Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism by country

I am posting here in response to edits by Sirfurboy made on this page with dismissive reasoning, removing, with one edit, from Trans-exclusionary radical feminism by country#United Kingdom, the addition of the withdrawn Amnesty International report, saying that the text doesn't belong here, and claiming it is "premature synthesis of primary news reporting" (which it is not), along with other claims. In a second edit, the other information about that report was removed with the false claim that the text was duplicated (it was *not*, but an extension of the first paragraph). I strongly believe that both paragraphs are relevant and fit with the topic of this page, and should be part of this page. While I have reversed Sirfurboy's edits, I imagine they will be challenged (and reversed). So, I am starting the discussion here. Let me start with paragraph 1. I would like to change the first paragraph from the present:

In the United Kingdom, the anti-transgender movement in the U.K. has been described by scholars as building alliances with right-wing and religious fundamentalist groups that oppose trans rights. In July 2025, Sally Hines argued that the mobilization of these groups popularized a discourse centred around "gender ideology," "institutional capture," and "sex‑based rights," and has gained traction within UK parliamentary politics, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, and conservative media, often via a small network of actors.^[1] Sociologists McLean and Stretesky added that "a veritable miasma of anti-trans campaign groups [...] united in their antipathy toward transgender people" has contributed to an anti-trans moral panic in the United Kingdom. They identified anti-trans groups such as FiLiA, Fair Play for Women, Get the L Out, LGB Alliance, Sex Matters, and Transgender Trend.^[2]

to the following:

In the United Kingdom, the anti-transgender movement in the U.K. has been described by scholars as building alliances with right-wing and religious fundamentalist groups that oppose trans rights. In July 2025, Sally Hines argued that the mobilization of these groups popularized a discourse centred around "gender ideology," "institutional capture," and "sex‑based rights," and has gained traction within UK parliamentary politics, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, and conservative media, often via a small network of actors.^[3] Sociologists McLean and Stretesky added that "a veritable miasma of anti-trans campaign groups [...] united in their antipathy toward transgender people" has contributed to an anti-trans moral panic in the United Kingdom. They identified anti-trans groups such as FiLiA, Fair Play for Women, Get the L Out, LGB Alliance, Sex Matters, and Transgender Trend.^[2] On July 10, 2026, Amnesty International published a briefing that mapped what it described as 'anti-rights' groups in the UK, that have emerged since 2017, stating that the "vast majority" were anti-transgender "gender critical" organizations, such as FiLiA, Seen Network, Lesbian Rights Alliance, For Women Scotland, Beira's Place, and Alliance Defending Freedom.^[4][5][6] Following immediate legal threats from these groups, with an offer from JK Rowling to financially back those who wished to sue,^[7] Amnesty withdrew the report.^[8]

I would also like to add the following paragraph at the end of the section on the United Kingdom (before the "Sex-based rights" subsection):

On July 14, 2026, Amnesty International briefing on 'anti-rights' groups in the UK, the majority of which were anti-transgender "gender critical" organizations,^[6][8] was withdrawn, with the organization stating that its "use of language does not reflect the position of Amnesty International UK".^[9][10] Shortly thereafter, Beira's Place, a charity founded by Rowling, threatened to sue Amnesty unless it apologised and commissioned an external investigation into the report's publication. On July 16th, Amnesty subsequently submitted a serious incident report about itself to the Charity Commission for England and Wales.^[11][12] On July 23, the Charity Commission opened a regulatory compliance investigation into Amnesty over the report.^[13]

Please share your thoughts. I look forward to your contributions/responses. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC) I revised and updated this in line with text I proposed at Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism#Protected edit request on 24 July 2026.In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC) UPDATE: I am withdrawing this proposed change in favor of another similar change. Please see my NEW changed text in my comment replying to Myceteae.--In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

So you most certainly have repeated the same information twice. You can clearly see it in paragraphs 1 and repeated in paragraph 8 of the UK section of the page in this, your disputed version that you restored without establishing a consensus: . Yes, you added a few extra words in paragraph 8, but you largely repeat yourself in the same section. So yes, one or the other needs to come out.

As for my dismissive reasoning, I was, in fact, following discussion at Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism where you are aware that there is no consensus to include this information, where you admitted We are at a bit of an impasse. As discussed there, and as described in my edit summary, there are several problems with including this information, copied from the Amnesty International page, in this format. Let me set them out here again, even though they were in my edsum:

1. The Amnesty International report was never specifically about Gender-Critical/Trans-exclusionary radical feminism (which, to be very clear, is the page subject here). It was about anti-rights in general in the UK.
2. Amnesty have withdrawn the report and been very clear that its content was not in line with the views of Amnesty UK. As such, we have an authority, the owners of the report itself, saying "pay no attention to the content of this report."
3. What you have placed in the article is primary news reporting, setting out a narrative in Wikivoice synthesised from news reports. The number of such reports and their dates is telling. This is not how to write articles. What you need, as I have said repeatedly, is a secondary source that discusses the report, and (to be due here) sets out how any of this reflects upon the UK situation regarding the acceptance, influence or whatever regarding Gender-critical feminism in the UK. Such sources are not yet written because any such synthesis is premature. The news story is covered at the Amnesty International page. The overall impact on multiple other pages is unknown and should not be added to articles until it is known.

This has been explained multiple times. Your characterisation of this as dismissive reasoning looks like WP:IDHT. Now this disputed text was added by you yesterday. I reverted it. Per WP:ONUS you should not restore that text until their is a positive consensus for it (or something like it) being included in the page. On the assumption you were unaware of WP:ONUS (which states that The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content.) I will remove the text one more time. Let's get a consensus here now, please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

On the first point, I only added about the Amnesty International report later, as to expand on what was stated in paragraph 1, so to say it is "repetitive" is plainly wrong, even if there are some of the same words. What I mean is that in the second proposed change I added above, I said "On July 10, 2026, Amnesty International published a briefing on 'anti-rights' groups in the UK, and later withdrew the report". I only had that to connect with the first paragraph of that section.

