Talk:Britta Curl

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"What is a Woman?"

The linked article does not contain anything in which the Toronto Star ever calls the film "transphobic". The word appears one time in the article, under the caption of Curl's photograph. To the extent The Toronto Star called the film "transphobic", if they were simply quoting someone else, that person would be the one calling it transphobic, not the newspaper itself. The notion that "some have called it transphobic" must be supported by citation, and who exactly those people are must be specified. A journalist merely quoting a source does not mean that the newspaper itself is calling a documentary transphobic. Characterizations like this are at the core of Wikipedia's declining credibility and perceptions of bias. The job of an encyclopedia is not to determine who is and is not a bigot, or what ideas should or should not be permitted in discourse, but to present the facts in a neutral and objective manner.


People can decide for themselves if What is a Woman? is "transphobic" or not, or whether the controversy over Britta Curl is justified or not, in the first place. By labelling the film "transphobic" or actively advancing the notion that the controversy has a legitimate basis, we put our thumb on the scale, and implicitly take a position both on the film, and on the controversy itself. From the perspective of many people, the controversy was entirely unjustified because the film is well within the bounds of acceptable discourse. It's not for us to say one way or the other. If someone is calling the film transphobic, we should be clear about who that is, so people can evaluate the credibility of that claim for themselves. My position is that we should characterize it as "a film about gender identity", link to the article about the film, and let people evaluate it for themselves.

