Talk:Party of Women

(Redacted)

Unproductive discussion with user blocked for disruption
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
TRAs are repeatedly editing the page and adding lies, slander, and hate as well as biased and unreliable sources such as Pink News. BloodSkullzRock (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC) why exactly do u consider pink news an unreliable source? could it be that they are one of the few lgbt press outlets, and you are anti queer? also what abt hope not hate, they biased too? what lies have been added to the page, please enlighten me Apricotjam (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC) It's unreliable because it is biased. It considered facts to be transphobia. I have no problems with the LGB but the TQ+ are erasing other people's rights and language as well as endangering people. Hope not hate calls calls KJK "Anti-LGBTQ+" she's not anti anyone she justs wants women's rights to be protected and respected. It's not how people identify that's the issue it's males in female-only spaces/sports/etc. that we are against. It is the TQ+ who are anti-women if anything. Why are you so anti-women? BloodSkullzRock (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC) it is objectively transphobic to oppose the notion that transition exists and that nonbinary people exist. why deny the label of transphobia when you are clearly happy to practice it? KJK associates with far right racists homophobes and misogynists (eg tommy robinson, tucker carlson) and has expressed that she is against providing birth control and abortion for minors, a wholly anti-woman position to take. she is openly anti feminist. if her party took positions on any other issues then perhaps it could be labeled a woman's rights party, but since its sole drive is to combat trans rights and 'protect women' from trans people (despite the vast majority of british women supporting trans people), it is objectively a single issue anti-trans party Apricotjam (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC) @BloodSkullzRock and Apricotjam: Please refrain from reverting each other, even if you believe you are right. Stick the discussion to this talk page, not edit summaries. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 13:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC) The article author is a party activist who clearly has strongly held views on this topic (see the comments above, the article's edit history, and the user's own user page). While there is no prohibition on party members or activists editing content about their own party, it is important to ensure that the content remains impartial. This includes accepting criticism of the party on that article, so long as the criticism itself meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Such criticism may sometimes include references to publications that one may personally feel to be unreliable; however, one's personal feelings about a publication do not militate against it being used as a source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for further information. Keith Death (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC) i would agree that there is clearly impartial language used in BloodSkullzRock's edits, eg rewording the phrase 'that nonbinary people do not exist' to 'that nonbinary is nonsense', a clearly unnecessary bit of anti trans venom Apricotjam (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC) and also they edited a reference to the 2024 local elections to remove the fact that none of the 5 candidates were elected, obviously an important detail for a political party's page. Apricotjam (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC) For what it's worth, the PinkNews article about the registration of the party and election results I think is acceptable in this context, even if there is a bias in some of their reporting, as seemingly there is no contest about the facts there. Mdann52 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

For future reference, it is best not to argue with trolls per WP:DENY. I've made the same mistake myself on occasion so please don't feel bad about this. --DanielRigal (talk)

WP:NPOV, WP:DISCRIM

I've refrained from editing the article as I don't care to become embroiled in an edit war, but have a few concerns about the content of this article:

• While the party founder self-describes as a "women's rights activist", this descriptor is potentially contentious, and stating this as a fact may not meet NPOV guidelines.
• A link to the Gender-critical feminism page is sufficient to provide context. The definition of "gender-critical" provided by the article author is redundant, and does not appear to meet Wikipedia's impartiality of tone guideline.
• If the cited tweet from 8 July 2023 is be referenced at all, reproducing the full text of the tweet here would seem to be superfluous to requirements, and the content itself would not appear to meet Wikipedia's impartiality of tone guideline (and may fall foul of WP:DISCRIM).
• -- Keith Death (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement. I've reintroduced some of the content, removed some of the worst bits. I'm currently thinking about how best to put in the differences in how the viewpoints are mentioned (there's at least one local paper that's had a good go, here, which I've also added in the article to remove some of the links to HopeNotHate as a more neutral/reliable source.

