Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Sheila Jeffreys

Notability

I object to deletion because:

  • she is notable within the feminist movement
  • she is also well-known for some of her controversial views, e.g. her extreme transphobia...

If you want to delete it, you'll have to WP:AFD it. --SarahEmma 05:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you state she's "well-known and controversial" without citing a source on this. As such, sounds like a vanity page, or a resume. I've tagged the page for needing citations, therefore. Tychocat 11:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This lack of sources is my primary objection to the page. I can write a brilliant article about my cat's famous acting career that would be utter vanity and complete fiction. Without sources, the already POV feel of the article lends real credence to the appearance of a vanity page. Thus my AfD and willingness to withdraw should the article be substantially reworked. Kershner 15:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Delete. Person is of no consequence. No studies or research to back up the conclusions and quite a bit of hating men. Is that "controversial? "Two quotes from the author.

"We do think... that all feminists can and should be lesbians. Our definition of a political lesbian is a woman-identified woman who does not fuck men. It does not mean compulsory sexual activity with women.”-Sheila Jeffreys and “When a woman reaches an orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression”. -Sheila Jeffreys

I move for deletion, 24.24.142.155 (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffreys is very clearly notable, given the amount of commentary (positive and negative) on her and her work. Nominating the article for deletion would probably result in a speedy keep. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

The article reads, 'Some of Jeffrey's other controversial positions include the ideas that lesbian culture has been negatively impacted by emulating the sexist influence of the gay male subculture of dominant/submissive sexuality, and that women suffering pain in pursuit of beauty is a form of submission to patriarchal sadism.'

It's not a colossal issue, but I think that this is worded in a way that implies that Jeffreys's view of gay male culture (apparently that it's about dominant/submissive sexuality) is correct. This needs a slightly more neutral wording (along, of course, with sources). Skoojal (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this article just now I noticed an unsubstantiated embellishment. The opening paragraph writes, "Jeffreys' argument ... has commanded respect and attracted intense criticism", citing three sources. However, none of them support the claim that her argument commanded respect. My reading of them is that it was well-received in some circles, but criticized in others, as is typical of scholarship steeped in controversy. We should modify the initial paragraph to accurately reflect the sources.Dia2d (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks against Sheila Jeffreys

Somebody editing from an ISP based in Australia added attacks against Sheila Jeffreys to this page. I removed them, but then they were readded, and somebody using an offensive username added yet more. Some of those attacks were removed, but not all of them. I removed the last of the attacks (eg that Jeffreys is "Protaganist of Whorephobia, Transphobia and viewed as anti-women by sex positive activists" [sic]). I call upon other editors to remove this content at once if it is added again, as I suspect it will be. Guuao (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the above-mentioned edit, which was pure vandalism and POV pushing. However, I will note that the inclusion of cited and verifiable perspectives on Sheila Jeffreys ideas (of which there is a great deal) is not just allowable, it is absolutely mandatory to include such perspectives in anything close to a final version of this article, as per WP:NPOV and WP:CONTROVERSY. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, these aren't exactly attacks because while that quote is quite incendiary, emotional and as such, against Wikipedia guidelines - she is very much against women who work in the sex industry and transsexual women. She makes no secret of her distaste for women who are unfortunate enough to be transsexual or having had to go into sex work. However, these views cannot be espoused because they are also against WP guidelines and they must be maintained as neutral as possible, just like the articles for Adolf Hitler, Strom Thurgood or Cecil Rhodes. Like Sheila, these men were oppressive against others but their articles call them out on their bigoted acts and words without labeling them as bigots. JessicaSideways (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I predicted, the attacks have been added again. This time, they were added in a watered-down form, I suppose because whoever has been adding them saw this discussion, but they are still unacceptable and I have removed them yet again. Other editors, please remove them! They should have been removed immediately! Guuao (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced

