Talk:Naomi Cunningham

Description of "Sex Matters"

It is important that "Sex Matters" is described accurately to ensure the quality and integrity of the information available on Wikipedia. It is registered in the UK with the charity regulator as a human rights charity, and its aims and purposes have been published on its website. Any description of the organisation which is prejudicial to the principle of political neutrality in an encyclopedia entry should not be submitted. ~2025-38699-20 (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately we follow what reliable sources say, not self description. Per Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF The content shouldn't be unduly self serving nor an exceptional claim. The self description you want to put into the article is clearly self-serving LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with LunaHasArrived (other than describing following the reliable sources policy as "unfortunately"), the proposed change is less neutral than the existing description. MossOnALog^Talk 17:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably should have said unfortunately for you or just omitted it entirely LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The description "an advocacy group opposing transgender rights in the United Kingdom" is inconsistent with the stated aims of the organisation, both by the organisation itself and the Charity Commission for England and Wales. While some may regard certain activities of the organisation as challenging what some may regard to be 'transgender rights', those are not the stated and accepted aims of the organisation. These are collateral matters. A neutral description of the organisation should be preferred. ~2025-38699-20 (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Stated aims of an organization are not relevant compared to how the organization is described in reliable literature and other sources. I've added a scholarly source as a citation for the statement. MossOnALog^Talk 18:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry. The article cited takes an ideological position in the presentation and defence of its thesis. It is not politically neutral. Articles of this nature are usually discussed in scholarship in terms similar to: "Sex Matters has been described as...", but the article alone cannot be the basis of a definitive description of the organisation. I would suggest, if a balanced approach is to be achieved, then the definition should be along the following lines: "Sex Matters describes itself as... However it has been suggested that the organisation is..." Something like that? ~2025-38699-20 (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

That would be WP:falsebalance. It is truly an extraordinary claim that Sex Matters campaign for the human rights of everybody, no matter what they say (whether it's on their own website or whether it's the charity commission). LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The cited article is a reliable source according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Regarding your comment that the article is not politically neutral, see: WP:ALLOWEDBIAS and WP:BIASEDSOURCES.

The content of the article is neutral and verifiable as it was before your desired change. I think it should remain as "...Sex Matters, an advocacy group opposing transgender rights in the United Kingdom."

Please ensure you are familiar with the following Wikipedia policies:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability

Giving equal weight to the organization's own description of itself compared to multiple other sources that describe it would not be neutral according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as it would be giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint (WP:UNDUE; WP:FALSEBALANCE) as well as relying on sources that aren't independent (WP:INDEPENDENT). MossOnALog^Talk 19:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Below are a few more sources in addition to the one I added earlier (), I won't add them to the article for now to prevent over-linking over-citing [edited for accuracy]. I have checked that none of these are listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as unreliable.

• https://www.lemkininstitute.com/single-post/behind-the-ruling-how-sex-matters-is-shaping-uk-policy-on-trans-rights
• https://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/2023/06/peoples-history-museum-in-row-over-gender-critical-meeting/#
• https://translucent.org.uk/sex-matters-org-accused-of-being-associated-with-hate/

MossOnALog^Talk 19:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

In response to LunaHasArrived (19:17), MossOnALog (19:22), MossOnALog (19:36)

You are running dangerously close to undermining the credibility and reliability of Wikipedia as an online encyclopaedia. The world’s great encyclopaedias (think ‘Encyclopaedia Britannica’) go to extreme lengths to ensure accuracy, minimise bias and maintain consistency. Organisations need to be defined in terms of what the actually do, not what people ‘think’ they do, or what any particular activist group imagine they do from consequentialist perspective.

Addressing the proposed further reliable sources cited—

Museum Association:

Describes it as a ‘gender critical organisation.

Records that it ‘campaigns for “clarity on sex in law and policy”’

‘However, LGBTQ+ groups have accused the group of advocating against the rights of transgender people.’

In summary, the Museum Association article suggests that Sex Matters being opposed to transgender rights is nothing more than an accusation which has been made against the organisation by LGBTQ+ groups. The article itself describes the organisation as being ‘gender critical’, which is a more neutral description.

Lemkin Institute:

This is simply a repost of an article by ST Williams, originally published by Yorkshire Bylines on 26 June 2025. The article has an inherent journalistic bias. It has no connection to the Lemkin Institute beyond their decision to post it on their website. The Lemkin Institute is known for a view on transgenderism/trans-activism which can only be described as naive and political.

TransLucent:

Not much worth saying about that. An article written and published by ‘a trans led advocacy and human rights organisation working for the transgender and gender diverse community in the UK’. Hardly a beacon of impartiality, is it? Is there any criticism against using the definition provided by Sex Matters themselves, which could not equally be applied to reliance on the publications of this organisation as a source? It’s perhaps worth noting that even TransLucent, in the cited article, highlight that Sex Matters claims to be a “human-rights organisation”.

The submissions against using the official and accepted description of Sex Matters, in favour of a more politically-constructed ‘pro-trans’ definition, are rejected in full. ~2025-38940-68 (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:npa alongside Wikipedia:Aboutself and other policies of Wikipedia linked above. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-38940-68 I didn't add any of those sources to the article, I added them here for this discussion, to show how sources are generally talking about this topic. The article already includes the fact that the subject describes herself as "gender critical", so that is covered. I'm highly confident that the academic article cited will pass any review for reliability by other editors, but you're welcome to go through the process of initiating that review if you disagree.

We also go through a great deal of effort to maintain the credibility and verifiability of this encyclopedia, as demonstrated by its ranking among the most visited websites in the world.

Instead of accusing other editors of undermining the credibility, you should really focus on the edits being made and how they relate to WP policies and guidelines (i.e., please limit the ad hominem critiques and focus on the content).

