from the title of the report alone, it's clear from the secondary material. Loki (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained to JaggedHamster in the edit logs, in reading the actual GPAHE report (https://globalextremism.org/ireland/), rather than just the summary, there are no allusions made that LGBAlliance Ireland is politically affiliated with the far-right in any way, shape, or form, whereas in describing other orgs, they do make that affiliation fairly clear. I cannot find a single secondary source that describes members of this particular org as far-right, except for Pink News, which directly references and misinterprets the GPAHE summary in the exact same way that JaggedHamster has, and individuals quoting that Pink News article. In fact, in that Pink News article (https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/08/23/lgb-alliance-far-right-extremist-group-gpahe/), they point out that far-right hate groups in Ireland sprang up in direct response to Irish marriage equality legislation in 2015 - which is something that, despite LGBA's abhorrent views on trans people, the LGBA actually supports. Hashimashadoo (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional sources:

- https://www.irishcentral.com/news/ireland-far-right-hate-extremist-groups - somewhat tabloidy but is used in other articles as a source, says "The Irish Far-right Hate and Extremist Groups report details 12 far-right groups in Ireland"

- https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/christian-group-iona-institute-branded-extremist-and-hateful-considers-legal-action-c8rhzp8gx - includes a quote from the "National Women’s Council of Ireland" saying the “report identifies at least 12 far-right groups. Eight are categorised as anti-immigrant, four as white nationalist and eight as anti-LGBTQ+ or specifically anti-trans.”

- https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-40947116.html - opinion piece disagreeing with the report but which says "LGB Alliance Ireland take issue with theories around gender dysphoria, and as a result they are labelled in this report as transphobic and by extension a far-right group."

I'm not opposed to including content in the article, with appropriate sourcing, saying that some people/orgs disagree with the report classifying LGB Alliance as far-right, but I think it's clear that sources regard the report as calling all the organisations in it far-right, and that's what the article needs to reflect.

"Pink News, which directly references and misinterprets the GPAHE summary..." - It may be your opinion that they are misinterpreting it, but that is not relevant when it comes to what we include in the article unless you have a reliable source saying they are misinterpreting it, otherwise we need to go with them over your opinion. JaggedHamster (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional sources. The Irish Examiner article that you link to very much illustrates my point though. Transphobia is not an intrinsically far-right issue, and calling them a far-right group by dint of being transphobic is fallacious. While it's true that the far-right are responsible for the majority of transphobia in the world, it far from unique to them - many Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists and their related groups are clearly left wing in nature, while still being bigoted. When citing a report, we should be actually citing the content of the report, not a summary of the report which could be generalising the report's content for summation's sake. The report itself does not, in any way, describe LGBA Ireland as a far-right group. Hashimashadoo (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you about whether the report says they are a far-right group but that isn't important here one way or the other, our individual opinions as editors interpreting the primary source aren't a basis for the article, we need to use what reliable secondary sources say.

It would be useful to have a read of

WP:PST

, which starts "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

(I think you're also conflating two separate points here, which is whether the report calls them far-right, and whether they actually are far-right. The text we're discussing is "In August 2022, the Global Project against Hate and Extremism released a report in which it classified LGB Alliance Ireland as a far-right anti-transgender hate group." It is fully possible to disagree with the report classifying them as far-right, as the Irish Examiner opinion piece does. That doesn't mean that's not how the report classifies them.) JaggedHamster (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're entirely missing *my* point, where the *report itself* doesn't call them far-right, but the *summary of the report* lumps them in with groups that are purely for the sake of summation. Hashimashadoo (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing that we use editors' own interpretations of primary sources to overrule the secondary sources, then? Newimpartial (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm merely saying that primary sources trump secondary ones - as is the case in all historical research. Hashimashadoo (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not engaged in historical research. Primary sources do not trump secondary ones, here. Please see

WP:SECONDARY. Newimpartial (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in 2019 to exclude

LGBT Movements and to oppose the transgender rights movement

.

The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in 2019 in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues.

Obviously the high amount of attention to this organization is for one reason only: it "seeks to exclude

I am aware of previous discussions such as the one at Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_6#RFC_on_opening_sentence. In this and other discussions I see various commentators saying that something is in error, but not identifying what it is. The error is failure to say what the organization does. I think this is it.

