ROGD - The adults have come back into the room

[Soontobe60]

This speaker - Alex Capo - speakers such powerful words at a Genspect Conference. A must-watch for all educators of gender questioning girls, girls who are self-harming and are being failed by CAMHS.

Until this article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy

speaks the actual truth - the adults are not back in the room sadly

Wikipedia is my litmus test for this sort of thing - real hard solid scientific data is required before wiki backtracks, but THEY WILL back track if it exists.

It's a shame Wikipedia doesn't require that real hard solid scientific data before taking a position in the first place.

Wikipedia shouldn't be anyone's litmus for anything.

This is fantastic thanks for posting. How could we get other schools to watch this?

Wikipedia is entirely captured from top to bottom, that article is just one example of many.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transmisogyny&action=history&offset=&limit=100

Like the edit history on this one shows the same editors reverting anything slightly critical.

It's useless for getting a balanced view on any gender topic.

Wikipedia 😂🤣
It's worse than the Guardian.

Thanks for the link OP.

Idon't think the point was that Wiki was balanced.

But rather it reflects the beliefs of the educated middle classes.

So if it's not picking up this stuff, it is probably not filtering out to that group.

It doesn't reflect the educated middle class, it reflects those with a lot of free time to edit pages.

Tennagers, young adults and companies who higher media types to edit Wikipedia pages with political leanings.

Re Wikipedia.

I'm still amazed that this paragraph is STILL standing on homophobia.

Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia, and internalized homophobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify.

I've quoted it for years.

It's significant because it effectively recognises that you can't identify as homosexual. Homosexuality is sex based not gender based. And saying differently can count as institutionalised homophobia.

This needs to be seen through the lens of Stonewall, who redefined homosexuality as being based on gender. This making the definition of institutional homophobic.

So whilst I agree you shouldn't use wiki as a barometer, I also find it curious as a social commentary and reflections of the middle class.

That paragraph seems to either have gone unnoticed (which given I've quoted it numerous times and the monitoring I am not convinced of). Or it's a paragraph that no one wants to take because of the optics of doing so. You don't get to polish your virtue halo by removing it.

There is a reason Wikipedia is NEVER allowed for university studies or papers, @Zahariel . It is edited by everyone and has no credibility.

Wikipedia is also very heavily anti womens rights/pro-trans, and one of the main moderators is a transwoman who blocks even the strongest evidence including BBC articles on issues that point to problems with Puberty Blockers. Their pages on Cass Review, WPATH Files, and Gender Critical as well as 'TERF' show they are all captured, and the REVERSE any edited by GCers who provide strong evidence and lock the pages.

Anyone who uses Wikipedia as 'evidence' for anything, especially on this issue, is a fucking idiot. To put it mildly.

What a way to embarrass oneself publicly on the internet.

State that wikipedia is credible, let alone a 'litmus test'.

Fuck me dead how embarrassingly ignorant, sheltered and naive must one be. Cringing in second hand embarrassment for that poster.

Haha it really doesn't, it reflects the beliefs of people who live on the internet.

Wiki is very useful for some things. But I wouldn't trust it on ideologically-loaded issues and I wouldn't use it to gauge the temperature of the "educated middle classes" on any matter/

Wow. Maybe have a nice cup of tea?

Sorry if you don't like plain speaking. Maybe stop clutching those pearls.

Wikipedia is a funny old place - and obviously completely unregulated as a source of truth and fact.

However, I do see what you're saying with this:

Wikipedia is my litmus test for this sort of thing - real hard solid scientific data is required before wiki backtracks, but THEY WILL back track if it exists.

A look at "Flat Earth", and clicking through on to "Modern flat Earth beliefs" at the top of it, shows a prevailing disbelief in flat earth theory:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

On to more controversially contested subjects, here's the "covid vaccine" page:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine

It's largely pro vaccine but also has some stuff on controversy/anti-vax. I'd say that's a pretty fair representation of how it's seen in public.

Here's Brexit:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit

I've only skimmed it, but it seems to be neutral in its tone, which is pretty representative of the 48/52 split of the vote.

As society begins to really understand what's going on with gender identity stuff - and the scale of the medical scandal - I would expect the wiki content to (reluctantly) shift.

Obviously my own bias could be at play in how I've viewed all the above examples, so here's my position on each:

1. The earth is a globe
2. Covid vaccines are helpful, like all vaccines
3. I voted remain (but am also glad we're not now tied to the nonsense about self-ID in all EU countries, following the case in Romania)
4. I don't believe that everyone has a gender identity. I'm aware that some people do believe this, but equally, not everyone believes in it. I don't want it represented as fact in law, education, health, sports, prisons etc.

It's the first result (or top 3) that comes up for anything when you search, and as such it has incredible weight to steer the public conversation on anything, but especially gender issues. You only need to look at a few example articles - which again, is where a very large portion of people et their info, to see why the fight there is crucial

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mridul_Wadhwa

Clearly those things are true. Just as clearly Wikipedia is in the top ten visited websites on earth and people do use it, successfully, for all sorts of research projects - and given it gets evaluated against things like the encyclopaedia Britannica and scores higher - people will continue to trust it

Most people have no clear idea what WPATH is, what TERF means, or even what Gender Critical means - they are time poor and if curious type something into the internet, like "rapid onset gender dysphoria" and they get a result which even in the search results, is tagged as "anti transgender activism"

This MATTERS, because most people TRUST WHAT THEY READ, even if it's on Fox News, they certainly trust Wikipedia and believe it to be balanced, impartial and fair.

It is not.

But thats not the point, the point is people think it is

it seems to me Wiki may not be a litmus test for accuracy, but it may well be some sort of test as to 'this is what a raft of people believe to be true'? Which is how I read @Zahariel 's comment.
Though maybe due to moderators this is not the case for this particular topic.

Yes pretty obvious @Zahariel meant something like "litmus test for the dominant cultural narrative" not "litmus test for the truth".

Agree.

And that was why I said it's curious what has also survived too.

Wikipedia is a great tool, but it's not a tool for public opinion.

I used to edit Wikipedia many years ago. There is a lot of circular references, where a YouTuber (or online journalist ) has got an uncited 'fact' from Wikipedia then the YouTubers video is used as a citation for the page so the fact stays.

I stopped editing it when the daily mail refused to be accepted as a source (even for things like.movie credits, for example Bruce Forsythe's first television appearances), excluding publications because the opinion isn't like doesn't make for a good neutral article.

To add, AIs are trained on large corpuses, like Wikipedia. Like Reddit. Those AIs then go on to teach our children. This really does matter.

Why be so insulting? Whatever you think about Wikipedia’s credibility, it’s pretty much a go-to for very many people. I think that poster makes a valid point!