On the second point, your reasoning is still dismissive. I did say there was a bit of an impasse, that is true, but that was because it was in the wrong discussion section, so I moved it yesterday. And to sneer at me that there are "several problems" is false. The report is about groups which fall into "Gender-Critical/Trans-exclusionary radical feminism." The reporting on the original report, in May, by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism says:

Yet, a day earlier, the international human rights organisation Amnesty International published research into media coverage of trans issues that paints the attitudes of the Guardian, and three other major UK newspapers, in a very different light. Analysis commissioned by Amnesty determined that the Times and Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Sun and the Guardian published a combined 16,913 articles on trans-related topics between January 2020 and April 2025, an average of around nine per day. The Times and Sunday Times had the most with an average of 83.5 articles per month. The report noted the coverage was “entirely disproportionate” to the number of trans people in the UK, who, according to the 2021 Census, make up 0.5% of the population.

Now, the July report in question is, as far as I understand it, an update/continuation of the May report (which is still up). And the report itself talks about how the Christian Institute "is classified as an ultra-conservative Christian policy and advocacy organisation, but its work encompasses abortion, trans rights, education and other issues" and adds "In April 2026, ADF International worked with the gender-critical organisation Women's Sports Union to threaten legal action against sports organisations in England over policies allowing the participation of trans athletes in women's sport" and then adds:

An organised anti-rights movement targeting the rights of women and LGBT+ people is growing in the UK. Over 60% of the organisations mapped have emerged since 2017, the vast majority [are] gender critical organisations...With the addition of 51 gender critical actors and one pregnancy crisis centre, the sample has grown to 117 actors...As over half of the 51 gender critical actors mapped (32) are informal, the composition of the sample’s legal status has changed from the 2025 mapping where 75% of entities were registered as either charities or companies. Even adding the gender critical informal actors, 69 (60%) of the sample are registered entities, of which over half are charities (36). Of the total sample of 117 therefore, over 30% are registered charities (30.7%)...Given the addition of gender critical organisations, the financial sample cannot be compared like for like with that published in 2025 which found that 32 organisations spent £106 million between 2019 and 2023...hen it comes to political and social change expenditure is just one of the factors to consider. In fact, gender critical organisations only account for 2.5% of total expenditure but have been remarkably successful in realising their agenda through strategic litigation and campaigning.

On top of that, if you go to the pages 18-20 of the report, under "Anti-rights organisations identified" it lists 49 organizations as "gender critical" (another name for those with TERF ideology) and 12 under "conversion practices." So, to presume that this report doesn't fit with this page is faulty. It fits with this page. The report focuses on anti-rights groups, primarily which are TERF groups. I'd be happy to revise my above text to reflect that. Otherwise, you are correct that Amnesty have withdrawn the report and they have said "its content was not in line with the views of Amnesty UK." However, that doesn't mean we should just ignore the report, and to say we magically have the authority to "pay no attention to the content of this report" is a huge presumption.

You thirdly claim that what I have done is "primary news reporting, setting out a narrative in Wikivoice synthesised from news reports" and claiming that this isn't how to write articles. There are multiple secondary sources discussing the report. And you seem to be saying that we should wait for years for possible academic analysis. The time is now to add this. To wait years for possible analysis does a disservice. And it should be on more than the Amnesty International page as it is relevant to this page and to Trans-exclusionary radical feminism page. To say "the overall impact on multiple other pages is unknown and should not be added to articles until it is known" seems strange. How long are we supposed to wait and twiddle our thumbs?

I stand by calling your edits dismissive. I get your point and I disagreed with your disputed text. I only reversed your edit to make my point at my disagreement. I was fully aware (and expected) it would be reversed. I often times only do a reversal to get my disagreement at an edit (or edits) on the record, not to violate any policies. So to finger wag at me over this is not helpful. And I'm happy to talk about my suggested changes, although I doubt you will change your point on this, so I would like to here from other editors. I will say that your approach here has been very heavy-handed and I wish you had gone about it a different way.In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

No time for a full reply just now, but you are aware that "gender-critical feminism" is different from "trans rights", being narrower, and defined by a philosophically feminist position? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I only included the mention of trans rights as an example. The report undoubtedly focuses on "gender-critical feminism" and I have revised the proposed text to note that.In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

OK I see you made some edits to your comment after I said that, but I don't think you have grasped what I am saying. None of your highlighted phrases, even after the edit, talk specifically about gender-critical feminism (AKA Trans exclusionary radical feminism), and it lists 49 organizations as "gender critical" (another name for those with TERF ideology) is incorrect (and also uses a term often understood as a slur). Trans-exclusionary radical feminism exactly describes the philosophy that this page is about. Not all gender-critical organisations are feminists. A case in point, you state: And the report itself talks about how the Christian Institute "is classified as an ultra-conservative Christian policy and advocacy organisation, but its work encompasses abortion, trans rights, education and other issues". You don't notice that the Christian Institute are explicitly not gender-critical feminists/trans-exclusionary radical feminists. They are part of a broader gender-critical movement, yes, and that movement is also described as anti-trans, yes. But they explicitly reject the feminist view that gender is socially constructed. This is a core difference. This page and the parent page are about a branch of feminism, explicitly. What you are describing above is what we cover in the article Anti-gender movement. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

You are really trying to split hairs here, but perhaps you make a good point about the organizations and the TERF movement. In any case, I have proposed a narrower version of the text which focuses specifically on Rowling, in a comment response to Myceteae, which would fit even more directly with the page, so your thoughts there would be appreciated. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Also I recognise I didn't reply to your complaint that I am asking for secondary sources that are simply not available now. As has been pointed out, the WP:NOW essay you link is about removing errors quickly before people rely on them. It is not about rushing text in without secondary sources. WP:N is clear: Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability (see WP:SUSTAINED). We wait for secondary sources to say a thing before we say a thing because this is a tertiary source with a No original research policy. It won't be years before we get a secondary source if this is due at all, but neither is it likely that we will get such a source in the midst of the news cycle.