If others disagree, feel free to revert/change/rewrite what I've done. I'm in general agreement with you however. Mdann52 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to note that user Ghanima is still removing large sections of content, and given that they created the article i am suspicious of their party allegiance Apricotjam (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I've had to remove Ghanima's edits from other articles for adding party of women candidates to election pages without a source. Embeog (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It would seem that you have acted overly hasty in your deletion of Ghanima's contributions. I cannot vouch for their credibility, but can you prove that they are wrong? Do you have any evidence that Ghanima's additions were made in poor faith? The Sea Lion King (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Unsorced potentially contentious information about a living person (like them running for a specific political party) can be removed immediately. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

'gender critical feminism'

in the article we read that the group is not feminist. so why does the infobox say the ideology is gender-critical FEMINISM? should it not just be 'anti-transgender politics' or something like that? 81.106.115.150 (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

or 'anti-gender movement' 81.106.115.150 (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

i somewhat agree with this, as it's hard to characterise any so called GC feminism as true 'feminism'; but that is the generally accepted name for these sorts of anti trans politics masquerading as feminism. Tho yeah as KJK states she is not a feminist perhaps changing to 'anti transgender politics' or to 'gender critical politics' would be better Apricotjam (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It is hard because some of the people in it come from a feminist background and genuinely consider what they are doing to be feminism, some copy this rhetoric insincerely and some disclaim feminism altogether. This article is about people in that final category. I prefer the phrase "Gender Critical Movement" as that would cover both camps but our article about it is called Gender-critical feminism and getting that renamed would be a horrible can of worms. Anyway, I think the current wording of "gender-critical and anti–transgender rights" is OK. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Candidate list

Do we really need the complete candidate list? We don't have this for other parties. I think it would be sufficient to say how many candidates they are standing and reference that to their own candidate list. (If anybody does want to see the whole list then it will only be one click away.) Mentioning that Keen-Minshull is standing in Bristol Central might be OK, as she is the party leader and a notable person. The other candidates are currently not notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the candidate list. Mdann52 (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I note the Rejoin EU article lists all of their candidates. Bondegezou (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed but I believe that's also likely undue. I've added a comment on the talk over there, and will look at cleaning that article up as well in the coming days. Mdann52 (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this article necessarry?

Currently this article is shorter than the section on the Party of Women in the Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull page. Is there sufficient information on this page to justify it existing? Is there more information on the Party of Women that could be added to justify it? Embeog (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The party probably meets WP:NORG by the fact they are a national party standing multiple candidates, and do appear to have received some coverage (arguable, partially notable due to the coverage in a source opposed by a previous editor for inclusion!), and the coverage they have received meets WP:GNG. I think it might well be the case that material can be moved over from that article to this one, and will take a look when I get some time tomorrow. I mean, I'm happy to have a discussion about merging this article into her page, but I think it just about merits it's own article, but I think bearing in mind how other "new" parties with strong figureheads (such as Reform and Propel, when they were first formed). Mdann52 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. It's pretty close to the line but I think it just about makes it over. If it was at AfD I'd probably !vote "weak keep" unless there was a compelling argument otherwise. Moving existing valid content here sounds like a reasonable thing to do. DanielRigal (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I've merged in some content from the founders article. They actually have a single town counciller, which I think builds the case a bit more. I don't feel too strongly either way (I'm only here to try and sort thigns out following the attention the article got over on ANI recently), so wouldn't fall out if someone wants to take this to AFD or merge it back into her article. Mdann52 (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

'Women's rights' in lead?

Should "women's rights" be in the lead to describe the party? Even the sources which seem more sympathetic to their views seem to entirely focus on the anti-transgender politics of the party. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I've boldly removed it, but welcome any discussion or a suggestion for a better way to write it. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I put "gender-critical" on there as a replacement, since the party seems to present itself as such

NotAmira (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Ideology section in infobox

I'm not gonna add it myself as i got involved previously in an edit war over this article, but I would like to raise the issue of there currently being no 'ideology' section in the infobox.

When i first edited this article I added 'gender critical feminism' and 'transphobia' to the ideology section, and it seemed a consensus had been reached that this was an appropriate description. However since then user @Sweet6970 has removed the entire ideology section with no good reason, claiming 'there is no support for these terms in the article', despite references in the article lead justifying them - I think this should be reverted, as any political party should have its ideology in the info box if available.