@Earl Andrew @Wheatzilopochtli agomulka (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article on What is a Woman itself states that it is considered transphobic by some, so take it up on that page. There are lots of sources there. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Curl's promotion of the film is controversial because the film has been assessed as anti-trans or transphobic. Simply describing it as "a film about gender ideology" fails to identify the controversial element to the reader, thus forcing the reader to do additional research to understand the context. Spitzmauskc (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Rittenhouse acquittal: if the reason What is a Woman? is controversial is relevant because without it, the reader will not understand why the post was controversial, the story of Kyle Rittenhouse is also relevant to inform the reader's understanding of the controversy, and what would have led Britt to post about him.
My argument is one of internal consistency: if the reader needs to know that What is a Woman? is transphobic to understand the controversy in context, they also need to understand that Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted, and that Target was selling tuck-friendly bathing suits, and that Jocelyne Lamoureux's post was about Title IX, specifically. agomulka (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that details are being selectively included to push a particular narrative (one that justifies and supports the controversy), while claiming any details that would contextualize Britt's social media activity are deemed irrelevant. agomulka (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with the thrust of your argument. However, Rittenhouse being acquitted is absolutely not why the shootings were controversial. If you personally feel that the acquittal must be included, you’ll also need to include greater context for the events and the subsequent national-level politicization of the shootings, which resulted in interpretations that were notably partisan. Spitzmauskc (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are coming from, but in my view you are overcorrecting and giving the article a bias in the other direction. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel about the current state of the article? I'm ok with the edits as they are now. agomulka (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally like to see "a film that questions the intellectual rationale for societal recognition of gender identity" reduced to just "a film about gender identity," as I don't think it's necessary to include that level of detail and I think it's a bit biased in favor of the film, but otherwise I am also satisfied with the state of the article. I did make a couple small edits to remove some wording I took issue with, I don't know if you saw those. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did. A few things.
1) The Lamoreux tweet was expressly about Title IX and said nothing about "excluding trans athletes". This is not a minor distinction. https://x.com/brittacurl/status/1672103659188940800
2) The news article Candace Owens referenced expressly referred to women's swimwear.
3) Merely saying "a film about gender identity" does not explain why the film is controversial. If we are listing the umpteen takes on how "transphobic" it is, I believe that should be prefaced with the film as the author, and his supporters, would frame it themselves. The bias I'm referring to is how those on the political left are frequently given all the context and detail needed to explain their position, but the moment any details are added that put the political right's positions in context, they are deemed irrelevant. It's at the core of Wikipedia's bias problem. agomulka (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On my two edits that you reverted: the context of transgender women in sports is necessary to understand why the Lamoureux tweet was controversial, the other items actually are mentioned in the Owens tweet, and I believe the contrasting of women's swimwear with male genitalia carries anti-trans implications. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Lamoreux tweet was about whether Title IX covers gender identity. Other people may be concerned about the implications for trans athletes, but the tweet said nothing about them. To characterize it as "calling for the exclusion of trans athletes" is an editorialization that is putting a spin on something the tweet did not say.
Regarding the "women's swimwear", that is simply what the post Candace Owens commented on said. The article is not taking a position one way or the other, but without it, the controversy does not make sense. agomulka (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will concede on the film and the title ix if the swimwear line is changed. The Owens tweet mentioned the swimwear "and other pride-themed items," and I don't believe that the genitalia reference is necessary given the hyperlink to tucking. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would "tuck-friendly women's-style swimwear" be acceptable to you? agomulka (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With no reference to genitalia. agomulka (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Tuck-friendly swimwear" will suffice. The introduction of “men’s” or “women’s” in this context is best avoided to uphold neutrality. Spitzmauskc (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not willing to go that far. Without specifying that this was "women's swimwear", the controversy does not make sense. agomulka (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was, in fact, expressly marketed as women's swimwear. agomulka (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Women's swimwear for transgender women. I agree with spitz. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we're in agreement that is was "tuck-friendly women's swimwear". Without adding that detail, the controversy makes no sense. We aren't asserting any particular position by explaining the context of the controversy, we're simply explaining the controversy from the perspective of those who objected to the merchandise, as they would have explained their own position, without endorsing it. agomulka (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, I would at least like the phrasing of the title ix section to include a hyperlink to transgender women in sports, as this is a natural place for a reader to want to click to. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something along the lines of "questioned whether Congress intended Title IX to cover gender identity, particularly in the context of transgender people in sports. Curl thanked Lamoureux for..." Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be ok with:
She posted in support of fellow hockey player Jocelyne Lamoureux, who questioned whether Congress intended Title IX to cover gender identity, thanking her for "protecting female players", which was criticized by some advocates for transgender women in sports. agomulka (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Agomulka I would not be okay with that. can I ask why you wouldn't be okay with my proposal? the context of her tweet is plainly trans people in sports Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wheatzilopochtli The dispute over Title IX is broader than merely athletics and the tweet makes reference to "protecting opportunities for women and girls" which goes beyond athletics. I think the tweet speaks for itself, and we have no reason to narrow or qualify it. Her tweet applied to sports, and took place in the context of sports, but she never said her position was limited to athletics. She said "opportunities for women and girls". agomulka (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Agomulka right but the reason for the controversy was specific to sports, as evidenced by the hockey news article Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and her position applies to sports, but there is no indication she intended to limit her statement to athletics, and we should not do so here. Some people criticized it for its implications for trans athletes. That is accurate. Her statement did not say it was limited to athletic opportunities. agomulka (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Agomulka I think that is an overly narrow reading of her tweet. she is applauding a sports organization for excluding a trans woman. my proposal emphasizes the context but does not limit her statement to it Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wheatzilopochtli She is not applauding them for excluding a trans woman, she is applauding them for getting a court to clarify the definition of Title IX, and talking about how it's a "pivotal moment in protecting those opportunities". agomulka (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wheatzilopochtli I think the idea that she's "applauding them for excluding a trans woman" is an overly antagonistic and uncharitable reading of her tweet. agomulka (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Agomulka regardless, the context is transgender people in sports, and this context is the basis of the controversy. