What should the heading for this sub-section of J. K. Rowling#Views be?
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Discussion of section heading proposals
- Transgender people
- Sources: The Scotsman,[1] Sky.com,[2] Deutsche Welle,[3] cbc.ca[4] and Newshub (New Zealand).[5]
- Rationale: This is the current stable title of the section and is supported by a substantial proportion of the reliable sources. Proponents view Rowling's comments as being broadly about transgender people.
- Objection: A substantial proportion of reliable sources do not use this language. Some editors view Rowling's comments as being about policies or "issues" beyond the transgender community and say the heading is biased as it frames the discussion without mention of feminism, women's rights, freedom of speech, academic freedom, hate speech, and cancel culture: broad issues raised by some sources.
- Transgender community
- Sources: Fortune,[6] NBC,[7] Global News (Canada),[8] People,[9] and Glamour[10]
- Rationale: This heading can be read as more specific than "transgender people" (trans people more as a community than as individuals) and also as more innocuous from a BLP standpoint (Rowling has nothing against trans people as individuals). It also corresponds to one of the main voices documented by all RS as being provoked by and responding to Rowling's comments.
- Objection: Some readers might misinterpret this section heading as implying that Rowling is against the transgender community, whereas she says that she is not. Some say the heading is biased as it frames the discussion without mention of feminism, women's rights, freedom of speech, academic freedom, hate speech, and cancel culture: broad issues raised by some sources.
- Transgender issues
- Sources: Reuters,[11] Independent,[12] Irish Times,[13] South China Morning Post,[14] ABC (Australia).[15]
- Rationale: It is used by a substantial proportion of reliable sources.
- Objection: As an issue can be a subject or problem. this section heading could easily be read as suggesting that the group in question represents an issue or problem. It seems unlikely that other minorities would be discussed in this way (e.g. lesbian issues, African-American issues, bisexual problem or -Jewish problem). For others, this phrase implies that Rowling's comments are about abstract "issues", rather than actual people; the sources do not clearly substantiate this supposition.
- Transgender-related issues
- Sources: Reuters,[16] Independent,[17] Irish Times,[18] South China Morning Post,[19] ABC (Australia).[20]
- Rationale: Some say it has the same avoidance of biased framing as "transgender issues", but addresses the objection by clarifying that these are issues related to being transgender, and not transgender people themselves.
- Objection: Same as the objection to "transgender issues" - this still suggests that Rowling's comments are about abstract "issues", rather than actual people. Some say it is biased as it frames the discussion without mention of feminism, women's rights, freedom of speech, academic freedom, hate speech, and cancel culture: broad issues raised by some sources.
- Transgender topics
- Sources: Reuters,[21] Independent,[22] Irish Times,[23] South China Morning Post,[24] ABC (Australia).[25]
- Rationale: It has the same avoidance of biased framing as "transgender issues", but addresses the objection by using another word that is essentially equivalent in meaning for our purposes here (using our own words per WP:V). This phrase has precedent on Wikipedia in the article title Feminist views on transgender topics.
- Objection: The phrase "transgender topics" is seldom used outside of English Wikipedia (and Library Science); presenting it as a heading in a high-traffic article could produce citogenesis-type effects. Same general objection as all headings that use the word "transgender", omitting other broad issues raised in some sources.
- Gender recognition
- Sources: The Guardian,[26] The Independent.[27] (See Pedersen,[28] Suissa & Sullivan,[29] Duggan[30] and Pape[31] for context)
- Rationale: The broader term used in the laws underlying the controversy (eg Gender Recognition Act 2004, Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, and beyond the UK, for example California) and accounting for scholarly sources that frame the controversy around UK laws, feminism, women's rights, freedom of speech, academic freedom, hate speech, and cancel culture as broad issues. Better encompasses all topics, while avoiding restriction to transgender and categorization as people or topics, with the underlying implication that Rowling is against trans people.
- Objection: Only a vanishingly small number of sources actually use "gender recognition" as the subject of Rowling's comments; the Gender Recognition Act is one, but far from the only, topic debated by Rowling and her critics, so it seems doubtful that the section title fits the actual scope of the section.
- Gender identity
- Sources: CNN,[32] Daniel Radcliffe,[33] The Week,[34] The Independent,[35] Variety ("due to her controversial views on sex and gender identity")[36]
- Rationale: A neutral way of describing the topic. Similar to Gender recognition.
- Objection: A small number of sources use "gender identity" to denote the topic of Rowling's comments.
- Transgender rights
- Sources: Reuters,[37] The Guardian,[38] Hollywood Reporter,[39] CNN,[40] and Deutsche Welle[41]
- Rationale: Many mainstream sources describe this, in their own editorial voice, as what the controversy is about. This is an inclusive heading, since both "gender recognition" law and the policy implications of "gender identity" fall within the topic of "transgender rights".
- Objection: Some readers could misinterpret this section heading as implying that Rowling is against transgender rights, whereas she says that she is not.