Otherwise very happy that this article has been improved and the obvious bias from party members editing the page has been stopped. Apricotjam (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I deleted ‘gender-critical feminism’ because Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull denies being a feminist – see the article on her. I deleted ‘transphobia’ because this is not justified by this article, and is, in any event, not a political ideology. This article is so short that I don’t see any need, or any purpose, in having ‘ideology’ in the infobox. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mdann52: There is nothing in the article which supports ‘gender-critical feminism’ or ‘social conservatism’ as an ideology for this party. You should self-revert. And please be more careful in future. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

How about just gender critical piped to gender-critical feminism (which is the correct wiki article) as I have now changed it to? Either that or just take it out as suggested above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy with that. [1] and [2] both describe them and their candidates as "gender critical", and is some of the limited coverage they have received. I haven't include the first source in the article, as it's not the most neutral source, but given their biases I'm happy it supports this statement. PinkNews also describe them as such is some article (along with other terms that fall under the "gender critial" definition given in that article). I'm not self-rving in this instance. Mdann52 (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Distinguishing from Women's Equality Party

Just an idea to add 'not to be confused with Women's Equality Party' to the start of the article, as when you search Party of Women in Google it shows both this page and the page for the Women's Equality Party - I think it would be an easy mistake to make based on the names but the parties are very different (e.g. WEP supporting gender self-ID), so imo it's worth distinguishing them to prevent any confusion. Not sure if it definitely needs it though so not adding it quite yet, would like to know what other users think of this idea Apricotjam (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

IF we do this it would probably be more usueful to distinguish from Women's Party which is a disambiguation page for a whole range of similarly named parties. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to either of these proposals. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I've added {{see dab}} to the page. Mdann52 (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

References re anti-transgender

Neither references to the claim that the party is anti-transgender make any mention of the party being anti-trans. Reference 6 only makes a passing reference to the party. It is mostly about a Let Women Speak rally. BleeepBlooop (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I have changed the wording to ‘opposes what it refers to as ‘trans ideology’’. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't hard to find a reference for it. I'll combine it with your change so we get the best of both. DanielRigal (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Our article at 20 June says: The Party of Women (POW) is a gender-critical single issue political party in the United Kingdom. It was founded in 2024 by Kellie-Jay Keen. The party has been described as anti-transgender.

The source says: The Party of Women, represented at the hustings by Hazel Exon, is an anti-transgender, single issue political organisation.. This smells to me a bit like WP:CITOGENESIS, and I would not use this source, so I think that the text which it is being used to support should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it will take more than one person's sense of smell to invalidate this source. How do we determine whether this really is WP:CITOGENESIS? We can't just assume this to be the case in order to get rid of an inconvenient source. Our wording as of the 20th is not particularly similar to what the Sidmouth Herald wrote. (It is rather more similar now because we are following the source.) Their article is by a named senior reporter so it is not like some anonymous intern copying and pasting whatever they can find on the internet and knocking off early. We have to say something here. I think our options are either to stick with it as it is or to go back to "The party has been described as anti-transgender", which could be referenced to the Sidmouth Herald, which is a source describing it as exactly that. I really don't think we can soft pedal this any more than that. DanielRigal (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It is the expression ‘single issue’ which makes my nostrils quiver. Doesn’t this seem odd to you? This is the kind of thing an encyclopaedia would say, because we are trying to classify political parties (which I think is dubious, but that’s another question). But a newspaper would normally be trying to inform its readers about the policies of a political party, and the way the newspaper refers to the party doesn’t do that. It doesn’t even say that the single issue is ‘anti-transgender’. I would accept your suggestion that we go back to ‘The party has been described as anti-transgender’, using the Sidmouth Herald as the source. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

info box ideology

I want to start a conversation here before edit warring starts. The sources currently support gender critical not gender critical feminism and therefore the info box should say gender critical not gender critical feminism. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Reading above (in "ideology section in info box) the consensus was for gender critical linking to gender critical feminism if we have an ideology section.

I'm going to wait a day or so before re adding unless further discussion occurs here. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, but I think unless the party has been described as 'feminist' or described itself as such changing it to 'Gender-critical' but still wikilinking to Gender-critical femjnism is a reasonable way to display it. AlexandraAVX (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Since the article says that the party follows its leader's ideology ("The party has aligned itself with Keen's views."), and she has clearly says she isn't a feminist (see her article), you can't link "gender-critical" to the GCF article. This is the problem with single-issue parties, they often don't actually have an ideology as such. This one is clearly "gender-critical" (=transphobic) but that's not an ideology as such. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Does that mean that you would support the deletion of any ‘ideology’ from the infobox? That is the solution which I would prefer. As I said previously, this is a very short article and I don’t think it needs an ‘ideology’ in the infobox. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a political position or similar would be very nice to have in the info box but if we can't agree on a common ground then the lede does the job well enough. LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