Does anyone here think I am mistaken in my interpretation of the consensus of the sources? Speak up! Bluerasberry (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC) s[reply]

"Exclude transgender people from LGBT Movements" is a nonsensical phrase; if the movements are defined with the "T" in them, they don't exclude them obviously. Forming an organization focusing on the "LGB" part of the acronym is merely stating the purpose of this particular organization, not excluding anybody from other parts of the greater movement, any more than organizations like Mermaids focusing on the "T" are excluding LGB from the movement. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the reliable sources seem to disagree with your reasoning about this. Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then they probably aren't very reliable. It's an editor's job to call out obviously incorrect sources, regardless of their reputation, and contradicting basic logic is pretty damning. It's a shame that reliable-source status is so badly gamed right now.

This is why not having a subjects words in their article is actually anti-encyclopedic, because it makes the encyclopedia so easy to manipulate. From a cursory examination of LGBA's homepage (https://lgballiance.org.uk/) they only use LGB and no other variation. InverseZebra (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry, I think your interpretation of the sources is very much accurate and dislike the framing of the lead sentence as well. Loki (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What sources support "exclude transgender people from LGBT Movements"? As far as I can tell they thought Stonewall, specifically, should have stayed LGB, and now think of themselves as an LGB movement, as a separate matter from other groups that are LGBT (or even basically just T). Crossroads ^-talk- 06:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree "Exclude transgender people from LGBT Movements" is confusing as a phrase, but the current wording is a bit vague about what they opposed. Instead of "...in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues." maybe something like "...in opposition to the extension of the charity Stonewall's focus from LGB rights to LGBT ones"?. JaggedHamster (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Gay rights group was set up ‘to promote transphobic activity’, court told" - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/12/gay-rights-group-was-set-up-to-promote-transphobic-activity-court-told Selfisekai (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

‘Court told’ i.e. this is an allegation made by one side in a legal case. Therefore, it is not a suitable source. Wait until the case has been completely heard, and there has been a judgment. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the general gist of your proposed change but believe it could be better phrased along the lines of: The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group known for its opposition to the transgender rights movement and the belief that there is a "conflict between trans rights and the rights of [ cisgender ] LGB people". Primarily because their anti-trans advocacy should be the lead and that they attempt to separate trans people from cisgender LGB people is a part of that rather than the other way around.

Some scholarly sources to help plead the case:

Webster 2022: most recently, such public conflicts at the intersection of transgender and lesbian identities have manifested in movements and organizations specifically intended to separate sexual identities from gender identities (e.g., the British charity and advocacy group LGB Alliance).

Monque 2021: TERFs are not feminists, because they actively endorse the oppression of trans women (and sometimes other gender groups). Worryingly, some trans-exclusionary LGB movements have begun to form around TERF ideology (for example, the LGB Alliance in the United Kingdom and the Red LGB movement in Spain).

Simon 2021: LGB Alliance was founded in 2019 to oppose LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall's pro-transgender inclusion policies. LGB Alliance’s text (n.d.) is their official statement of their position against the GRA reform, in which they claim allowing people to self-identify “would spread confusion and would inevitably be a threat to our rights” and that there is a “conflict between trans rights and the rights of LGB people” which has “been exacerbated because of a radical change in the demands of trans people”. (Emphasis added)

Mackay 2021: These issues are taken up by the UK anti-trans-inclusion organizations like Get The L Out, Lesbian Rights Alliance and the LGB Alliance, for example, which I mentioned earlier in this chapter.

I'd also like to point out that here, admittedly in an opinion piece, the author states The plan to separate trans people from their feminist and LGB allies was initially conceived shortly after the Supreme Court made marriage equality the law of the land in 2015. A key document developed by the anti-LGBT group Family Research Council signaled the anti-queer movement’s effort to “drop the T” from the LGBTQ acronym. Since then, a British group called the LGB Alliance, which pushes an exclusively anti-trans message while claiming to be a charity for lesbian and gay people, has popped up and even received charity status in the U.K. That seperating the T from LGB is a far-right tactic is covered by the Southern Poverty Law Center in more detail here

At the risk of opening another can of worms, if someone collects the sources we could describe them as anti-trans in the lead.

talk) 14:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You reference Monque 2021 which is clearly an opinion piece, not factual, as it claims a specific view of feminism is incorrect which is obviously not a fact-based statement.