And note that we are not keeping text out of the encyclopaedia here. We have this news reporting in the Amnesty International page already. It is probably a little premature there too, but it will stay there, so the information is not being suppressed. It is clearly a story about Amnesty, and almost certain that better sourcing will emerge regarding Amnesty and this story. Is it clearly a story about gender-critical feminism? That is unclear. I wouldn't be at all surprised if sources emerged showing it is. But that is speculation at this stage. And even if they will be written, we don't know what they will say. So let's wait for the sources, and add them when the come. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not saying we should rush text without secondary sources, as there are already secondary sources about this report, i.e. news organizations. The report itself is cited once, because I thought I had to do that, but that's only to give further context. And I would actually say that that this is a story about gender-critical feminism in terms of how people like Rowling see it, as she has a big role in the backlash to the report. Hence, that's why I decided to move forward with a new version of the text which mainly centers on Rowling (as her charity Beira's Place was listed in the report). And more sources, of the ones you envision, can be added in the future, of course. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Newspaper reports of an event or situation are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. The last part of the page you cited does say "Again, not all primary sources are unreliable or bad. Just because most newspaper articles are primary sources does not mean that these articles are not reliable and often highly desirable independent sources." That's what I'd stand on when it comes to including the articles I did. Besides I have withdrawn the above text, as I stated in other comments, in favor of a possibly narrower text which focuses on Rowling and her response to the report (as her charity was directly named). In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I've been loosely aware of the series of related discussions but have not previously participated. I've read through this and Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism#Protected edit request on 24 July 2026. Please excuse me, but do let me know, if I've missed something. Overall, I do find the proposed additions to be overboard. With these additions, § United Kingdom would be approx. 880 words, of which 180 words (≈ 20%) are dedicated to the publication and subsequent withdrawal and investigation of the Amnesty International report. The task is to reflect the way that transgender-exclusionary radical feminism is covered in high quality reliable sources and dedicating one-fifth of our coverage to the events surrounding this report is WP:UNDUE.

It is possible the report could be mentioned somehow, with a link to Amnesty International § 2026 Anti-Rights Movement in the United Kingdom report or Anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom § Amnesty International report, but I'm not entirely sure how. The status and impact of the report relative to the wider issue in the UK is genuinely unknown at this time. It doesn't make sense to try to document the play-by-play on three separate pages.

The issues of terminology and classifications (trans-exclusionary radical feminism/feminist, gender critical; anti-trans*; anti-rights) also warrant careful consideration. Perhaps we can say more about these squabbles in the UK while again linking to other articles about broader or narrower topics. Some duplication is helpful and necessary but it also tends to promote repeated disputes across multiple articles, lead to inconsistency between articles over time, and can bog down articles that are meant to a more or less broad focus.

I do think there is room to expand somewhat on JK Rowling's role in the issue, but the Amnesty International report would not be the focus. Rowling's involvement is frequently covered in UK and international media —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry this is all a bit disjointed and that is partially my fault. This whole experience is not encouraging me to do something like this again. You did link to the right discussion and I appreciate that.

Anyway, let me address your comments. You say that that the proposed additions are overboard and that it would be "approx. 880 words, of which 180 words (≈20%) are dedicated to the publication and subsequent withdrawal and investigation of the Amnesty International report" and that the task is to "reflect the way that transgender-exclusionary radical feminism is covered in high quality reliable sources," saying that "dedicating one-fifth of our coverage to the events surrounding this report is WP:UNDUE." I hear what you are saying. Secondly, you note that it is possible that the report could be mentioned with a link to two specific places. You are right, and I do not disagree, that "the status and impact of the report relative to the wider issue in the UK is genuinely unknown at this time." And I hear what you are saying that it "doesn't make sense to try to document the play-by-play on three separate pages."

Now, you further say that "issues of terminology and classifications...also warrant careful consideration" and I agree with you that "we can say more about these squabbles in the UK while again linking to other articles about broader or narrower topics," but I also hear what you are saying about how duplication can lead to repeated disputes and how it can "bog down articles that are meant to a more or less broad focus."

Lastly, the last part here is a bit promising. You say "I do think there is room to expand somewhat on JK Rowling's role in the issue, but the Amnesty International report would not be the focus. Rowling's involvement is frequently covered in UK and international media". In fact, Rowling is mentioned in the UK sub-section already, in the last paragraph (before the "Sex-based rights" sub-section), saying, presently:

Some public figures such as Graham Linehan^[14][15][16] and J. K. Rowling^[17][18][19] have often been featured in gender-critical social media posts. The Internet forum Mumsnet has also been a prominent hub of online gender-critical discourse.^[20][21]

My new proposal, so we *still* include the report, but tie it to Rowling (as her role in the aftermath is notable) would be change this text to the following:

Some public figures such as Graham Linehan^[22][23][24] and J. K. Rowling^[25][26][27] have often been featured in gender-critical social media posts. The Internet forum Mumsnet has also been a prominent hub of online gender-critical discourse.^[28][29] On July 13, 2026, Rowling offered to financially back organizations which wished to sue Amnesty International for a report that mapped what it described as 'anti-rights' groups in the UK, the "vast majority" of were anti-transgender "gender critical" organizations,^[6] such as Beira's Place, a charity funded by Rowling.^[30][31][32] Following this and legal threats, Amnesty withdrew the report saying the report's "use of language does not reflect the position of Amnesty International UK",^[33][34] and Beira's Place, a charity founded by Rowling, threatened to sue Amnesty unless it apologised and commissioned an external investigation into the report's publication.^[35]

Let me know your thoughts. I look forward to hearing from you. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed response. While the discussion has started to get heated at times, I think there is no harm done as long as we're able to make progress. The suggestion to work on the coverage here first and then determine which very high level details to summarize at Trans-exclusionary radical feminism § United Kingdom was a good one, so I'm glad it's being discussed here and I don't see this discussion as entirely duplicative even if many of the same points were initially repeated (by both parties).

I did see that Rowling was already mentioned, and it seemed rather sparse given her high-profile involvement now over several years. At the same time, I don't think that more than 1–3 sentences about Rowling is likely "DUE" here, nor is the focus on the Amnesty International report given the extent of her involvement. If someone asked me what are one or two key things to know about Rowling's relationship to trans-exclusionary radical feminism in the UK, I wouldn't focus on this most recent incident. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The content within the Amnesty report should not be used - it is no longer a reliable source given that it has been retracted.

Discussing the spat over its allegations, their withdrawal, and the demands for a public apology, could be included on this page. However, given that there are ongoing investigations by the Charity Commission, Amnesty, and assorted lawyers, and that this is not a particularly massive event in the global scheme of things, our best course of action is to not add anything, until there is a conclusion about who needs to apologise to whom.