The lack of any mention of a critical perspective of Jeffreys' ideas (and Jeffreys is an extremely controversial writer) renders this page unbalanced and I've tagged it as such. The addition of some mention (with proper citation and verification, of course) of critical perspectives on Jeffreys' ideas is essential for a balanced article. More generally, the coverage of the subject in this article is hit-or-miss and could use expansion, discussing biographical details and more of her books. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that Jeffreys's ideas have provoked controversy; so they have. Jeffreys is an important writer and scholar, and this page deserves to be expanded, but it is not unbalanced, so I removed that tag. I would expand this page too, but I do not have time to do that at present. Guuao (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to the inserting editor to provide accurate reliable sources to substantiate what is inserted. If she has said that all penetrative sex is a form of rape, then it should be easy to substantiate that - find a source where she says it. If you can't find a legitimate source, then don't put it in. Saying somebody is whorephobic, anti-sex, anti-women, etc, is not critical analysis, it is name calling. What Jeffreys has said, and critical response (rather than name-calling) would need legitimate sources, and it would improve the article, where name-calling diminishes it and thereby diminishes Wikipedia. If she is seen as whorephobic, what has she said, who has criticised this, and how, etc. etc. If you don't have time, or can't be bothered, finding reliable sources then leave the article alone until you can - or until somedoy else does. This is a BLP, and any unverifiable material has to be removed immediately, and that is an inflexible policy - if this persists, I recommend the editors seek protection for this page. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing against a straw man here, Mish. I never said the above-mentioned junk content that's been inserted into this article should remain. Nevertheless, the views that the above anonymous commentator inserted simply are abbreviated, inarticulate, and unreferenced versions of very real criticisms that have been leveled against Sheila Jeffreys by published citable sources. I believe such critiques need to be included in this article for it to be considered properly balanced as per WP:NPOV and WP:CONTROVERSY. (I'll likewise note that WP:BLP does not in some way trump WP:NPOV, though many editors unfortunately seem to act as though it does.) I intend on adding properly cited reports of critiques of Jeffreys views, which will hopefully not lead to an edit war with other the other editor who seems to be a partisan of Jeffreys. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, Mish. I see that you've gone and added exactly the content I intended to add. I still think this article needs more expansion and detail, but at least its headed in the right direction. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, I don't always express what I mean clearly enough. I agree, there is much more that could be done, and it will improve the article, giving rounded coverage of what she has said, and people's responses and reactions to that. It doesn't have to be done immediately - but if people can see what is controversial, and if it is presented in a neutral way, then hopefully people won't feel they need to vandalise it. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's still a long way to go here. The article claims that Jeffreys "best known" work is some obscure historical book she wrote in the 1980s, and still downplays both the activism she does these days and the extent to which she's controversial for it.

Furthermore, it's not just the things she's said, but the things she's done: among other things, she's fairly controversial among sex workers groups for lobbying for changes that arguably make life a lot worse for those engaged in sex work. The tendency to quote Julie Bindel on what Jeffreys thinks is a little bit odd; it's not as if Jeffreys hasn't put it in her own words often enough. Rebecca (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you want to put it in her own words, fine. An interview and a review of a book? What is wrong with that? Please don't criticise the sources that have been added to highlight the issues that aren't covered - put the information you want in. If there are sources that explain that her lobbying for change has been detrimental for sex workers, put them in, in a neutral way. Hopefully somebody will have a reference to illustrate the reaction of the trans community as well. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm the right person to be editing this article. But I can and will pinpoint things that are missing or not well covered. Rebecca (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to our policy, the "External links" section should not be used as a resource collection. I have removed several links, and offer them here, in case any future editor wishes to use them as sources for expanding the article:


BrainyBabe (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Views on transsexuality