> TERFs are not feminists

Also, to use "TERF" correctly they'd need to establish that these people identify as feminists at all, let alone they have radical (academic meaning) beliefs. Using it the way they do is clearly a slur as much as any directed at transfolk and should show how "reliable" they are as a source.

You then reference Simon 2021 but it does not say what you say it does, despite you bolding it.

> there is a “conflict between trans rights and the rights of LGB people”

Your source doesn't claim they are opposing trans rights, only that they say "Stonewall's pro-transgender inclusion policies" conflict with homosexual rights. If there is a conflict then they're pretty clearly allowed to advocate for their rights.

Why isn't it enough to say "The LGBA opposes trans-inclusive policies because it feels they conflict with LGB rights"? Why advocate for poorly-supported straw men? InverseZebra (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the correct wording is for the first parapgraph but I also think the present wording is not an accurate description of who they are, just who they say they are. To repeat what I said in an earlier discussion I don't think that taking the LGB Alliance's website at face value is sensible. Like other groups that are considered by some to be a hate group what they say on their website and what they do are quite different. One example from their website; "We fully support trans people in their struggle, for dignity, respect and a life lived free from bigotry and fear.", this is not present in their opposition to making conversion therapy for trans people illegal in the UK.

What are the rules around this and where has this kind of issue come up before and been resolved well?

John Cummings (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has a source saying that LGB Alliance was founded to exclude transgender people from LGBT Movements and to oppose the transgender rights movement then they should (a) direct us to the source, and the quote saying this, and (b) explain what this could possibly mean. How could any organisation ‘exclude transgender people from LGBT movements’? The wording proposed by Bluerasberry, and inserted by them without gaining consensus for it, is nonsensical and is not supported by the body of the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I put a notice of this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#LGB_Alliance and also messaged Wiki LGBT+ groups in other channels. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you put a notice with a very biased statement, "This is a transphobic hate group." Not "This has been alleged to be a transphobic hate group", or even "I believe this to be a transphobic hate group", but simply stating it as if it's an indisputable fact. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unambiguously a transphobic hate group The weight of the sources establish that the mainsteam LGBT+ community including almost everyone considers this organization to be a transphobic hate group. There is nothing controversial about saying that. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to name a single thing they've campaigned for that isn't transphobic. Considering literally all of their activism is centered around attacking the rights of trans people, and the majority of their press coverage covers that, they're matter of factly a transphobic hate group.

Not to mention, while they're mostly a transphobic hate group, they're homophobic as well. See their positions on LGBT clubs in schools, gay marriage, or even their repeated assumption that transgender people can't be LGB, an old homophobic and transphobic position.

talk) 14:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

JaggedHamster has suggested (11:42, 4 October 2022) as an alternative wording: in opposition to the extension of the charity Stonewall's focus from LGB rights to LGBT ones. Something along these lines makes better sense than the wording which has been promoted by Bluerasberry. Is there any general support for JaggedHamster’s proposal, or anything similar? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "extension … from LGB rights to LGBT ones" implies that Stonewall was previously LGB-only and is now adding trans-rights issues to their focus. That is simply not true — while Stonewall used to be criticised for paying insufficient attention to trans people's concerns, they have always claimed to represent the LGBTQ+ community more generally.

ping}} me in replies) 15:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The terminology Stonewall use at https://www.stonewall.org.uk/our-work/campaigns/2015-stonewall-extends-remit-become-lgbt-charity-and-begins-journey-trans is that they extended their remit in 2015 to become a LGBT charity, would that be a better choice of words? Or https://www.stonewall.org.uk/vision-change has it as extending their "remit to campaign for trans equality alongside lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) equality"? JaggedHamster (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the change was in 2015 and this group didn't form until 2019, I wonder if the wording should be a bit less suggestive of a change in Stonewall's mandate being the proximate cause of the rift. Maybe something like ...formed in 2019 in opposition to the LGBT charity Stonewall's advocacy for trans rights.--Trystan (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this looks good to me. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I oppose. The word "founding" should not be in the first sentence, nor should mention of Stonewall. The origin story is much less important than what the organization actually does. Find a wording that presents the consensus view of this organization's activities. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't support the suggested phrasing "The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group known for its opposition to the transgender rights movement and the belief that there is a "conflict between trans rights and the rights of [ cisgender ] LGB people". It has the same issue as the existing introduction, it talks about why the say they were set up (taking their claims at face value), not what they actually do. What is an established process to review the existing reliable sources to come up with a definition? John Cummings (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further proposals

Previous ideas are insufficient for failure to state what the organization does. Here is one option -

• The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group which opposes the transgender rights movement.