Even then, I agree that the devoting a lot of space to this spat is not appropriate. Why not simply expand that line referred to above? "Some public figures such as Graham Linehan and J. K. Rowling have often been featured in gender-critical social media posts, and have offered financial backing for legal support to organisations accused by being "anti trans" - then cite some of the reporting. StupidLookingKid (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Amnesty report is only being used to verify what the Amnesty report was saying within it. It is certainly reliable for that purpose. Katzrockso (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

You are completely right on why the Amnesty report was cited. Also, it does mention Beira's Place by name in the end, on page 19, which could be part of the reason that Rowling responded the way she did and she has allies in the wider TERF movement, who were in organizations named in the report. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Many apologies - I was thinking about an earlier suggestion, which I think @Historyday01 has withdrawn.

I still maintain that this incident is not sufficiently notable (yet) to warrant inclusion at all.

However, in the interests of compromise, would a shorter version work, with a promise that we will revise the text (not merely add to it) when the results of any complaint hearing / legal case / apology etc appears? "On July 13, 2026, Rowling offered to financially back organizations which wished to sue Amnesty International for a report describing many "gender critical" organizations in the UK as 'anti-rights', and which Amnesty subsequently retracted." StupidLookingKid (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the story about JKR as it relates to this page is that in the UK situation, she is rich enough and willing to financially back legal challenges in all manner of related disputes. The important one is her backing of For Women Scotland. The Amnesty issue is new but I don't see that it has anywhere near that level of importance, and I just don't see how it is WP:DUE here. Rowling is due though. I also think there must be secondary sources that discuss JKR's deep pockets and willingness to support such causes. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

As far as whether to include the Amnesty report incident, I don't particularly have an opinion on its inclusion/exclusion from this article. I just do not believe it belongs at the parent article. Katzrockso (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

You are right that JKR is "rich enough and willing to financially back legal challenges in all manner of related disputes" and I don't mind adding about her backing of For Women Scotland (I believe that organization was listed in the Amnesty report). The only reason I think the Amnesty withdrawn report should be mentioned is (1) she offered to assist organizations in suing Amnesty, an organization she was once a part of (which some trans advocates have described as her "getting revenge") and (2) one of the organizations listed by Amnesty was Beira's Place, a charity which she backs. I'm certain there are certainly secondary sources which "discuss JKR's deep pockets and willingness to support such causes". Just looking at J. K. Rowling#Transgender people I found these sources:

...Rowling...financially supported the gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland in the landmark UK Supreme Court case For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers.^[36]...in 2022...Rowling founded Beira's Place with her own funds, a women-only rape help centre that provides free support services to survivors of sexual violence.^[37][38] The centre does not serve trans women.^[39] In 2025, she opened the J.K. Rowling Women's Fund, which supports groups advocating for "sex-based rights" for women^[40]

Now, from what I have read about the dispute over the Amnesty report, going beyond Beira's Place being mentioned, she directly offered to financially support groups through her "J.K. Rowling Women's Fund" as well. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, we would revise the text when the results of any complaint hearing/legal case / apology appears. I would slightly revise your sentence, so as to include Beira's Place (since Rowling backs that) to say:

On July 13, 2026, Rowling offered to financially back organizations which wished to sue Amnesty International for a report describing many "gender critical" organizations in the UK as 'anti-rights',^[6][41] including her charity, Beira's Place,^[42][43] and which Amnesty subsequently retracted,^[44][45] then commissioned an external investigation into the report's publication, following legal threats from Beira's Place.^[46][47]

Thoughts? In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Just to keep things straight, the current wording is:

Some public figures such as Graham Linehan^[48][49][50] and J. K. Rowling^[51][52][53] have often been featured in gender-critical social media posts. The Internet forum Mumsnet has also been a prominent hub of online gender-critical discourse.^[54][55]

How about something like:

Some public figures such as Graham Linehan^[56][57][58] and J. K. Rowling^[59][60][61] have often been featured in gender-critical social media posts. Rowling's views about transgender people feature prominently in the national conversation. Her statements have divided feminists^[62][63][64] and have led some to refer to her as a TERF,^[65][66][67] a characterization which Rowling has rejected.^[68][69] Rowling's involvement has included opposing trans rights legislation,^[70][71][72] including providing financial support in the leading UK Supreme Court Case For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers.^[73] In 2022, Rowling founded Beira's Place, a support service for victims of sexual violence that describes itself as a "women-only service", and does not hire or provide services to transgender women.^[74] Rowling threatened to sue Amnesty International UK after they released a report in July 2026 that labeled Beira's Place and other UK feminist organizations "anti-rights".^[75] Amnesty retracted the report under pressure.^[75]

The Internet forum Mumsnet has also been a prominent hub of online gender-critical discourse.^[76][77]

It's rough, but it's a start. Some of the refs are duplicated and some contain empty 'refnames' that need to be recovered from the source article if these are to be used. Some of the citations contain very long quotes from the source, which I think do not need to be included here. I copied text from Political views of J. K. Rowling and Beira's Place, so if this gets used in the article, we need to provide attribution in the edit summary per the guidance at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and we could consider additionally using the {{copied from}} template on the talk page here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, when I saved the above reply, I got a notice that one of the references included an archive.today URL, which needs to be removed from the source article and not inserted here. I'll sift through and find it. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I see. I remember I went through a bunch of articles after that decision about archive.today, and personally, I did dissent from that opinion as I was concerned about what information could be lost, and I know in a number of cases some the links were never added to archive.org (i.e. the Wayback Machine), so that info. is permanently lost now... I doubt that's the case with this reference, however. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I recognise the above text. It's not wrong, but it does bring in a whole lot of newspaper sources, and it is adapted from pages about JKR and not about gender-critical feminism in the UK. I am certain there are better sources. Let me see if I can find something and work from there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Claire Thurlow's PhD doesn't talk about the funding at all, but it has a whole chapter on Rowling's influence. This is largely discursive, amplified because of her status as the Harry Potter author, and given media coverage because of her celebrity that adds a layer if authority. Thurlow argues that Rowling’s contribution is architectural, constructing and reinforcing a social discourse, or discursive framework perhaps, in which trans rights appear to threaten women, and where opposing trans‑inclusive policies becomes a reasonable, even caring, feminist stance.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that together and I think that's much better. That way, we aren't going into all the detail about the report, but we are also talking about Rowling's impact here. The Star Observer article I included in my proposed text could be good to add too, along with the Newsweek one only because both of those do directly mention Rowling. Perhaps even the Pink News one too since that directly mentions Beira's Place. Feel free to use any of the citations I used in my edit in your updated wording. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Beira's place is not a charity. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, it seems that news articles (like Newsweek, The Guardian, LBC) did call it that, so... that was the only reason I called it a charity. But, of course, that can be changed, and you are right, that doesn't align with the other sources. I've embraced Myceteae's updated language, so I'm going to work off that.In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a response to multiple replies, not just the one immediately above.

