Talk:What Is a Woman?

Advocates of transgender medicine

The lead attributes some criticism to "advocates of transgender medicine". This used to be phrased as "experts in the field of transgender medicine". I'm not sure either is well-supported by the cited sources. Are there sources that explicitly talk about reception by medical advocates/experts? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 changes

@Firefangledfeathers: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Is_a_Woman%3F&oldid=prev&diff=1172348938 what exactly is unreliably sourced and not mentioned in the body?? 2 of the sources and statements are made exactly like that in the reception section

"Ann Schneible of the National Catholic Register gave the film a B+, praising "how easily it breaks through the cognitive dissonance exhibited by supporters of gender ideologies and their inability or unwillingness to answer the simplest questions on this topic"

"Kai Burkhardt of the German newspaper Die Welt called Walsh a "conservative Michael Moore" and praised the film for stirring up America's "gender war" by efficiently asking seemingly effortless questions to supposed experts in the field, who are unable to answer."

Please stop WP:Status quo stonewalling this article! Have you even read the reception section? --FMSky (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not stonewalling. Per the essay, I stated a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions. You added a generally unreliable Daily Express source, and you added "left-leaning outlets" with no source or mention in the body. You're duplicating lead info about conservative commentators and you're moving around body content about the transphobic descriptor with no explanation. Can you please self-revert and build consensus for these disputed changes? You've already breached 3RR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

why am i not allowed to add "which most interviewees are unable to answer" when its exactly quoted like that in the reception section?

--FMSky (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It's the attributed opinion of one critic. I'm not seeing the case for elevating that to a wiki-voice statement in the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

why are you saying one when i cited at least two? FMSky (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm AGF that the Die Welt source supports that content in the body, but the other sources you added are either unreliable or don't support "most of the interviewees are unable to answer". Also, the quantity of reviews doesn't really matter, as they're opinion pieces and we shouldn't be summarizing them in wiki-voice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources calling it anti-trans are also opinion pieces though FMSky (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources such as NBC, The Independent, and the academic sources are not generally considered opinion pieces, and are often labeled as such in the source when they are (WP:RSOPINION). Llll5032 (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

They aren't, and we're not making a wiki-voice statement about "anti-trans" anyway. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Which sources said that? Llll5032 (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

read the reception section. FMSky (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you name the sources, please? Llll5032 (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I posted them at the start of this discussion --FMSky (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Do WP:GREL reports say it? Llll5032 (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

These are cites how they are currently in the article and have been for years, so I'm assuming they are reliable --FMSky (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

That may be the cause of the disagreement. WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:RSN and WP:RSP describe what kinds of sources have the most WP:WEIGHT in the encyclopedia. Usually individual reviewers do not have much weight, even if they appear in reputable publications (WP:RSOPINION). Llll5032 (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

would you be ok with moving the part "It is described in some sources as anti-transgender and transphobic" in the 2nd paragraph like that:

"Walsh's approach garnered praise from conservative commentators, while drawing criticism from other sources, including advocates of transgender medicine and media outlets, who described the film as anti-transgender and transphobic"

--FMSky (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Criticism is not the word for WP:GREL news reports (see WP:SAID and WP:RSEDITORIAL). Llll5032 (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

wtf? i posted the CURRENT paragraph, the way it is CURRENTLY in the article, and just proposed an addition to it--FMSky (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Your proposal to include them after "criticism from other sources, including" would say that the WP:GREL reports were examples of criticism. Llll5032 (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Llll. I think it's reasonable to cover the major thrust of mainstream reporting before we get into summaries of reviews and commentary. Also, it's paired well where it is with Walsh's quoted "gender ideology". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This site has an extreme left-wing bias, like its not even funny. I cant believe this is even being discussed. Something needs to do done to adress this --FMSky (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