Who has other ideas? If you oppose stating what the organization does, then explain why. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal for the lead paragraph is the following. It covers both the specific origin, which I think is important context, and has a clear emphasis on the details of their mandate. I don't find the current article's list of founders (only one of whom has an article) meaningful info this early on in the article, so I have left it out.

The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 in opposition to

transition for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform.--Trystan (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Trystan: Would you be willing to reverse the order of your first and second sentences? I oppose emphasis on the brief time of the organization's founding and defining it in terms of another organization which Wikipedia's international readership is unlikely to recognize. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would find it much harder to mentally digest in the reverse order. Explaining they broke away from an LGBT group over trans rights gives context for the list of stances.--Trystan (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think that their origin story is not really lead-worthy, certainly not in the very first sentence. It doesn't receive a lot of weight in the article itself, which is instead focused heavily on their activism, which is by far the main thing they're notable for. So therefore I propose:

The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 to oppose

transgender rights. They advocate against gender identity education in schools, a ban on conversion therapy for trans people in the UK, medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform. Loki (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

This version seems the best suggested so far. However, I think we should somehow include the fact they frame their opposition in terms of a (nonexistent) conflict between the rights of cisgender LGB people and trans people, followed by criticism of that position from relevant sources.

talk) 14:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia needs to be careful to state the views of LGBA and its critics without taking a position on whose views are true or false, existent or nonexistent. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your preference here does not reflect Wikipedia policy - articles are to reflect the facts and conventional interpretations stated in independent, reliable sources - FALSEBALANCE is not ok where it departs from consensus reality. Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are other proposals which have been made - these are immediately above this section. It is confusing to have 2 discussions going on at once. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:REFACTOR this section I started. Delete move rearrange in whatever way makes sense. In the end I suppose a list of options and a selection process would be ideal. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

 Comment:, please can suggesters link to the sources that support their suggested sentences, this will make it easier to see that they're supported by sources. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should really just be summarizing the sourced material already in the article. Sources in the lead are the exception rather than the rule.--Trystan (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the sourced material already in the article already gives a very strong impression that the LGB Alliance are in fact transphobic generally, and don't just oppose Stonewall specifically. Loki (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 that takes the position that a conflict exists between those who are
  bisexual, and those who are transgender, and advocates for the LGB side of such conflicts. They were formed in opposition to LGBT charity Stonewall's transgender focus. (Sources: [1] [2]) *Dan T.* (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  This version doesn't reflect what the majority of sources say. Two sources from the Times, a paper that's notoriously anti-trans in its coverage, doesn't override the rest of the sources. Not to mention, they don't advocate for the LGB side of such conflicts, they say they do that, there's a big difference (since reality shows LGBT people have been fighting side by side for decades and transgender rights aren't at all in conflict with LGB rights whatsoever. Cisgender LGB rights I add, since people seem to keep conveniently forgetting trans people can also be LGB). They weren't founded in oppositon to Stonewall's transgender focus, but the fact they advocate for trans people at all.

  talk) 14:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That's your opinion. Your opinion or mine don't matter here, but LGBA does have the (reliably sourced) opinion that such a conflict does exist, so that (stated as what LGBA believes, not as an objective fact) should go in the intro. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Secondary sources trump primary sources, dawg. Random FRINGE beliefs do not belong in the lede where they are not consistently reported in secondary sources, per