• Re: It's not wrong, but it does bring in a whole lot of newspaper sources, and it is adapted from pages about JKR and not about gender-critical feminism in the UK. – The section already uses many newspaper sources, and these are sources one would expect to cover a celebrity's involvement in political and "culture wars" type issues. All the incidents I chose to summarize are fairly high profile, appear representative of Rowling's overall involvement and status in the national conversation without getting into minutiae, and are related to the gender-critical movement. I included specific reference to feminist reactions to Rowling's anti-trans views and the explicit accusation that she is a "TERF". The other examples and incidents I chose to include demonstrate Rowling's involvement in topics that are already discussed in the section, specifically laws and court cases at the intersection of transgender people's and women's rights and the role of "feminist" or women's organizations in the anti-trans movement.
• Re: Other sources – One of my reasons for summarizing existing content from Political views of J. K. Rowling is that it is a high profile WP:BLP article about a contentious topic (CTOP; WP:GENSEX). Thus, the content and the sources used to support its inclusion on Wikipedia have likely already been subjected to a great deal of scrutiny. Of course, that does not mean they are perfect or complete. Per WP:THESIS, doctoral theses should be used with caution. I see a pretty high bar to clear in light of the BLP and CTOP considerations. That said, I haven't read it yet, so I can't offer a more specific opinion. Regarding the other news sources covering the Amnesty International report, I think these are fine but don't add much, especially for a very concise summary of the issue here. I chose the article from The Times because it provided comprehensive coverage of the incident in a single source and the paper is considered generally reliable and is a paper of record in the UK. I am aware that Amnesty criticized The Times 's coverage of trans topics in their earlier report but I don't think the article I cited should be controversial for the two sentences I used it for.

Despite my long response here, I'm not married to what I wrote. I do think there must be better sources that provide an overview of Rowling's involvement, not just in relation to one specific incident or another. These will likely include news sources. I read the feedback overall as saying that there could be better sources but I am not seeing any significant challenges to the accuracy or appropriateness of what is written. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I think your text is good. I would ask to remove "under pressure" which feels like editorialising. StupidLookingKid (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, good call. Maybe we can just say Amnesty subsequently retracted the report. and call it good. I'm inclined to add this to the article soon, as the discussion has slowed down. That, of course, would not prevent further editing or discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Fine by me. And thank you. I don't know how barnstars work, but if I did I'd award you the "Barnstar of Just Calmly Sorting Everything Out" (very rare, that one) StupidLookingKid (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The text on Beira's place, if it is to be here at all, really should focus on Rowling starting it because of an "unmet need" for "women-delivered care." since the Edinburgh Rape Crisis (ERCC) National Service Standards Report found that "for around 16 months ERCC did not provide dedicated women only spaces, as required by the National Service Standards, while declaring to RCS that they were adhering to the standards."

The text should also not synthesise news reports to make the two step from threat of lawsuit to withdrawal, since Amnesty themselves say that the report was withdrawn (now permanently) because it had not gone "through the established internal review processes that are in place to ensure consistency, accuracy and alignment with Amnesty International UK's positions". If we have to follow a primary source news report, we should follow the most up to date and jettison those from earlier in the news cycle. Personally I don't think this says anything about gender-critical feminism in the UK. It is just the wrong report to be focusing on.

You mention WP:THESIS, but look: the care we take for a PhD thesis is because the thesis will often contain information for which it is a primary source. But inasmuch as the thesis is an academic synthesis, it is certainly secondary. What you are missing is that this suitable caution regarding an academic work is triply important for primary news reporting. The reason we shouldn't be stitching together news reports into a narrative is because the synthetic narrative is ours. So if you are going to follow a news report, I suggest taking just that BBC article, and following that. Or wait for an actual secondary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

We've already agreed to simplify the wording to just say that Amnesty withdrew the report; readers can click the links to the parent article on that topic if they want to know more.

You seem to be the only hold out on not including any mention of the Amnesty report whatsoever. I don't feel that strongly but I think it is relevant and I'm trying to work towards a solution that briefly summarizes the issue while pointing readers to dedicated coverage in related articles. This does say something about the gender-critical movement in the UK, and Rowling's very prominent involvement. We could provide a bit more background on Beira's Place, as you suggest. That would be fine, but then we are devoting yet more space in this article to JKR, and using another news source to support the added content. I've exceeded my limit of free BBC articles but if you'd like to propose wording that summarizes their latest article on the retracted Amnesty report, that would be helpful.

There a number of reasons to limit the use of doctoral theses or dissertations and there are key differences between theses and news sources that you are missing. Newsrooms have editorial standards and practices that support their recognition as generally reliable. The practices for doctoral theses are variable. If we know something about the oversight of Thurlow's thesis or the reputation of her advisor, that would inform the determination. The differences between news organizations and theses are relevant to assessments of both reliability and WP:DUEWEIGHT. Aggregate reporting establishes both in a way that a single thesis cannot. We have reams of reporting on the Amnesty report that frame it in the context of Rowling's prominence in the UK gender-critical movement. Any one of the dozen or so sources I have read could support the factual statements:

Rowling threatened to sue Amnesty International UK after they released a report in July 2026 that labeled Beira's Place and other UK feminist organizations "anti-rights".^[X] Amnesty subsequently retracted the report.^[X]

The second sentence could certainly be rewritten any number of ways to include additional details or framing.

Ultimately, the discussion of the reliability of Thurlow's thesis is purely theoretical at this point. If there is a proposal to add a specific statement to the article, we could assess whether the source supports it. Even then, DUEWEIGHT questions remain. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Claire Thurlow's Ph.D. supervisor was Marysia Zalewski. She is Professor of International Relations in the School of Law and Politics at Cardiff University. It is standard practice in the UK that a Ph.D. thesis must be defended at a viva voce at which there will be internal and at least one external examiners. If you think that's less rigorous than editorial review for a column at a newspaper...

