#(also the wiki is clearly already 'biased' because it has pages on Mspec Lesbians/Gays and many other LGBT wikis don't even let you mention

[isobug]

I've talked about it at length in this post before, but I do want to bring up two specific instances of this new policy being actively harmful to trans and mspec people re: warnings which makes me view it more harshly

( EDIT ) Also regarding the "slippery slope" of adding in things like "voting history", that shouldn't be an issue as long as there's a simple guideline about keeping things relevant. You could even use those exact examples as guidelines for what isn't acceptable or needed in a warning.

Putting it under the cut but tw for transmisogyny/transphobia/queerphobia/exclusionism and examples/discussion of these things

I was trying to make an edit to the pages featuring a certain Gay Man's flag (specifically the Uranian page first), made by one Val/entin Bely/aev, to potentially warn others (but especially other transfems) that Valentin is Transmisogynistic/Transphobic and his accounts are not safe for Transfems/Trans gays. This edit was rejected under this new policy.

I specifically cited his twitter accounts and certain tweets. He has other accounts and has made similar statements on those. It's not very hard to find

(the last one is a little less clear out of the context of his whole account but he genuinely seems to insist that all of the the trans-inclusive gay men flags are "trans-exclusive/exclude cis gays" and frequently bashes on them.)

I hope I don't have to explain why his narrative of "GNC men are wrongfully transitioning/becoming transfem because people hate men" is Transmisogynistic and why "there's no point in being proud of being queer" is Queerphobia.

(Plus, having a flag exclusively for "homosexual men" as The Uranian Flag on the wiki is misrepresentative of the history and scope of Uranians/Urnings. Despite how Valentin uses it, it does describe a a varying set of gender and sexual identities. I'd really think the LGBTA page needs to be closer to the Nonbinary Wiki's Uranian page in scope. Not to mention that there's no page or even mention of Urningin/Urninde which is a shame.)

The second example is a rejected edit to the Junian (Exclusive) page. Junian is a sibling term to Oshian and Erosian, both of which were coined by exclusionists to be exclusionary terms (this is cited on both pages with sources) and are explicitly anti-mspec Lesbians/Gays. These accounts are also not safe to browse for those trying to avoid exclusionist/queerphobic content.

Junian was coined by the same person who made Erosian and is equally exclusionary, yet my edit to the Junian page that simply added the same information that was present on the Erosian page was rejected under this new policy.

Erosian info and it's cited resource

Junian info (there are no cited resources on the page + even less context about why the term was made)

Citeable exclusionism being ignored aside, this also just makes the Junian page terrible in contrast with the Erosian and Oshian pages. I should not have to go to a different, older page for it's sibling term made by the same person to get the actual background for why they were made (and if those reasons were even correct).

Sorry for rambling. I'm not sure how to wrap up my thoughts on this other than repeating the tags on my original post about it

"I cannot tell you how much LESS USEFUL this makes the wiki... and actually if someone is citing a person saying openly 'i hate this marginalized group' it's not 'personal interpretation'. it's just exclusionism and bigotry'"

Let's talk about term sourcing.

So a few months ago, the LGBTA wiki announced a revision of its policy on declaring an author's personal biases in its references. This..... didn't go down well, and I went ahead and brought it up with Jeb the same day to figure out exactly what xe was thinking and why this policy was announced. The conversation summarises to something like this:

We don't want to call people exclusionist on the wiki because it means we're making the wiki biased

Exclusionist could be used to mean lots of different things so we don't want to use it at all

Slippery slope: If we say a creator didn't like trans people, we could end up adding warnings about a creator's political alignment, voting history and favourite colour of underwear.

At that point it was gone midnight with a pretty stressful day lined up for me the next day, so I decided to leave it there and get back to it later. In very typical fashion I then forgot to get back to it later, until now, when I can actually talk to the users of tumblr about this.

So, I'd like to discuss a possible different solution for this policy. I understand the community on Tumblr doesn't like it, and quite frankly, I'm not a fan either. There are a lot of pros and cons with this policy, so lemme list them out, starting with the pros:

The wiki is supposed to be a source of information, not a source of personal opinion

Different users have different views and understandings of of phobia

As a wiki, it shouldn't be biased

There's probably a few more, but I can't think of too many currently. On the other hand, the cons:

If a user wants to read more about the term, they don't know if (eg.) the tumblr blog they're about to open is phobic. So any further reading from the wiki is a big leap of faith.

We literally have a list of identities that we recognise as good faith, and so it shouldn't be too hard to warn if a source is against these.

We also have a ban on queerphobia, ableism, racism, exclusionism and abuse on the wiki itself.

And I'll leave that at three as well, just to be fair.

So what do we make of this over here? I'd be curious to hear Tumblr's feedback, and anything that I think is really good (from either side of the debate) I'll probably bring up with Jeb in a couple days.