  WP:BALANCE. Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  When it's an article about a specific organization, the beliefs of that organization are relevant, whether "fringe" or not. Apparently the Flat Earth Society isn't notable enough to have its own article (there is one for a band of that name, however), but if it did I'd expect its lede to state its beliefs, however wacky they might be. I see the ledes for Mermaids (charity) and Stonewall (charity) state the purposes and activities of those organizations succinctly, without reference to what critics say, and largely sourced from those groups' own websites. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's a secondary source quoting a founder of LGBA as saying it was founded to "prevent the dissemination of the lie of gender identity". [3] Is that better? *Dan T.* (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps, "to promote its view that gender identity is a lie" or "to promote its view that gender identity is a pernicious ideology", if you'd allow the paraphrase. Newimpartial (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Dan T. Also I don't see any evidence that scepticism about gender identity is a "fringe" view. Reading the coverage in a variety of media, it seems to me pretty mainstream. For instance in The Guardian there have been articles both for and against that view. And some quite respectable public figures, not only right-wing reactionaries, have shared that sceptical opinion. When several notable women (Joanna Cherry MP, JK Rowling) and gay men (Matthew Parris) say they don't agree with the Stonewall line on this matter, Wikipedia should give fair representation to that position. Alarics (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While I understand that some WP editors believe that gender identity is a lie, this view is unsupported by the wide consensus of reliable sources in the relevant fields and is therefore

  WP:RSOPINION sources and I see no reason why this topic would be different: no matter how many WP editors happen to take a view at odds with scientific consensus. Newimpartial (talk

  )

If we have to change it then let's just go with Bluerasberry's suggestion at the beginning. Succinct, and seems quite accurate and well-sourced, as well as unlikely to be as controversial as alternatives. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree – the wording proposed by Bluerasberry (The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group which opposes the transgender rights movement) is very similar to the argument that it should not be a charity, because it is supposedly campaigning against transgender rights, rather than for the interests of LGB people. So this wording would make Wikipedia agree with Mermaids’ side of the current legal dispute.

The current wording is better than any of the new wordings which have been proposed. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If most reliable sources support the claim that they oppose the trans rights movement, we write as much. If that makes the LGB Alliance look bad, that's their problem, not ours. Madeline (part of me) 11:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

to Madeline: being in opposition to Stonewall’s policies on transgender issues is not the same as being opposed to transgender rights. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, which is why I predicated my claim with If most reliable sources support the claim…. I was simply rebuking the point expressed in the post I replied to, that using the wording would break NPOV regardless of sourcing. Madeline (part of me) 12:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

to Madeline: The inf in the article is not that RSs support the claim that LGBA is anti-trans, but that various people have said that it is anti-trans. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet6790, you offer a strangely backwards argument. If the RS on this matter present a reality that is aligned with the situation that has prompted the Charity Commission hearings, we are not supposed to present that reality in Wikivoice? That doesn't sound like WP policy... Newimpartial (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

to Newimpartial: You refer to ‘the situation that has prompted the Charity Commission hearings’. But it wasn’t a ‘situation’ which ‘prompted’ the Charity Commission case. It was Mermaids which instigated the case against LGB Alliance. The proposed wording which I quoted just gives Mermaids’ view. It is perfectly possible that LGB Alliance will win the case – we don’t know the outcome at present, and in fact the hearing has been adjourned, so it will be some time before we know the decision. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the language in question doesn't say anything about what the Charity Commission will decide - it talks about what the organization actually does. The sources supporting this statement are not primarily making attributed statements, "Mermaids says that the Alliance does X", but rather factual statements in their own voice, "the Alliance does/is X". The sourcing on "the other side" that would require an attributed statement in our article doesn't seem to exist, or if it does, it certainly hasn't been presented here. Your argument that we can't present what the RS say about the Alliance - not about the outcome of the Charity Commission case, but about the documented activity of the Alliance - unless there is a ruling against the Alliance in the case - well, I am unaware of any support for that (seemingly odd) position in terms of WP policy. Are some thought police censors being employed here that I don't know about? Newimpartial (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct me to the RSs which say in their own voice ‘the Alliance does X’, and exactly what they say the Alliance does.

I don’t understand your reference to ‘censors’, but I don’t suggest you explain, because I think this would bring us into

WP:NOTFORUM territory. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The best, most up to date source I could find says:

LGB Alliance claims its purpose is to see “lesbians, gay men and bisexuals living free from discrimination or disadvantage based on their sexual orientation”. But ever since its inception, the organisation has campaigned to erode trans rights and paint the trans community as dangerous to women and children....Over the following months, the group targeted the census for asking respondents to list their “sex registered at birth”, inclusive sex and relationships education in schools, and reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) to make legal recognition easier for trans people.