Now, if we prefer newspapers now to PhD theses, then I give you the Washington Post, which frames the Amnesty debacle very differently. For Doyle, the writer of that piece, this may be a story about Trans-exclusionary radical feminism, but for him it is ultimately one that frames it in terms of institutional capture of Amnesty by a rogue element that could bring the charity down. For him, the writers of the report have not only subverted Amnesty's core mission and turned it against itself, but they misunderstood what gender-critical feminism is in the process. For him, the story about gender-critical feminism in the UK is that it is a protected belief in the human rights act that is being eroded by the work of anti-liberal social justice warrior activists. Should we put that in the article? Why not?

Now I am not arguing we should put it in. We could argue either way (it is a secondary source for detail, but it is an op-ed which is primary for the viewpoint). I trust we don't even need to discuss that further, however, because this much is clear: there is an editorial bias at work there. And writers of op eds don't have to defend their thesis to a panel of examiners. But there is an editorial bias in other news sources too. The BBC is structurally designed to be less biased than most - but it still has biases. Most other news sources have significant, known and deliberate bias. So really, more critical assessment is needed.

Am I the only "hold out"? Not sure. What I do see is a determined effort to place a bit of current news into an article as though it describes the situation in the UK. If people are giving in to it out of exhaustion or a desire to compromise, it doesn't answer the question of whether it represents the UK situation adequately for a tertiary encyclopaedic article. I don't see how it does. There are better sources for describing the situation in the UK. There are secondary sources and academic sources. A lot of the academic literature is quite hostile too, mind. This subject is a mine field. But yes, there are sources that describe the UK situation as a UK situation. Those should be the ones we are using. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I just don't see how you can characterize two sentences as an attempt to describe it the entire situation in the UK. There was agreement that Rowling's role in the national conversation should be expanded and you commented that the story about JKR as it relates to this page is that in the UK situation, she is rich enough and willing to financially back legal challenges in all manner of related disputes. Again, many news articles do provide the context with respect to Rowling's past involvement and the founding of Beira's Place. Does the BBC source not support the two sentences that discuss the Amnesty–Rowling incident?

I also reject your characterization of my contributions as part of a determined effort. Honestly, I agree that the original addition was over the top and especially out of place in the parent article. However, many editors supported adding some version of it to the parent article in the discussion at Talk:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism#Protected edit request on 24 July 2026. Among the objections were suggestions to add it here, instead. And again I'm not coming to this with a strong opinion either way, but it doesn't make sense to allow your filibustering to prevent an update to the article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not intend to imply that you were part of the "determined effort". I saw that you were sceptical of the original, and meant that you were one of those with the "desire to compromise". But if A should not be in the article because it doesn't belong, then a compromise that just puts a part of A in the article is wrong. None of it belongs, because no one (except perhaps Andrew Doyle) has argued that this case tells us anything about the situation in the UK. Amnesty haven't, as they have permanently removed the report. In an article that intends an encyclopaedic summary of the situation on how the topic is treated by country, the Amnesty debacle shows us exactly nothing. Whereas there are, I repeat, many sources arguing that the UK has taken a particular course on the trans debate.

As for Rowling, Thurlow and what I said about finance: yes, I said, speaking from my knowledge on the matter, that I expect that JKR is due a mention because of how she financially backed For Women Scotland. But here's the thing: we are to be led by the sources. I don't start with the edit I want to add, and then find sources to back me up. Instead I did a search for sources about JKR and one of the best I could find was Thurlow. Thurlow, however, doesn't cover the For Women Scotland case but makes a different argument about the importance of JKR. That doesn't mean I abandon the search for secondary sources that go beyond Thurlow, as her PhD was particularly looking at the discursive environment. But having found the source, I now think that we should follow Thurlow and mention her impact on the discursive environment. That is, I think I had not considered JKR's contribution fully enough, but I will be led by the sources as to what the page should say. the WP:BESTSOURCES. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

This is text I wrote that uses another BESTSOURCE (but just from one academic) to describe the UK situation:

Sally Hines argues that UK gender‑critical feminism has built close alliances with right‑wing, far‑right, and religious fundamentalist actors to oppose trans rights in the UK. She shows how "gender‑critical" groups mobilised around the proposed reform of the UK Gender Recognition Act from 2017 onward, opposing self‑identification and depicting trans women as threats in single‑sex spaces such as toilets, prisons and refuges. She argues that this mobilisation popularised a discourse centred around "gender ideology," "institutional capture," and "sex‑based rights." These and claims of censorship legitimise campaigns against trans healthcare, legal recognition, and equality policies. She documents how this ideology has gained traction within UK parliamentary politics, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, and conservative media, often via a small network of actors. She also highlights the significance of Tufton Street based organisations, such as LGBA and Civitas-linked projects, as hubs where gender‑critical feminism intersects with free‑market, anti‑climate and other right‑wing lobbying efforts.^[78]

Not arguing we should use that, but it is an example of a secondary source that specifically describes the UK situation, and is not event reporting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Adding here purely as information. Amnesty have issued a formal public apology for their report: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/latest/an-apology-a-growing-threat-briefing-published-on-8-july-2026/ StupidLookingKid (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Not only an apology, but they took down the earlier report as well! I wonder if there will be backlash for their apology and taking down that report as well. I may add in that press release as well to the UK section, particularly the part of the May report. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

At this point, I do think the latest Amnesty debacle is too complex to try to summarize in this article. To be clear, I think it may be possible in the future, and a high quality news source could be fine for this. But it is a moving target that is challenging to summarize in one or two sentences. I think the article is not terribly deficient without it. However, I think the JK Rowling discussion can still be expanded without this.

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to disagree with you on the Amnesty report being cited. It is only mentioned as I would be verifying what the report said. In terms of "discussing the spat over its allegations, their withdrawal, and the demands for a public apology, could be included on this page," I did include those in the original version, but I got pushback from a certain user, so I removed that. And if I did include them, people would say, oh no, it goes against WP:UNDUE. I disagree that "our best course of action" is to add nothing.

