Talk:Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act

Requested move 3 December 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW consensus against a move. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act → Nancy Mace's transphobic campaign – There are dozen sources referencing Mace's campaign as transphobic/anti-trans. It is biased to change the title based on a whim that ignores overwhelming sources. Also, re-naming the article to just 1 section of the described subject is too narrow. Arbeiten8 (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Nancy Mace's campaign against transgender women. She specifically targeted a transwoman, Sarah McBride. Theparties (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy oppose as a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The second proposal is slightly more neutral, but still a violation of NPOV in my opinion. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  I take it that misgendering McBride isn't transphobic but McBride has a mental illness according to Megyn Kelly. If this is the WP standard, why don't we re-direct "misgendering" to the mental disorder article for neutrality or create an article presenting the Megyn Kelly standard as the neutral viewpoint? Arbeiten8 (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't say it wasn't transphobic, but it's still a violation of NPOV. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral on specific names, but the proposed names are a clear violation of WP:POVTITLE which is why (per WP:RMUM) I reverted the previous undiscussed move to Nancy Mace's 2024 transphobic campaign. I understand Arbeiten8's point that the current title does not reflect the current scope of the article, but in my opinion that reflects an issue with the article not having a clearly defined scope rather than an issue with the title.:Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies has been notified of this discussion. Raladic (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Transphobia in the US House of Representatives. The article and its content are broader than just the proposed bill by Mace, so the current title as it stands is inaccurate per WP:PRECISE. This also matches the corresponding section title at Sarah McBride#Transphobia in the US House related to the article here and satisfies the criteria of being a neutral title as reported by reliable sources discussing the matter. Raladic (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, keep the neutral name --FMSky (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  "Protecting Women's" is loaded language and biased. The nefarious intent of this label is to claim that McBride is a man as the second bill's author Mace & co-sponsors have expressly and ad nauseum announced to the world. Arbeiten8 (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not biased, its the official name --FMSky (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as an obvious violation of WP:NPOVTITLE. The fact that sources describe a bill as XYZ is not a justification to include XYZ in the WP title. Legislators often use loaded language when titling their bills to make themselves sound better. Except in very rare cases, the WP:COMMONNAME of a bill is the bill's actual title - and sources have not been produced to prove otherwise. The proposed article title fails the naturalness and consistency WP:CRITERIA. Astaire (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose per WP:NPOV. This should be WP:SNOW closed as a totally unserious proposal. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

To claim that the label "transphobia" doesn't accurately describe facts strikes me as odd when even X staff have flagged Nancy Mace's mocking as "hateful conduct" On a platform where transphobic posts are routinely boosted and rife, this flagging of her post tells you something! Arbeiten8 (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose This blatantly unserious and disruptive proposal should be closed ASAP. Flounder fillet (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Bias aside, the title would make no sense. The article is about the Senate Bill and its backlash, not a hate campaign on Twitter or something ApteryxRainWing | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per Astaire. I'm trans myself, for the record, but my own feelings about this bill, Nancy Mace, and transphobia are irrelevant to how this article should be titled. Funcrunch (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Blatantly POV alternative title proposed, bordering on a troll, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  Instead of jumping on the bandwagon to claim that the title isn't neutral, I encourage you to come up with a broader title to capture 2 bills: (1) bathrooms & (2) all federal facilities. I thought about Misandry but there isn't any references even though Nancy Mace is claiming to experience panic attacks and emotional trauma at the thought of imagining a person with a male part next to her in the adjacent stall even though McBride has no male gender part. (I can't really under this brouhaha as Megan thee Stallion says, "I ain't scared of dick" even if there were actual men next to her emptying their digestive organs.) Arbeiten8 (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The name of the Bill is sufficient. Per WP:NPOV. I'm unsure if this is trolling, naivety or a serious suggestion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knitsey (talk • contribs) 06:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose We follow reliable sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think there is great desire to sing in unison here. Reliable sources isn't the problem. We have Time (magazine) ("anti-transgender trolling") and many other sources describing Nancy Mace's ongoing efforts as anti-trans / transphobic. Next, there is much more acceptance for transphobia than racism as described in the example of Maryland Democrat David Trone. Thus, even an accidental racist remark causes backlash that transphobic remarks don't.

  Finally, realizing that any comment by me will result in kneejerk motions of opposition, I think we can close this up. I withdraw my move proposal. Arbeiten8 (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

scope and name of the article.

It is clear from both the RM and Afd that some discussion about both the scope and the name of the article needs to happen somewhere.

Given the fact that the article currently talks about 2 different bills (honestly it more focuses on H.res.1579 which isn't currently the title of the article) there seems to be room for a name change as it's clear this article is about more than just the unpassed bill. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Loki (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned at the AfD, I suggested moving it to Transphobia in the US House of Representatives, or alternatively maybe "Anti-trans sentiment in the US House of Representatives (which follows the pattern of other "Anti X in Y" articles which we have in Template:Discrimination.

The WP:RS in the article use the term "Transphobia" or "Anti-trans" in many of the articles, many of them in the title of the articles. Raladic (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"Transphobia in the US House of Representatives" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Transphobia in the US House of Representatives has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 11 § Transphobia in the US House of Representatives until a consensus is reached. JayCubby 19:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2024

Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act → Transphobia in the US House of Representatives – WP:NPOV title. Theparties (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is about the resolution entitled "Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act", so that should be it's title. It's not a POV violation to correctly report the title of a work whose title is biased. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree that the article is really about the bill specifically. It's about the dispute more broadly which includes at least two proposed bills. Loki (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose This article is about the bill that Mace has proposed. "Transphobia in the US House of Representatives" is a different topic. Some1 (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: 100% agreement with the rationale of Pppery and Some1. I see no valid reason to make this move. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. The title isn't perfect, since the article covers a second act as well, but I think in this case it's the best title available. The suggested title is much broader. As such, I have no choice but to oppose this RM. Lewisguile (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I would support a rename to 2024 House of Representatives trans bathroom dispute or something similar, but since it's one incident I agree that the proposed title doesn't work. Loki (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I could get behind 2024 House of Representatives trans bathroom dispute, actually. It satisfies WP:NCWWW and covers the entire scope. Lewisguile (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The article isn't just about bathrooms, though; it's about all single-sex designated spaces on federal property. Funcrunch (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

What would you suggest? It's tricky trying to keep it broad enough but precise enough, too. Lewisguile (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I've been wracking my brain over a better title but have yet to come up with one. Funcrunch (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, but agree that we need a better title that includes the second bill that would limit all single-sex designated spaces on federal property to people of that assigned birth sex. Funcrunch (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: There is a very clear consensus against the proposed move, but some people have suggested moving to an alternative title that also accounts for the mention of another bill in this article. Further discussion is needed on that aspect of the request. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)