We have an WP:ACADEMICBIAS and a more general "bias" towards where weight of coverage is per WP:DUE, which usually means the mainstream; that is to say, our coverage tends to largely reflect the academic consensus and the thrust of mainstream coverage, which may not align with your view of eg. what's left-wing or right-wing, or which sources and opinions are significant. But either way you clearly can't just characterize sources as "left-leaning" or the like yourself in the article voice, and it does read like your edit was creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE with a small number of opinion pieces on one side, being weighed equal to all of mainstream coverage on the other. We can't weigh a handful of opinion pieces equal to eg. NBC, Science Based Medicine, the Intelligencer, or the The Independent. EDIT: Also, we definitely cannot say that Walsh failed to receive an answer, since the highest-quality sources are clear that he did receive an answer but he simply didn't like it (eg. [1].) --Aquillion (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

your edit was creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE with a small number of opinion pieces on one side, being weighed equal to all of mainstream coverage on the other. Thats not true if you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Is_a_Woman%3F&oldid=1172370989#Reception. reception was actually more positive than negative (hence why i initially deleted the "anti-transgender" labels from the lead as they came from a minority). the current lead however is actually the definition of WP:FALSEBALANCE in that it only highlights the negative side--FMSky (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Weight is not simply about numbers, but about quality. Citing a large number of opinion-pieces from talking heads with no expertise at low-quality outlets that all share the same bias doesn't move the needle an iota when weighed against mainstream news coverage or academic coverage by subject-matter experts. In fact, we should probably start trimming the reception section - it feels like it's turned into a WP:QUOTEFARM. A common problem in high-profile culture-war topics like this is that some editors mistakenly believe they can affect the article's tone by dumping a massive list of quotes to axe-grindy talking heads on one side into it; while it would be easy enough to find a similarly massive list of quotes from the other side, that wouldn't really improve the article. What we need to do instead is condense the opinions of non-expert talking heads down to a few sentences total, and focus more on experts or at least secondary non-opinion coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Llll5032: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Is_a_Woman%3F&diff=prev&oldid=1172372126 this edit isnt helpful at all and makes the article worse by painting a false picture. --FMSky (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your edits to the reception section because WP:STRUCTURE says, "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure." Further, such categorizing of sources involves too much synthesis by Wikipedia editors. Per WP:OR, "Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Llll5032 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

"Anti-transgender"

@User:Firefangledfeathers https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Is_a_Woman%3F&diff=prev&oldid=1174308363 The ref doesnt say "anti-transgender" either. --FMSky (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It says "anti-trans". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

that could mean anything, such as anti-transvestite or anti-transglutaminase antibodies --FMSky (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's a reasonable reading. Does anyone else agree with that suggestion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable. The first example is on point, and the second satirically adds emphasis. You can ignore the satire if you wish, but the point remains. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Pending further input, I removed Pink News from the set of citations for "anti-transgender" in the lead and separated out its wording choice in the body. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

In context, suggesting “anti-trans” means anything other than “anti-transgender” is a ludicrous supposition. Surely that's not a serious suggestion? — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it's just ridiculous to say that when Pink News says "anti-trans" they don't mean "anti-transgender". Loki (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

its doesnt say anti-transgender so its WP:OR --FMSky (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

If it is OR, then adding "anti-trans" as a third description in the sentence would be the compromise. Llll5032 (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Loki (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

FMSky Please list all "anti-trans" meanings that have come up to your head. Then please post your explanation here why any reasonable reader may confuse anti-trans for any of the concepts that you believe may be shortened to "anti-trans". I dare you.

Actually, I can help find more ideas for these: "anti-trans fat campaign", "anti-Trans propaganda", "anti-trans protests in Belfast", to name a few.

I'm particularly intrigued about anti-trans being a shorthand for "anti-transglutaminase antibodies" though, given that you likely haven't heard of them before and simply learned that they exist using Wikipedia's search function in which you typed an "anti-trans" query. But I may be wrong. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we have enough sources for "anti-trans" and "transphobic" combined that we should say it in Wikivoice. We have a whole bunch of sources for this claim that are green at RSP. Unless significant contradictory sourcing exists it's clear that the balance of the sources are calling this movie "anti-trans" or something that means the same thing. Loki (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Some major WP:Status quo stonewalling going on

especially this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Is_a_Woman%3F&diff=prev&oldid=1174895450

Why are people not allowed to make any changes to this article? --FMSky (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi FMSky. This is the second time on this article talk page that you've accused me of stonewalling. Can you please take user conduct concerns to my user talk page? On the content matter, do you disagree with my edit summary? If so, why? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Not only you, rather it seems that a whole bunch of users dont want any changes to this article. Just look at the edit history. In this particular edit i dont see the point at all. This cleary fit in better in the reception section as at the end of the day its a personal viewpoint by the writer. I also doubt that PinkNews is a "non-opinion" source --FMSky (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't agree with "personal viewpoint by the writer". This is RS coverage in regular news articles. There's a good point made above that we maybe should be presenting this in wikivoice. Even if we keep it attributed, it's unhelpful to lump it in with the opinion sources. There's also a neat connection to Walsh's stated view that it's about "gender ideology", which is not a term we should leave isolated without some mainstream context. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This is an article in a contentious topic. As such, it's important to have patience and work collaboratively with other editors. Not every change you want to make will be accepted, and it's fairly common to have changes reverted. If changes are opposed by other editors, then usually those content changes should be discussed on the talk page. Some of it comes down to gaining consensus. While editing, it's best to assume good faith. Edit summaries like this one are unlikely to be helpful and constructive: What the fuck are you guys eden doing?? Let me edit this article ok? Nevertheless, changes are made to this article on a regular basis. Hist9600 (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