As for your second part saying that "devoting a lot of space to this spat is not appropriate," I will say I already cut this down from two paragraphs to one paragraph. Your suggestion on expanding that line is workable, except it couldn't be exactly in that same sentence as far as I know, Rowling is the only one who offered "financial backing for legal support." I don't know if Lineman offered that or not. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that. I am also glad it is being discussed here, even if, yes, many of the same points were initially repeated. I agree with you that Rowling being mentions seemed rather sparse prior to this. I do think it is possibly notable that she offered to give financial assistance to those wanting to sue Amnesty and the fact that a charity she founded was one of the groups listed as "gender-critical" and media seems to be framing this entire report around this. What do you suggest when it comes to Rowling's involvement/relationship to trans-exclusionary radical feminism in the UK? I still feel like the report should be included, but the question is how to do so.

I will also say that yesterday I added a paragraph to the UK section about a previous report in May of this year (the July report seems to be an update/expansion of that report) on what Amnesty describes as the "gender critical movement in the UK" and in that report they call out Rowling by name (page 11) when it comes to news coverage of trans people and related issues in the UK press. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I think waiting till there is an independent adjudication from the Charity Commission might be best. There was, and is, no rush.

However, what do we do about this paragraph, which is now based almost entirely on a report that has been retracted. Is it simplest to just delete it?

"In late May 2026, Amnesty International determined that from January 2020 to April 2025, five British newspapers, the Times, Sunday Times, The Telegraph, the Sun and the Guardian, published about nine articles a day on average, with over 16,900 articles on "trans-related topics" in all over that period, saying this coverage was "entirely disproportionate" to the actual population of trans people in the UK. The organization also stated that this coverage often "excluded trans voices," had "real-life implications" for trans people, and described the growth of "gender critical" organizations as a coordinated effort since 2017. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism stated that the editorial line across the press in the UK "creates major challenges for trans journalists". On July 31, 2026, Amnesty stated, in a press release, about another report published on July 8, 2026, that the report had been taken down, but did not provide a reason for doing so." StupidLookingKid (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I wondered about this, too. We already devote substantial coverage to the May 2026 Amnesty report, and mention the July report. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Calling in @Snokalok2 for another opinion on it. What do you reckon we do with this? Do we trim it right down to the BIJ report (but then that seems a bit weak on its own. Are there other sources we can use to discuss the state of media reporting in the UK? StupidLookingKid (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Same question. There are other sources we can use, but today is a busy day for me so give me 24 to pull them and I'll drop some links. Snokalok2 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Right, here we go:

https://www.thepinknews.com/2026/05/25/new-report-warns-uk-media-features-disproportionate-negative-coverage-of-trans-issues/

https://novaramedia.com/2026/05/29/trans-segregation-is-becoming-law-what-can-we-do-about-it/

https://qnews.com.au/in-2026-australian-media-is-writing-about-trans-people-16-times-a-week/ (The most in-depth)

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/amnesty-chief-anti-rights-report-jk-rowling-q5mbpljsl

https://www.lemkininstitute.com/statements-new-page/statement-on-the-anti-trans-and-anti-intersex-ehrc-code-of-practice-in-the-united-kingdom Snokalok2 (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Snokalok2 Apart from the Lemkin one, which doesn't seem to be about media, those are all news reports based on Amnesty's May report. Given that has now been retracted, I was wondering if there were other sources, not reliant on Amnesty, that we could use to support a paragraph about the UK media being biased. I think, in the absence of that, we should really just delete the current paragraph as no longer reliable, as @Trystan also suggests below. StupidLookingKid (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree that the Amnesty report should come out, but we can replace it with something better. For instance, there are:

• Baker, P. (2019) ‘Representing trans people in the UK press – a follow-up study’. Lancaster University, Centre for Corpus Approaches to Social Science. Available at: https://cass.lancs.ac.uk/representing-trans-people-in-the-uk-press-a-follow-up-study-professor-paul-baker/ (Accessed: 6 August 2026)
• Humphrey, R. (2016) ‘“I think journalists sometimes forget that we’re just people”: Analysing the effects of UK trans media representation on trans audiences’, Gender Forum, 56, pp. 23–43. Available at: https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/155352/ (Accessed: 6 August 2026)
• Akrivos, D. (2022) ‘Transgender reporting in the British press: Editorial standards and discursive harms in the post-Leveson era’, Journal of Media Law, 14(2), pp. 406–441. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2153216 (Accessed: 6 August 2026)

Baker is an academic, but this is not a peer reviewed and published piece. All the same, scholar finds 11 citations to it. Humphrey has the most citations (33 or 35 depending on where you look) and Akrivos has 6-8. On the other hand, Humphrey is 10 years old, and Baker and Akrivos suggest things have changed somewhat. Akrivos is the most up to date, and The Journal of Media Law is a specialised but respectable peer reviewed journal. It's a legitimate scholarly outlet for media and journalism law research.

However Akrivos is primarily a critical analysis of press regulation, not a statistical content analysis proving that one newspaper or political camp is more biased or more fixated on the issue than another. The central question is: how well do UK press-regulation systems prevent harmful and discriminatory reporting about transgender people? If you wanted something more like the Amnesty article itself, we either need to keep searching, or decide whether Humphrey is too old, or whether it can be used. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Incidentally, I would have thought the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Culture would have something to say on this. I haven't found anything yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Baker or Akrivos, based on your description of them. I did read Humphrey, and it consists of interviews with nine trans people about their thoughts about the media. It's not really enough to support a whole paragraph on whether and why the British media are based IMO 09:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC) StupidLookingKid (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, actually I think Baker (2019) is the most directly comparable to the Amnesty paragraph. But it is also old. As mentioned, however, it has 11 citations so I looked at who is citing it. In addition to Thurlow (2024), discussed above, I found this:

• Bracco, S.E., Sczesny, S. and Gustafsson Sendén, M. (2024) ‘Media portrayals of trans and gender diverse people: A comparative analysis of news headlines across Europe’, Sex Roles, 90(4), pp. 491–507. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01461-6

That's an interesting read with some contextualised findings across several countries including the UK. After a cursory reading, it seems to be saying that media representations broadly corresponded to a country’s social and legal climate (which, I think is expected. Whether media set or follow the social climate, they are rarely divorced from it). Sweden and the UK apparently offer greater protection and acceptance than Italy, and thus had more neutral and less negative portrayals, fewer depictions of trans people as victims of violence or discrimination, less misgendering and objectification, and more representation of gender-diverse people. Across all three countries, trans women were represented much more frequently than trans men and other gender-diverse people. A clear imbalance. Anyway, I think it's worth considering. It gets us away from the constant recycling of primary news reporting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Good paper. Actual evidence! StupidLookingKid (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were asking about Amnesty specifically because regardless of whether we can cite it for the information contained within, the report itself and its retraction under threat of lawsuit is still a notable event and it being a notable event imo primarily raises the bar for sources we can cite because suddenly it's not enough for it to be just an Amnesty report, there has to be GNG.