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wheatzilopochtli And so saying that "some people criticized her position because of its implications for trans athletes" is entirely accurate, but that is not how she would characterize her own position. agomulka (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Agomulka the name of the organization she is supporting is the independent council on women's sports. curl's quote tweet that is the reason for the controversy is about sports. the court case is about a trans woman in sports. it is incomplete not to at least mention that the context is trans people in sports Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wheatzilopochtli The context is Title IX's definition, which includes but is not limited to, sports. May I ask what your objection is to a separate sentence explaining that some objected because of the implications for athletics, and linking to the article? I'm not opposed to including it, but I don't believe we should be attempting to overinterpret the statement. If anything, I'd rather just see the quote posted in full and let people interpret it for themselves. agomulka (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wheatzilopochtli To clarify: I'm not opposed to including context on why people objected, or linking to the article on trans athletes in sports, but I think the less interpretation we do of these posts, the better. If anything, they should be posted in their own words to the extent possible, and we avoid trying to put our own spin or interpretation on them. agomulka (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wheatzilopochtli If anything, I think many people reading this might be interested to know about the broader legal battle over the definition of Title IX, which isn't limited to sports. agomulka (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wheatzilopochtli I think that's just as important/relevant to the reader as the narrower controversy over trans athletes. agomulka (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about starting the sentence with "in the wake of a court case about a trans female athlete" Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wheatzilopochtli Again, may I ask what your objection is to this being a separate sentence? I don't like that we're trying to let her opponents define her. They belong in a separate sentence. agomulka (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lamoureux is expressly concerned with title ix in relation to sports. She thanked USA Powerlifting for their stance on trans women in their competitions, and so characterizing her critics as the ones that brought up trans athletes is inaccurate. She is very clearly taking the stance that, at least in the case of powerlifting, trans women are not fair competition for cis women. Either her title ix argument is about trans people in sports, or a trans person in sports was what prompted her to share. In either case, it is context critical to the statement. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wheatzilopochtli It's context, but not critical context. The court case over Title IX has implications beyond sports, and her reference to "opportunities" was clearly alluding to that. As I said, I simply think it belongs in a separate sentence, because readers might wish to know about the broader dispute over Title IX, just as they might wish to know about trans athletes in sport. Can you articulate why this can't simply be in a sentence immediately following? It seems like there's a desire to deliberately undercut or weaken the statement, which I think is unnecessary. agomulka (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wheatzilopochtli It feels like we want readers to know about trans athletes in sport, but not about the deeper dispute over the definition in Title IX. agomulka (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wheatzilopochtli I say that because one side of this dispute would characterize it as being about "trans athletes" and the other about "what does Title IX mean?" The two sides would frame the dispute in very different terms, and we implicitly take a position with our framing. agomulka (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wheatzilopochtli I say it's not "critical context" because there have been Title IX disputes in other contexts as well, including sororities, and this issue is controversial even outside athletics. Thus, it is "context", but not "critical context". agomulka (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Critical to this instance and to the controversy. To me, Curl's response being about "protecting female players" implies that even those who agree with Lamoureux recognize that this is about trans women in sports as much as it's about title ix. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wheatzilopochtli I still don't see why this can't be in a separate sentence and why we're trying to define and interpret the statement? agomulka (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting it in a separate sentence centers the view that the two are not directly related Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this?
Curl posted in support of fellow hockey player Jocelyne Lamoureux after Lamoureux was criticized by freelance journalist Nicole Haase. Lamoureux praised USA Powerlifting for appealing a ruling requiring it to permit the participation of a transgender woman in its women's categories, saying "I'm a three-time hockey Olympian & I attended high school in Minnesota as well as competed for the University of Minnesota for one season in the NCAA. I stand with @USAPowerlifting in their efforts to keep competition fair for girls & women in sports. Title IX was created to provide opportunities for women and girls and this is a pivotal moment in protecting those opportunities & the fairness of their competitions." Haase posted the quote on X with the caption "Absolutely abhorrent transphobic behavior and public statement from Jocelyne Lamoureux. @PWHPA needs to remove her from their board immediately[.]" Curl reposted it with the caption "Females protecting female players on the female players association board? Thank you @LamoureuxTwins 👏👏". agomulka (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Agomulka The article says she like transphobic content and then immediately lists the film as an example.

With Darwitz gone, Klee led Minnesota through the draft. In the second round, he selected forward Britta Curl out of the University of Wisconsin, an explosive offensive talent who has drawn eyes recently for the wrong reasons: her support on social media of transphobic and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric.

In June 2023, Curl reposted a post on X from the Daily Wire, a conservative news website founded by right-wing commentator Ben Shapiro, promoting the documentary “What is a Woman?”. The film “fearlessly questions the logic behind a gender ideology movement that has taken aim at women and children,” the Daily Wire’s website reads.

In my view, it is clearly the intent of the author to label the film transphobic, as the other examples of her social media activity do not directly relate to trans people. I would be willing to change the wording to "transphobic rhetoric" to match the article word for word, but I would be against your proposal as in my reading the article is very plainly describing the film as anti-trans. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with the way it's written now. Saying "some have described it as transphobic" is accurate, and there is enough preceding characterization of the film that I don't think it's overshadowed. My main concern was that that was the only characterization/description of the film being offered. If the film is explained, and it is contextualized that some found it transphobic, I think that's accurate. agomulka (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is that the article is clear that the "transphobic" is just someone's opinion. agomulka (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Britta_Curl"