You have no authority to unilaterally reject the current state of an article against consensus. If you think there's an issue with how the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle is being applied here, then I recommend you read up on your options for dispute resolution. Otherwise, it seems pretty clear that your opinion does not represent the consensus. MossOnALog^Talk 17:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia includes content that is supported by reliable sources independent of the subject; removing such sources and replacing them with self-published sources affiliated with the subject fails our sourcing policies.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-38699-20 since this aspect is a) highly relevant to the article Sex Matters (advocacy group), and b) has already been discussed on that article's talk page (with the consensus being to keep the current description of the org), I've made a post on that article's talk page to notify editors of this discussion happening here. MossOnALog^Talk 17:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The policies highlighted have been read. Nothing written by the contributor comes within the definition of a 'personal attack' under the terms of "WP:npa". It is further submitted that using the description of Sex Matters which features on the organisation's website, and in the same terms in other sources, complies with the five points detailed in "Wikipedia:Aboutself".

In order to proceed to the next stage in resolving this matter, it is of course important that written submissions outlining the various arguments for and against a particular approach are allowed fair opportunity for posting. The 'Talk' facility is an excellent feature which creates an accurate record of all submissions from various contributors which can be collated for submission to the next forum for its consideration to resolve the dispute.

To be clear, nothing posted on this page by any contributor should be 'personal' in nature. Contributors to Wikipedia should rightly be concerned about the reputation of the platform, which is largely dependent on the quality, accuracy and impartiality of the articles. I am therefore welcome and am fully supportive of notification to the editors. I look forward to participating in our collective effort to fortify the strong reputation of Wikipedia as a source of high-quality information. ~2025-38940-68 (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, thank you for drawing attention to the Sex Matters (advocacy group) article. I've only read the opening part of it, but it's clear from that alone that the article falls foul of Wikipedia's ideals. Hopefully someone else can take that on. Mammoth task and unfortunately I don't have the time. ~2025-38940-68 (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-38940-68 multiple people have brought this same discussion up on the talk page there and the current consensus is quite clear. MossOnALog^Talk 18:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Yet at 17:41 on the Talk page of that article, you stated with reference to another contributor: "Your input could be helpful in reaching consensus." This comment runs contrary to your above statement: "the current consensus is quite clear". Surely this cannot be the case in light of your invitation to others to make submissions with a view to "reaching consensus". Could you clarify what the current position is regarding consensus? Many thanks. ~2025-38940-68 (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-38940-68 The current consensus of the discussion at that article is quite clear. The consensus here is also pretty clear but is currently being challenged by you, so having other editors contribute their thoughts would indeed help determine if a consensus has been reached. MossOnALog^Talk 18:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

So, at the moment, no consensus has been reached in relation to this article, is that correct? ~2025-38940-68 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-38940-68 You said "You are running dangerously close to undermining the credibility and reliability of Wikipedia as an online encyclopaedia." That is a critique of other editors rather than their edits or the content of the article. MossOnALog^Talk 18:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

It's a suggestion based on an analysis of the editor's submissions. Raised in the context of an important discussion which bears on the credibility and reliability of Wikipedia, and that it is a critique of the editor's approach to their work and not a personal attack on the editor themselves, it is permissible, if not essential. It provides the editor with an opportunity to reflect on their work and how it is perceived by others with a view to developing their skills.

And could you possibly answer the question asked of you at 18:18? Thanks. ~2025-38940-68 (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Please can we try to keep this calm and civil. In particular please can we avoid personal attacks. I think the best approach is to say as little as possible about Sex Matters here. People who want to know more can read the linked article and people who wish to discuss the linked article can do so on its own Talk page. The current text saying "an advocacy group opposing transgender rights in the United Kingdom." is a good succinct and neutral summary of the Reliable Sources without going into details best reserved for the other article. It avoids both euphemism and hyperbole. I'm not sure whether that is the same wording as used when this thread was started but, whether it was OK before, it certainly seems to be OK now. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I will address some specific points:

[1] "Please can we try to keep this calm and civil." Nothing ill-tempered or uncivil has been submitted in this forum, and it is surely the wish of all participants to keep it that way.

[2] What is said on this page about Sex Matters should indeed be short and succinct. However, as the subject of the article is directly linked with the organisation, it is important to provide some idea as to the nature of the organisation. This is useful in highlighting the nature of the subject's interests.

[3] I respectfully disagree with your submission that "an advocacy group opposing transgender rights..." is a statement which "avoids [...] hyperbole". It goes far beyond that and is a stark misrepresentation of the organisation whose stated mission is "to promote clarity about sex in law, policy and language in order to protect everybody's rights." This is borne out by the activities of the organisation which are well-documented. ~2025-38940-68 (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Why can't we just get rid of the description on her page altogether? Like @DanielRigal says, if people wanna know more they can click the link... ~2025-38885-71 (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

It would be very strange, at the very least, to say she founded a group with minimally describing what said group is. Katzrockso (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I dunno how civil this is going to be read as but since Moss invited me to comment, I'd like to simply state that I'm rather disinclined to entertain anyone who thinks they can unilaterally [reject] in full what reliable sources say because they don't like the politics of those sources. Deny and all that, if it's 1AM and they're not going away then I respectfully request they take their POV pushing to another website. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I think people are entitled to accept or reject (in whole or part) the submissions of other users. That appears to be what @MossOnALog and others who support their position have done to the person who rejects their position. I think their point is a valid one though. Descriptions of things which are clearly politically-biased should probably be avoided in encyclopedia entires. Happy for other to disagree obviously. But yeah, wiki shouldn't be 'pro-trans' or 'anti-trans' - should aim for neutrality as far as possible. ~2025-39074-24 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)