As others have noted in this talk page, Jeffreys' is noted for her views on transsexuality, but the section dedicated to this topic has remained rather undeveloped in her Wikipedia article. I tried to significantly expand the section and may come back and expand it some more. I also added information to the section about the public and critical reaction of Roz Kaveney, a transgender activist, to Jeffreys' views. I know that this is a controversial issue that has been discussed on this talk page before, so I thought I should open a new section here for others to have input on how best to handle this section of Jeffreys' article going forward. Oh, and just FYI I have no relation to the Rebecca who previously was posting on this talk page. Cheers! Rebecca (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to highlight here how controversial her views are on transsexuality, and how she's doing real harm to real transsexual people. She advertises herself widely as an expert on trans matters[1], and then uses the opportunities that come from that to vilify trans people. See for example [2]. Consulting Sheila Jeffries on trans topics is akin to consulting the KKK on African American people.124.171.242.28 (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read WP:BLP, and WP:WEASEL, too. I have just had to revert one of your changes, because it amounted to slanting the article against its subject, in a not-so-subtle fashion. Saying that she "puts herself forward as an expert" amounts to implying that she is not a real expert, and hence someone making false claims about her own credentials; that's not OK. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While we're reading, perhaps you could visit WP:NPOV. Much of the article is a seriously biased CV for Jeffreys. I was hoping to insert a little objectivity. I see you're not exactly unbiased yourself. Your user page[3] talks of your love for the bible and opposition to abortion "even when the mother's life is at risk". So where do you stand on the issue of transsexuality?124.171.242.28 (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to try sticking to those issues actually relevant to the page rather than drawing in totally unrelated issues about me personally. I'm not under any obligation to respond to queries about my views, and I think you will find that making them is unproductive. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your revert, plus added a link to a new statesman article specifically about Jeffrey's new book "Gender hurts". Jeffrey caused a significant controversy with the publication of this book. The mainstream feminist criticism of Jeffrey's work marks an important watershed moment in trans feminism. Or are we not to include any sources that are critical of Jeffreys' work?124.171.242.28 (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BRD. You need to get consensus for any changes you want to make to this article; if you can't get consensus, the article stays as it was before your edits. Some of the material that you added ("With the increasing acceptance and sympathy for the plight of trans people in western society, Jeffrey's views, along with other 'trans exclusive radical feminists" are increasingly being disputed by mainstream feminists, who take a more inclusive viewpoint on transsexualism") strays from the topic of the article, an individual, specific person. That other feminists have been criticized for their views is not relevant here: the article is about Jeffreys. It is fine to mention criticism she has received, so long as it is both relevant and proportionate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism I've mentioned is both relevant and proportionate, and goes some small way to balancing the article. Wiki does not require consensus. If it did nothing could ever be edited. The new yorker article is specifically about Jeffrey's book. At least have a read before simply reverting.124.171.242.28 (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism is only relevant to the article to the extent that it is specifically about Jeffreys. Criticism of radical feminists in general, or of other feminists opposed to transsexualism, is definitely off-topic here. Unfortunately, that is the kind of material you are trying to add. Just asserting that the material is relevant will get you nowhere; it's simply inappropriate. Your comment that "Wiki does not require consensus" is your wishful thinking. Yes, Wikipedia does require consensus, and it's too bad if you don't like that. Try actually reading WP:CONSENSUS. Keep up your current behavior, and you will probably be blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link - I've called for a third party to come and arbitrate WP:3. It's clear with only two editors coming from diametrically opposing viewpoints there's no way we're going to reach consensus.124.171.242.28 (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
Let me just warn that if any one of you makes one more revert, the WP:3RR rule is crossed and a block will likely follow. 3O is on content not conduct, so I can only urge both of you to remain WP:CIVIL and see WP:STATUSQUO.

I support the addition of the content, if and only if the references match it. By that I mean, does any of the provided references (there are total six) actually say all of this "With the increasing acceptance and sympathy for the plight of trans people in western society,[19][20] Jeffrey's views, along with other "trans exclusive radical feminists"[21] are increasingly being disputed by mainstream feminists, who take a more inclusive viewpoint on transsexualism.[22][23][24]" are increasingly being disputed by mainstream feminists, who take a more inclusive viewpoint on transsexualism". Judging by the way the refs are placed, I suspect the different refs support different parts of the statement which therefore would be original research. In short, we have a reference for A and one for B but we say A+B; this is not acceptable.

Further, I think it can be trimmed. I agree that "along with other "trans exclusive radical feminists"" shouldn't be added and "With the increasing acceptance and sympathy for the plight of trans people in western society," isn't necessary. Hope this helps, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps then if we keep [22], which talks directly to the release of Jeffreys' new book and the effect it's had on the wider feminist discourse, that would be reasonable. I'm thinking "Jeffrey's views on transsexualism are increasingly being disputed by mainstream feminists, who take a more inclusive viewpoint toward trans people.[22] 124.171.242.28 (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure there's no confusion, I've just registered an account. So 124.171.242.28 is now Chocolate vittles. Chocolate vittles (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a reasonable third opinion, Ugog Nizdast. I'm still not quite sure what you think should happen next to the article, however. Should the added text be removed? I would still be in favor of simply removing that text if it cannot be suitably modified. Please respond. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the text is the substantive equivalent of a reversion. I've taken WP:BOLD to heart and made changes to my own content as outlined above according to my interpretation of Ugog Nizdast's judgement. No reversions, so hopefully we can both scrape by here without a block. I look forward to continuing the debate on other aspects of this article and others, as I see you've followed me across to transsexualism as well.Chocolate vittles (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In short, I meant that it should be kept if a single reference backs up the entire statement and recommended that it be shortened. Chocolate vittles most recent edit followed it. I hope this has helped or pushed this discussion forward and by all means, continue it if necessary. This might be helpful: Wikipedia:Third opinion/User FAQ#What happens next. Good day to both of you, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/display/person14541
  2. ^ https://overland.org.au/2014/08/stop-giving-space-to-transphobia/
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FreeKnowledgeCreator