Give me another day I'll pull some wider sources on the media in the UK, there are quite a few out there. Snokalok2 (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/04/uk/trans-rights-reforms-scotland-gbr-intl/index.html

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10894160.2024.2356496

https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/gj/1/1/article-p78.xml

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/09/uk/uk-trans-rights-gender-critical-media-intl-gbr-cmd/index.html

https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/report-ten-year-uk-press-coverage-trans-issues-respectful-yet-heated/

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/transgender-community-mourns-death-british-teen-found-stabbed-death-rcna70384

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19691745.bbc-scandal-lily-cade-calls-trans-women-executed/

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/lesbians-stand-trans-women-open-letter-dangerous-bbc-article-rcna3903

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-bbc-and-the-times-accused-of-moral-panic-against-trans-community-2021-11

https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/11/10/bbc-pro-trans-nope-not-even-close/

https://www.thetimes.com/culture/tv-radio/article/young-bbc-staffers-angered-by-trans-story-claiming-harassment-of-lesbians-mwndtxf7s

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/12/15/ofcom-melanie-dawes-bbc-lgb-alliance-john-nicolson-trans-transphobia-balance/

https://deadline.com/2024/03/bbc-sex-and-gender-briefing-jk-rowling-1235864310/

https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/11/28/bbc-trans-biological-males/

If you want more on the last one, I'm certain I can pull up a deluge of recent BBC articles calling trans women "biological males that identify as women"

Snokalok2 (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

We are not going to synthesise news reports into our own analysis of the British situation. That would breach our WP:OR policy.

That just leaves Lamble (2024) (your tandfonline - Taylor & Francis - link). That's a good paper on the British situation, and it has 25 citations, published in the Journal of Lesbian Studies. We can use that. What it says is that the British situation is complex. Lamble contends that gender‑critical actors in the UK are not limited to the right-wing. There are left‑wing, feminist, and lesbian positions. She argues that effective responses must be context‑specific and tailored to different motivations and audiences, rather than treating all gender‑critical actors as a single, uniformly right‑wing bloc. She also pinpoints the origins of a specific "gender‑critical" framing in the UK, saying this i largely as a reaction to the then proposed reforms of the Gender Recognition Act. This, she argues is "differs from the [global] anti-gender movement, which several scholars have argued is not a backlash, but rather a long-term anti-democratic and patriarchal restoration project".

Lamble then outlines other differences:

• British gender‑critical campaigning centres mainly on trans issues, whereas the global anti‑gender movement targets a wider set of equality agendas (feminism, LGB rights, abortion, sex education, migration, etc.);
• Unlike most global anti‑gender movements, the British gender‑critical movement initially emerged as a feminist project; and
• Gender‑critical views appear across major UK parties (Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, Green, SNP) and are not confined to the right.

There is more, but it is clear that this is a good find for whatever we say about the UK. What I would caution against, however, is picking out a sentence from that piece to support something you want to include. You don't say anything about it here, so it is not clear what you want to say from the source. I noticed, however, this line: "Yet despite being a minority view, gender-critical feminists are highly influential in media and on law and policy" (Michaeli & Fischler, 2021, p. 110). If that were the only thing we took from this source, that would be unfortunate. It has much more to say on the British situation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

We are absolutely allowed to use news sources provided they are sufficiently reliable, the overwhelming majority of wikipedia is built on just that; and beyond that, Sirfurboy, we are allowed to look at something reported on by RSP sources, and then look out the window to see if that something is still a thing (Such as the BBC making a regular practice of describing trans women as "biological males") for assessing due weight and notability. As you might recall, OR does not apply to talk pages. But regardless, the fact remains that we are *absolutely* allowed to use news sources, per RSP. Snokalok2 (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

A primary source can be reliable, but still primary. See WP:PSTS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree, news sources can be used here. Sirfurboy has raised some valid points about not over-relying on "breaking news"–type stories and not stringing together multiple separate articles to make a broad conclusion, but the notion that we can't use news sources for this article is at odds with typical practices and interpretations of the relevant policies and guidelines. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Much as I would prefer that we follow WP:BESTSOURCES in articles, I did not say we cannot use news articles at all. What I said was We are not going to synthesise news reports into our own analysis of the British situation. And we are not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Given all the above, it seems that we are ok if @Myceteae or any other user with the editing rights deletes the para starting "In late May 2026, Amnesty International determined that..." Then we can work Lamble and also Bracco into the paragraph that is before that about media reporting in the UK. StupidLookingKid (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The article does not appear to have any editing restrictions, but I've gone ahead and removed this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Apols - I am used to any of this family of pages being protected. StupidLookingKid (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the text about the May report has to come out. Amnesty was light on the details regarding it, but the report has been withdrawn. That eliminates any use of it as a reliable source for facts, or weight for Amnesty's own position. There isn't enough secondary coverage of the May report to warrant covering it as a controversy.--Trystan (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Hard disagree with that, we see it mentioned several times in relation to the July report, including the retraction - as well as being reported about its own when it came out. Give me a hot minute and I'll drop some sources. Snokalok2 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. The two reports are completely related. I will say, for my part, I disagree with the text about the May report being taken out. I would say there is more than enough sources to justify keeping it, plus the sources in your comment on August 7th. I also agree with your previous comment in which you said, "the report itself and its retraction under threat of lawsuit is still a notable event and it being a notable event imo primarily raises the bar for sources we can cite." It seems that Myceteae, Trystan, StupidLookingKid, and Sirfurboy all support taking out the paragraph, which I find, sadly, unfortunate, with some having the proviso that they are "waiting till there is an independent adjudication from the Charity Commission might be best" (StupidLookingKid). In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)