There are several RS describing KJK as a gender-critical feminist. AlexandraAVX (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Show them, Looking both here and at kjks own page i saw one article from the time describing her simply as feminist, and one article from pinknews describing her as "gender critical feminist" (their quote marks not mine). The rest supported gender critical more than anything else. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

There's this article by The Australian and this one by Sky News on the same topic, and there's two articles by Pink News ([3], [4]) AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If we can establish a similar connection to Let Women Speak then there's also a few sources listing that as "described by supporters" as a gender-critical feminist organisation AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem with referring to the ‘ideology’ as ‘gender-critical feminism’ is that this party was set up by K-J Keen, and she herself denies that she is a feminist. So I agree that the infobox should not refer to feminism. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Link to Anti-LGBT rhetoric

@DanielRigal:

1) As I said in my edit summary, the link to Anti-LGBT rhetoric is inappropriate, because the article linked to is mostly about opposition to homosexuality, and there is nothing about opposition to homosexuality in this article.

2) Regarding your edit summary: Clearly ‘gender ideology’ and ‘LGBT ideology’ are not the same thing. In fact, I’ve never come across ‘LGBT ideology’ and I see that the linked article seems to say that ‘LGBT ideology’ does not exist. But I’m wondering if I have misunderstood what you’re saying.

3) Importantly, we don’t know exactly what the Party of Women mean when they talk about “trans ideology”. We should not put words in their mouth. This is why MOS:LINKQUOTE says:’Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. The wording “trans ideology” is a quote from the Party of Women. So the link is in breach of the guideline.

The link is not appropriate. Please self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

1) What do you think the "T" in "Anti-LGBT rhetoric" stands for?

2) Of course "LGBT Ideology" does not actually exist, any more than the "Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy" or "Cultural Marxism". Just like "Transgender Ideology" or "Gender Ideology", it is an example of Anti-LGBT rhetoric, which is why that is the correct article to link.

3) "we don’t know exactly what the Party of Women mean when they talk about “trans ideology”". Of course we do. Their leader has podcasts and YouTube video and rallies where she talks about little else and it is very clearly anti-LGBT rhetoric of the type described in the linked article.

As I see it the only part of this that it is possible to engage with seriously is the claim that the link should not be used in a quotation, except... It isn't! The phrase is in quotation marks but it is not part of a wider quotation. I think this is wikilawyering.

I will revert if there is a consensus to do so but I am not convinced that it is necessary or beneficial to the article to do so. If we are to remove the link from there then it should be moved elsewhere, maybe to See Also. Alternatively, I guess we could take the quotation marks off but I don't see how that helps.

Now, you know what is ironic? If you wanted to complain, there was a much better angle. The two references didn't actually support the phrase "trans ideology" (or "transgender ideology") at all. (I'm guessing that at least one of them did but that it was modified.) I've found and added a source that does. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

1) Assuming that your question was asked in good faith, my reply, in good faith is: I think that the T in LGBT stands for ‘transgender’. And L stands for ‘lesbian’, and G stands for ‘gay’, and B stands for ‘bisexual’. And so ‘Anti-LGBT rhetoric’ means rhetoric which is anti-lesbian, anti-gay, anti-bisexual, and anti-transgender. So, since the Party of Women has no interest, as far as I am aware, in L, G, or B people. we are misleading our readers when we direct them to an article which is about anti-LGBT rhetoric.

2) I think we have probably been talking at cross purposes here. I still don’t understand what you mean by your edit summary.

3) No, we don’t know exactly what the Party of Women mean when they talk about “trans ideology”. Or, if we do, please add this to the article, and explain to me how an article which is mostly about anti-homosexual rhetoric is an appropriate link. And I do not engage in wikilawyering. Quoting a guideline does not constitute wikilawyering.

4) I would accept a move to ‘See also’, as you have suggested.

Sweet6970 (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep the link. This is what the words link to. This is not the place for such a discussion. It’s literally just linking the words to the related article. Also, an organisation doesn't have to be anti-gay, anti-lesbian, anti-bi and trans to be anti-LGBT. If you look, you'll find plenty of sources defining groups as anti-LGBT that haven't necessarily gone after every group within what is considered LGBT. Helper201 (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

That is some impressive sophistry you have there @Sweet6970. "Anti-LGBT" is commonly used to mean anti-gay, anti-lesbian, anti-bi or anti-trans, not specific bigotry that affects all 4. Transphobia, including "gender critical" transphobia is by definition anti-LGBT.