New lead line

Should the lead include the line "Other sources point out that the ideas of any movement need to be challenged and digging deeper can't be out of bounds"? It's cited to Debbie Hayton in The Spectator and Christian Toto on his blog. Gooseneck41, you've repeatedly restored the content over the objections of other editors. Would you consider self-reverting until there's consensus for inclusion? You cited NPOV in an edit summary, but it's not clear why we would elevate this point out of all the many opinions/reviews. Also neither Hayton nor Toto really say that "the ideas of any movement need to be challenged". Additionally, it's odd to see content in the lead that is unmentioned in the body. How do others feel about this new content? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It appears to run afoul of WP:STICKTOSOURCE while citing a WP:MREL opinion and a WP:SPS. Also, it was added four times by the same editor, three times after reverts.[2][3][4][5] Remove, please. Llll5032 (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep, or some variation of it. Its highly necessary to balance the lead to not only include negative viewpoints. Remember that reception of the film was mixed to positive --FMSky (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep, or remove the sentence that preceeds it. With only the preceeding sentence it kind of comes across as a hit-piece (or only that one social/political view is acceptable). With only my edit it would come across as a fan page.Gooseneck41 (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Do we have any better sources to support this line other than an MREL source and a blog that shouldn't have ever been used in the first place? Because otherwise you're not balancing anything if you don't have sources to support the claim. Silverseren^C 02:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. DN (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Silverseren. Feels non-neutrally worded even if supported by reliable sources, and those sources are both not terribly reliable. Loki (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude; it's extremely WP:UNDUE given the relatively marginal nature of the cited sources. We don't just drop random opinions from non-experts into the lead because an editor likes them. --Aquillion (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that it's undue and editorialized, it's a pretty basic tenet of Wikipedia writing that we don't use phrases like "point out" because it's the type of language used when one wants to present an opinion as fact. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead addition

I want to gain consensus to add the following to the lead. Previous discussion didnt lead to anything:

What Is a Woman? is a 2022 American online film about gender and transgender issues presented by conservative political commentator Matt Walsh. The film was released by conservative website The Daily Wire, with direction by Justin Folk. In the film, Walsh asks various people "What is a woman?", which most of the interviewees are unable to answer.

(or similar wording)

--FMSky (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Are you kidding me? Whose idea was it to make this an RFC? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Previous discussion didnt lead to anything --FMSky (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Support: Its factually correct, sourced and describes the film's plot. Its esentially all the movie is about - no one being able to define the term. Its also already mentioned in the article's body and serves as an additional summary for the lead. --FMSky (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Could you quote the parts of the sources that best support the proposal? Where in the body is this already mentioned? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Kai Burkhardt of the German newspaper Die Welt called Walsh a "conservative Michael Moore" and praised the film for stirring up America's "gender war" by efficiently asking seemingly effortless questions to supposed experts in the field, who are unable to answer.

"how easily it breaks through the cognitive dissonance exhibited by supporters of gender ideologies and their inability or unwillingness to answer the simplest questions on this topic"--FMSky (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there more in the sources that might support "most of the interviewees"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I would also be fine with that experts on the field are unable to answer. this is just a suggestion --FMSky (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. It's not a significant viewpoint, it's a minority viewpoint, and we shouldn't be cherry-picking two opinions/reviews, for their subjective viewpoint in the lead. It's properly attributed to the two authors making that allegation in the body of the article, and that's where it should remain. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Its not a fringe viewpoint, its esentially all the movie is about. No one being able to define the term. Why are you voting if you havent even watched the film? NPOV also doesnt make any sense at all --FMSky (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