Category:Biphobia feminists

BrownHairedGirl, with this edit you restored a category, Category:Biphobia feminists, that you supported deleting here. I am going to assume that was simply an error on your part, and that you did not actually intend to restore a category that you favor deleting. If you did deliberately restore a category that you think should be deleted, then I find that hard to understand. I am aware that categories are not generally removed from articles while a deletion discussion is underway, but WP:BLP surely takes precedence over that rule. The category seems to be an egregious BLP violation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, @FreeKnowledgeCreator, it was definitely not an error. As it says on Category:Biphobia feminists, "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress". I hold to that regardless of my views on deletion. Categories should remain fully populated while at CfD, so as not to prejudge the outcome or to prevent editors scrutinising the contents or the sources in the articles which might support inclusion or retention.
If you genuinely believe that there is a BLP issue sufficiently serious to warrant an exception to that principle, then please list prominently at the CfD discussion all pages which you know to have been removed from the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously believe that there is a BLP issue sufficiently serious to warrant an exception or I would not have removed the category again. I will do as you suggest in a moment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Call for article deletion

This article has been stripped of it's relevance, had all he quotes deleted in order to sanitize what is a pretty horrific view of men. The political lesbian, fucking men being submission to the patriarchy, an orgasm with men being an orgasm for your own oppression. Admins need to step in here and undo all this. This isn't an honest article any more, it is propaganda. 104.34.202.79 (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. The biography is here to tell the reader what Jeffreys is famous for, and it succeeds at that. There's no call to cry deletion. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Views on gender

In my opinion, the section dealing with transsexualism is much too long. It's a very controversial topic and of course it needs to be addressed, but the article now looks as if the bulk of her work is on transsexualism. It is not. --MatthiasGutfeldt (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'masculine privilege' applicability

@Rodw @Sweet6970

In regards to this edit [1], I do not believe the usage of the term 'masculine' in either case is applicable unless Jeffreys is suggesting that cis women who are masculine likewise have this privilege. From what I recall of reading Jeffreys I want to ask whether this is actually what they are arguing or if they are trying to just argue that transwoman have male privilege regardless of how feminine or masculine they are. If this is the case it may be preferable to just quote her directly. I don't have access to the text to verify the argument or quote it however. Relm (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I don't have any expertise in this and would be happy for the change to male privilege, but could I also ask you to look at the dab page subordination in the para which starts "In Gender Hurts (2014),...". Thanks.— Rod talk 15:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I think it would be apt to dab that usage of 'historical subordination' as patriarchy.
As for the sentence in question my proposal is - if my understanding of her argument is correct - reword it from:
She believes trans women can't hold this status, as they haven't experienced the same oppression, and using feminine pronouns for them masks their retained masculine privilege.
to:
She believes trans women haven't experienced the same oppression, and that trans women retain male privilege.
I think this makes it more concise and removes a redundant statement from the previous sentence. This sentence is still a followup that is expanding on their argument about pronouns (see underlined sections here:)
In Gender Hurts (2014), Jeffreys argues that using pronouns reflecting biological sex is important for feminists, as the feminine pronoun represents respect for cisgender women's historical subordination. She believes trans women can't hold this status, as they haven't experienced the same oppression, and using feminine pronouns for them masks their retained masculine privilege. Relm (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the ping: I changed the recently-added link from Social privilege to Male privilege because the Social privilege article talks about almost everything except sex, and I thought that a link to the Male privilege article was more appropriate. I was not making any kind of judgment about masculine /male, and I don’t know whether Jeffreys considers these 2 things as significantly different. So the link could be deleted. But also, I don’t have access to the source, and I don’t know whether ‘masculine privilege’ is an accurate representation of Jeffreys’ views. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sheila_Jeffreys