I think that's a pretty clear statement that 'the Alliance does X', where 'X' is campaigned to erode trans rights and paint the trans community as dangerous to women and children. Newimpartial (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is PinkNews really the best source on this? We don't have a scholarly source, general media, none of that? Crossroads ^-talk- 22:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any consensus that general media sources are preferable to PinkNews in this context. Of course scholarly sources are preferable. Newimpartial (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PinkNews is an obviously biased source, and the article quoted is more of an opinion piece than a factual news report. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence for either element of that assertion. Newimpartial (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's turn it around. Is it your position that PinkNews is not a biased source, and that the above quoted article does not express opinion? Crossroads ^-talk- 02:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that article in particular, I don't see any statement that would qualify as the writer's (or the publication's) opinion, as opposed to factual reporting. Newimpartial (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please answer the first part of my question as well. Whether we agree PinkNews is

biased or not would help in future discussions... Crossroads ^-talk- 02:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not aware of any sources on this article's topic that are free from at least the potential for bias; PinkNews strikes me as less biased than most of the sources currently used in the article.

WP:BIASEDSOURCES reminds us: When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. In terms of those criteria in particular, I think PinkNews stands up well as an Independent, Reliable source on this article's topic. Newimpartial (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

PinkNews is listed as a reliable source for factual reporting in the list of Wikipedia perennial sources: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#PinkNews. No sources are entirely free from biases. That is why it may be good to attribute statements and provide readers with all relevant views from the reliable sources available. Hist9600 (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Founded in Britain, now international?

The article now lists chapters in Ireland, Iceland, Australia, and I have a source for a new one in Vermont. Wouldn't it be more apt to open with saying the group is International, founded in the UK (or specific UK country), with several chapters worldwide? -

While some of the international offshoots are real, others seem to be little more than Twitter accounts. (There are also a lot of other Twitter accounts that may be genuine attempts to start a group or just be astroturfing or parodies.) The LGBA doesn't claim direct affiliation with any of them, even the ones listed on their website. That is why the "International groups" section is carefully worded as it is. I'd be inclined to leave it as it is. If any of the other offshoot groups have any actual activities, covered by reliable sources, then they can be added to the section. The main thing is that we let our readers know that there are some other groups and I think we already have that adequately covered. DanielRigal (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of proposals

I think this is everything proposed above. Did I miss any, or does anyone have further proposals?

1. The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in 2019...
   1. in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues.
   2. to exclude
      LGBT Movements and to oppose the transgender rights movement
      .
   3. in opposition to the extension of the charity Stonewall's focus from LGB rights to LGBT ones
   4. to promote its view that gender identity is a "lie
   5. to promote its view that gender identity is a pernicious ideology
2. The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group known for its opposition to the transgender rights movement and the belief that there is a conflict between trans rights and the rights of cisgender LGB people.
3. The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group which opposes the transgender rights movement.
4. The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 in opposition to
   transition for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition
   reform.
5. The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 to oppose
   transgender rights. They advocate against gender identity education in schools, a ban on conversion therapy for trans people in the UK, medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform
   .

Does anyone see a way to get consensus here, or should we do an RfC? Ideas for what's next? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support a mixture of 4 and 5, with the first sentence reading The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group formed in 2019 to oppose

talk) 20:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I support 1(1) i.e. The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in 2019 in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues. This is the current wording. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Bluerasberry for supporting this discussion.

I don't think that 1 is sufficient, again it just talks about their history and who they say they are, not what they actually do, I don't think that any of these options are incorrect, just what we chose to emphasise. I agree with the above comment about clarifying they are against the rights themselves, not the movement. My suggestion would be to leave the founding information until after a description of what they actually do:

• The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group which opposes
  gender affirming care including puberty blockers for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform. It was founded in 2019 in opposition to LGBT charity Stonewall
  's support for transgender rights.

John Cummings (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like 1.2, 2, 3, 5, and TheTranarchist's mix of 4 and 5. These are all pretty direct about their actual agenda and don't get bogged down in their history. If I had to support one over the others, I'd say I like 2 best, because I think saying they're "known for" opposing transgender rights is a little easier to get from the current sources than saying they were founded specifically to oppose transgender rights. Loki (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like 3 or 5. And I honestly think Stonewall should not be mentioned in the first sentence. The founding circumstances of an organization may seem extremely important to its supporters but as time goes on it becomes less and less relevant, and is not the main thing that defines it anymore. After all, any political party or movement started off as a very small local reaction to some other existing thing, but we don't make it defining. --Dan Carkner (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4 or 5 are good or John Cummings version. The more descriptive options are better in general. Silverseren^C 16:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far it's very much seeming like 5 is the option with the most support. We currently have 3 or 4 people (depending on how you count TheTranarchist's proposal) supporting something including 5, with only two people supporting something else. Loki (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any source which actually supports {{tq| ..formed…to oppose transgender rights…’? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2 seems best of these possibilities, more neutral and is more informative. It needs support from sources though. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Due to ongoing edit warring and the controversial nature of the dispute above, I have