If it isn't a minority viewpoint, then you should have been able to produce multiple reliable sources to show it is a widely held view. And then we have Walsh himself who is quoted as saying: “Most of the people we talked to either didn’t want to talk about it, or they appeared to be confused about something as simple as what a woman is”. So the guy who actually made this film contradicts the proposed text you want to add. It's fine in the body of the article where is is properly attributed as the opinions of the authors making that allegation. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Most of the people we talked to either didn’t want to talk about it, or they appeared to be confused about something as simple as what a woman is - that literally means that most interviewees were unable to answer. you actually proved my point. maybe it could be reworded to "unable or unwilling to answer". --FMSky (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it actually disproves your point. Dr. Marci Bowers, a gynecologist and surgeon, said womanhood is “a combination of your physical attributes and what you’re showing to the world and the gender clues you give.” Patrick Grzanka, an associate professor at the University of Tennessee, said a woman is “a person who identifies as a woman” Some of the people Walsh interviews in the film say that gender cannot and should not be assigned by doctors at birth and that children should be encouraged to explore different forms of gender expression without being influenced by their parents or society. So the premise that most of the interviewees are unable to answer has been debunked. They answered, but Walsh just didn't like the answers they gave, because their answers didn't align with his own beliefs, which is the whole point of his anti-trans documentary. Like I said, it is undue to say "most people" as a widely held viewpoint, when it clearly isn't, as evidenced by your failure to provide multiple high quality reliable sources backing up your proposed text. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Nothing has been debunked. You have an example of 2 people answering the question (one with a rambling incoherent response), while the rest of the sources say none was able to answer. The makes the statement "most were unable to answer" true --FMSky (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

They were able to answer, Walsh just didn't like the answers they gave, because their answers didn't align with his own beliefs. Welsh is well known for his beliefs, and as far as he is concerned, there is only one acceptable answer. Your proposal that people were unable to answer is not backed up by the weight of the reliable sources reporting on this. It's a subjective opinion of a tiny minority, and it has no business in the lead as an authoritative statement. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

They were able to answer - source? Some of them stormed out of the interview after being asked the question. Again, watch the film, then comment on it --FMSky (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as undue, and I suggest a withdrawal or a speedy close. The previous discussion suggested consensus against this proposal, so "didn't lead to anything" is a questionable interpretation from someone in favor of the change. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, doesn't appear due. Appears to be a giving undue weight to a minority POV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

You should have read the entire thread before slapping your vote in. This isn't helpful at all. --FMSky (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by thread? I read this whole section, is there further discussion in another section? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It isnt undue or a point of view as it is the film's plot. -FMSky (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

"In the film, Walsh asks various people "What is a woman?"" would be probably be due and summarizes the film's plot, the use of the quote or similar after it appears to be favoring a particular POV (especially as the quote is unattributed in-text) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

"In the film, Walsh asks various people "What is a woman?" - this is not an adequate plot summary --FMSky (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thats why we have an entire plot summary section. The second half of the proposed sentence isn't plot at all, its commentary. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support, per FMSky's reasoning. It is the main point of the documentary, so claims that it is undue are misplaced. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Due weight is based on coverage in reliable sources, not emphasis in the material itself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

... coverage which we have. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't appear to, of the four sources given we appear to have two questionable sources and two opinion pieces. We have a single mention of it in the body, as an opinion attributed to the writer (its the same opinion piece from the four above). How do you get from there to due weight? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support, how is it UnDue when it is the central question of the whole film? Can anyone produce a source saying he received an answer?Gooseneck41 (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, as a combination of undue per the above concerns, and being backed by sources not really reliable enough to back up a claim like this in a topic as contentious as this. The Das Welt source is probably the most credible as a reliable newspaper, but it comes from the Welt+ section, which is described by Welt itself as being a source for "starke und unkonventionelle Meinungen" (Eng: strong and unconventional opinions), indicating this is simply an opinion piece. Spiked's piece is again, just that, an opinion piece, and inveighs against "liberal intolerance", which kinda indicates its bias on this subject. The Washington Examiner is already listed as "no consensus" on WP:RSP, and I really don't think I need to begin to explain the litany of issues with sourcing a contentious claim in a GENSEX article to.... the National Catholic Register. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Another one:https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/matt-walsh-stumps-the-left-with-one-simple-question/

Walsh struggles to find anyone who can answer what would appear to be a simple question. But given that incoming Supreme Court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dodged the same question during her confirmation hearings, claiming she was unable to answer it because she was “not a biologist,” it appears the question is indeed a complicated one.