Likewise, "trans ideology" is a dogwhistle term for trans-inclusive beliefs. This is absolutely clear from pretty much everything that KJK has ever said on the subject.

That GC transphobes think the Party of Women is anything other than a single-issue anti-trans party does not make it so. I don't see any consensus to remove that link here. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Since it appears that you accept that the Party of Women is a single-issue anti-trans party, it does not make sense for you to support a link which implies that their main interest is in opposing homosexuality. And you have no justification for accusing me of ‘sophistry’. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

That is not what I said; I said that anti-LGBT and anti-trans are the same thing and the sophistry I mentioned is in trying to pretend that anyone is saying that The Party of Women's main interest is in opposing homosexuality.

Being anti-trans is being anti-LGBT; they are the same thing. It is not uncivil of me to suggest that it is misleading and fallacious (to borrow Wiktionary's definition of sophistry) to attempt to pretend that a single-issue anti-trans party is not by definition anti-LGBT.

So to be clear, I support the inclusion of a link from Party of Women to the article with a section headed "Anti-transgender rhetoric". I think it is fallacious (if you prefer that to "sophistry") to argue otherwise. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, no-one is trying to pretend that anyone is saying that The Party of Women's main interest is in opposing homosexuality. What I have been pointing out is that the current link gives that impression. And you have given no ‘definition’ to support your assertion that being anti-trans is the same thing as being anti-LGBT, which on the face of it is clearly wrong, since the four letters each refer to a different thing.

There is a further problem with the link which has recently occurred to me. The link is saying that “trans ideology” = “anti-LGBT rhetoric”. So someone who really has no idea what the trans dispute is about - which must include many of our readers - may think that those who support pro-trans views are, themselves, anti-homosexual.

And I have not changed my view that the Wikipedia policy on not having links within quotations is correct, and should be followed here.

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC) Correction: It’s a guideline, not a policy. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Whatever one thinks of the wider debate Sweet6970 is quite correct that MOS:NOLINKQUOTE says "Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author" (emphasis added). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The specific aspect around NOLINKQUOTE is that the words used were "trans ideology" and the link was to "transgender ideology" which, on the surface of it is reasonable.

The problem is not that a link was added per se, but rather that Transgender ideology redirects to Anti-LGBT rhetoric § As an ideology; the link would be less controversial if the destination were more clearly trans-specific. Unfortunately neither Anti-LGBT rhetoric § Anti-transgender rhetoric nor Transphobia make the "ideology" point as effectively.

I have just retargeted Transgender ideology to link to Anti-gender movement § "Gender ideology", the same as Gender ideology does. I think that is a much clearer correspondence to the original intent. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a much better link to me, so thanks for changing that. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, no-one is “trying to pretend that anyone is saying that The Party of Women's main interest is in opposing homosexuality”. What I have been pointing out is that the current link gives that impression.

My apologies, I should have been clearer on that point.

And you have given no ‘definition’ to support your assertion that being anti-trans is the same thing as being anti-LGBT, which on the face of it is clearly wrong, since the four letters each refer to a different thing.

This is the aspect I was describing as fallacious — a propositional fallacy. I'm not saying that being anti-trans is the same thing as being anti-LGBT, I am saying that being anti-trans is a facet of being anti-LGBT, in the same way as biphobia is or lesbiphobia is — a straight woman who loves gay men but is homophobic towards lesbian or bisexual women is still being anti-LGBT, even if they are comfortable making an “exception” for gay or bi men (for want of a better term).

The link is saying that “trans ideology” is an aspect of “anti-LGBT rhetoric”, which it is. You are (repeatedly) suggesting that anyone who is anti-LGBT must, by definition, be anti-homosexual. That is an association fallacy. I don't agree that people would see anything here and assume that people who are pro-trans (or people who are anti-trans) are automatically anti-homosexual. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The current (changed) link to Gender ideology is less inappropriate than the previous link, but I still think that there should be no link within a quotation, per the guideline, and it would be better to have it as a ‘See also’, which was suggested earlier in this discussion. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)