It seems like the previous edit war over the lede returned after the full protection expired. I'd greatly appreciate if all involved editors avoided changing the lede from its previous status quo while discussion is ongoing in the talk page. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: This article is about the British organisation. Your edit which makes it say The LGB Alliance in Ireland has been listed among far-right extremist groups by the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism is making the article say that LGB Alliance Ireland is part of the British organisation. It is clear that this is not the case, per the section International groups lower down the article. Please do not make edits which contradict the sources, and which cause the article to not make sense. You should self-revert, and in any event, you should have raised this matter on the Talk page, instead of reverting Crossroads and myself. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you and Crossroads raised entirely different concerns (neither of which is valid in context). As to your claim that this article's scope is limited to the UK group, that view has not had consensus for some time - the main concern raised in the most recent discussion of this was that the article not give a misleading impression of actual existence to "chapters" that might consist of a single Twitter account. The status quo text on this was misleading, so I have made appropriate adjustments, and have also (I hope) removed any impression left by the first paragraph that the Irish group is part of the UK organisation. Newimpartial (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you and Crossroads raised entirely different concerns… For heaven’s sake, Newimpartial – did you not read Crossroads’ edit summary? – Revert, WP:UNDUE in lead. Refers only to Ireland offshoot; also the group making this claim appears to be non-notable and by two researchers who left the SPLC (why?). Unclear if they are reliable or their opinion is noteworthy. We both raise the concern that the ref only refers to ‘the Ireland offshoot’.

And I agree with Crossroads that your addition is UNDUE for the lead.

You have now made various references to the UK. I don’t wish to get involved in discussions of Irish politics, but Northern Ireland is legally part of the UK. ‘Ireland’ may refer to the whole island, or it may, and very commonly does, refer only to the Republic. So it is now unclear whether Wikipedia is saying that LGB Ireland is part of the ‘UK’ organisation.

And I don’t agree with your change in the wording of ‘International groups’ from ‘similar’ to ‘shared’. This is an overstatement, and I prefer the wording by DanielRigal.

Sweet6970 (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to split hairs, but you were claiming that LGB Alliance Ireland is out of scope for this article; this was not one of the issues Crossroads raised.

Also, the only information we actually have about the relationship between the UK LGB Alliance and LGB Alliance Ireland must be either from RS or ABOUTSELF sources. The UK group links it among the other international groups, and the NGO lists it alongside other hate groups operating in Ireland. If you think any text in this article wades into Northern Irish politics or makes any assertions about the (rather opaque) structure of the Alliance that the article does not support.

Incidentially, the "British" that I removed from the lead sentence was unsupported by sources, as far as I know, and implied that the scope of the original UK campaign group excluded Northern Ireland - if you have any evidence supporting that, I would very much like to see it. Newimpartial (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you’re certainly not splitting hairs – you are claiming I said something I didn’t say. My edit summary was It does not make sense to say ‘ It has been listed among far-right extremist groups in Ireland….’ when the article is about the British organisation. The previous wording is correct. The article used to start: The LGB Alliance is a British campaign group founded in 2019 in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues. i.e. the subject of the article is the British organisation. I have accepted the addition of the section on International groups, but that doesn’t alter the fact that the article is about the British organisation.

As regards the organisation being British – the company is registered as a limited company with the Registrar of Companies for England & Wales. Similarly, it is registered as a charity with the Charity Commission for England and Wales.

You have not justified mention of the Irish organisation in the lead.

You have not justified your change in the wording of the International groups section from ‘similar’ to ‘shared’.

And it really would be better not to change the wording of the first sentence of the lead whilst there is a discussion going on about this.