--FMSky (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Similar to the Washington Examiner, the National Review is listed as "no consensus" at RSP, so this isn't much help either. The fact that the only sources backing up this are a mixture of opinion pieces, non-reliable sources and opinion pieces from non-reliable sources indicate to me that this is not due for inclusion, not least in the lead. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That source is already in the article so it should be reliable (or be removed as well). Btw the reason that none of the mainstream outlets are stating this is because they (for whatever reason) refused to review the film, see https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/what_is_a_woman --FMSky (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Reviews are opinions so they're of limited use to us, what we need are actual articles and we appear to have a large number of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually you will need to review a film to analyse its plot --FMSky (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

You don't, plenty of room for journalists and academics to analyze a work outside of the context of a review. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

STRONGLY SUPPORT Anybody who has watched this will know this is obviously true. I would recommend making it even stronger, saying something like "Most of the interviewees advanced pseudo-scientific theories when asked the titular question". 2001:569:7E69:DF00:7CEC:4090:DE5B:618E (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• I do see this specific insertion was originally proposed on the 26th — for better or for worse. Addressing the merits of this proposal in a bit more detail, our colleagues opposite wish to foreground what, in their view, the film is about. A neutral description of the film is essential to the lead of any film article. This is not that. Including unattributed opinion content in the third sentence is inappropriate, no matter where that opinion is from. I'll refrain from naming specific publications, lest I dissatisfy my fellow editors with my choice, but even were it from the most authoritative in existence and authored by the most authoritative expert possible on the subject (the subject of expertise being, film criticism or whatever), if it is opinion, it does not belong there. Much less unattributed. We do not foreground editorialisation, even when it aligns with the message, the purpose of the subject of the article. It is just as inappropriate, and just as much editorialising as if we were to insert the National Post​'s "capturing 'gotcha' moments", Intelligencer​'s "just asking questions campaign" or (more overtly), exposing the lunacy of the trans agenda, duplicity is central to the film, full of transphobic lies, etc. A fringe viewpoint is no less a fringe viewpoint for being the subject of an article (not that unattributed opinion would be appropriate there even were it not fringe), or we would have to radically alter our current coverage on fringe subjects such as bigfoot or 9/11 conspiracy theories (or, for a recently discussed topic that also has a film related to it, Shivkar Bāpuji Talpade and Hawaizaada). Again, I cannot see how the proposer saw this as an appropriate use of the RfC process. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose As noted by others above, there don't seem to be reliable sources covering this claim, just opinion pieces and non-reliable articles. Especially when considering the lede of the article, there is no backing to include this. Silverseren^C 23:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Yeah, that's what Matt Walsh would say, but that's mostly because he doesn't accept complicated gender studies answers (or any answer that doesn't align with his POV) as "real". We already have sourcing listed above (plus, I mean, the movie itself) there's plenty of people in it who do answer his question, they just answer in ways he doesn't want to accept. (Or to put it in shorter/Wikipedia terms, this addition is very WP:POV.) Loki (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - sourcing to weak to establish weight. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 18:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
• Somewhat support/comment For the sake of reducing the chance of any future conflicts, I do think it's important to include something more than just the fact that Walsh asks that question. If it stops there, then the true purpose of the film isn't adequately summarized. It would be like the lead for Religulous saying "In the film, Maher goes to various places and interviews people about their religious beliefs." Is there a way to satisfy both sides here? Could we include the idea proposed but word it differently? In the film, Walsh asks various people "What is a woman?" Some of the interviewees refuse to answer, while some do give answers that that the film portrays as unscientific or otherwise unsatisfactory. The documentary seeks to establish the argument that transgender advocates are unable to directly answer the question and that this weakens the integrity of the transgender movement. Could something along those lines be supported by both sides here? Kerdooskis (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I like that suggestion, and actually if the lead addition is rejected i think this could be a good addition to the plot section --FMSky (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Like any claim, it could be DUE if WP:GREL sources say it. But do they? Llll5032 (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Plot descriptions dont need to be sourced, MOS:PLOTSOURCE --FMSky (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Aside

Only if the descriptions are uncontroversial and not being challenged for accuracy. That's clearly not the case here. Silverseren^C 00:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Says who? --FMSky (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes: this is not an accurate summary of the film, as he clearly does get several answers. Just because Matt Walsh (or his intended audience) doesn't like those answers doesn't mean they're not answers. Loki (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You probably havent watched the film --FMSky (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)