Sweet6970 (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you are suggesting that a charity registered in England (and Wales), rather than Scotland or Northern Ireland, is correctly referred to as British but not UK? Now that seems counterintuitive. Newimpartial (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we have different intuitions. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this edit by John Cummings [4]– neither the Irish nor the Australian organisations should be mentioned in the lead. This article is about the British organisation. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out to you that the scope of this article has, for some time now, included LGB Alliance organisations outside the UK. Per LEADFOLLOWSBODY, this is now reflected in the lead. As with the Irish case, the designation of LGB Alliance Australia as a hate group has received independent, RS coverage. Given your insistence in prior discussion on Talk that we should not follow the RSs as they report on the GPAHE reports, this looks like

WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The reference to the foreign organisations is UNDUE in the lead – since the article is about the British organisation. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further, you have not replied to my objection to the change from ‘similar’ to ‘shared’. ‘Shared’ is inappropriate, because it suggests a close connection between the organisations, which are in fact independent of each other. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the sourcing for the "independence" of the chapters? Newimpartial (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to say they are connected to each other, you need to provide a source for this. I don’t know what you mean by ‘chapters’. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Chapters" is a term some RS use for LGB Alliance Ireland, Australia, etc. - tbe RS certainly see them as connected to each other. :) Newimpartial (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From GPAHE:

Ireland: The Irish LGB Alliance (LGBA) was founded in 2020 and is an offshoot of the UK LGB Alliance ... In general, LGBA opposes gender-identity education in schools, medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform. ... Irish LGBTQ+ activists contend that its membership is mostly UK-based, though the Irish chapter insists “all our committee members are living in Ireland.”

Australia: In general, LGBA and its international chapters oppose gender-identity education in schools, medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform.

From independent coverage:

Pink News: LGB Alliance Ireland is an offshoot of the UK pressure group, and like it claims that trans rights are in conflict with LGB rights while devoting the vast majority of its efforts attacking advancements to trans rights. ... It dedicates much of its report to the UK group, which has, among other things, campaigned against life-saving gender recognition reforms, gender-affirming healthcare for young people, and letting trans people use single-sex spaces and services. ... LGB Alliance Ireland fell onto GPAHE’s radar after its UK counterpart compared LGBTQ+ inclusion to “bestiality”, said co-founder Heidi Beirich.

Star Observer: According to GPAHE, the UK-based anti-trans group LGB Alliance’s Australia chapter has supported Jessica Hoyle’s case seeking exemption under Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination laws to hold some singe-sex events that would ban trans women.

In short, LGB alliance Australia and Ireland are chapters of the UK group, and we have ample reason to include their classification as hate groups in the lead. Perhaps even to note, as independent coverage has done, that most of the reports center the actions of the UK branch.

talk) 14:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Just for clarity, the fact the Irish chapter/offshoot has been listed as a hate group was already in the intro, all I did was add that the Australian version has also been listed (along with some small grammar changes). Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a confused edit history on this – the ref to the GPAHE report was first added to the lead on 21 October[5], and was written as if it applied to the British organisation. This was subsequently amended to refer to the Irish organisation. I disagree that the references to these foreign organisations should be in the lead, since the article is about the British organisation. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reached the end of the first paragraph of the lead before giving up on trying to make sense of this article's current sourcing.

• The BBC News source is used to support article text that the LGB Alliance advocates for "a ban on
  gender affirming care including puberty blockers for children reporting gender dysphoria
  ". There is nothing in the source to corroborate this. There is no mention of conversion therapy or puberty blockers in the article at all; the only section in the source relating to the LGB Alliance is a direct quote from Bev Jackson, saying: "We don't think children should be allowed to self-diagnose any medical condition. The numbers of referrals are so huge that I believe this is a social problem caused by miseducation. It is impossible for the NHS to deal with all of these young people who are coming forward. We need to take a step back and ask why are so many young people presenting at the clinic for a gender treatment?" This quote does not corroborate that the group as a whole advocates for a "ban" on anything.

• Likewise, The Telegraph source does not confirm the cited text that LGB Alliance "opposes gender-identity education in schools". Instead, the only relevant statement in the source is a quote of Kate Harris saying: "If I was in school today, I would be taken to one side and helped to come to terms with the fact that I was gender non-conforming. And how special would I feel? What child would turn down additional attention?" This quote does not in any way confirm that the group as a whole is "opposed" to "gender-identity education in schools".

• This article makes extensive use of
  neutrality
  or capability for investigative journalism with regards to its reporting on LGB Alliance.