Talk:Anki Gerhardsen

This entire text is an attempted character assassination by an extremist anonymous trans-activist on Anki Gerhardsen who is a highly respected public person in Norway. In reality Gerhardsen is a respected journalist, media critic and member of the government appointed commission on freedom of speech. The false claims in this article can easily be considered legally defamatory. The article should be deleted, and the author should be prevented from publishing similar slander in the future. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 213.52.102.38 / talk
 * This isn't slander. The fact that you refereed to it as such leads me to believe you don't actually know what you're talking about. 15:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First glance is that the biggest main issue I'd have with the article is the part trying to dismiss Anki Gerhardsen as a journalist (not sure I'd call her that, over here in the US we would call her work opinion / commentary, but she has too many articles in Aftenposten to be flippant about her journalism cred). There also is (in my opinion, admittedly not solid due to the need to Google Translate) possible over-focus on TERF accusations, as it seems like some of her other opinions on subjects like abortion and immigration could be analyzed and documented if they fit RW, she seems very "right wing pundity" (toned down compared to other places, but never mind that). Other than that, meh? The machine-English translation of the Aftenposten articles, Twitter feed, and various other pieces at least seem largely supportive of this article to me, at least to some degree. Of course, not being native, I might easily miss something, but you'll have to prove that "easily be considered legally defamatory" statement, right now I don't anything terribly wrong.  PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is a critical discussion of a prominent right-wing pundit. I agree that she is known for more than just her Rowling support, which has been a significant issue in her writings in the last few years, so the material on her other views could be expanded and I might look into that when I have the time. I've also made some adjustments to further tone it down a little bit. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Anki Gerhardsen is a member of the government appointed free speech commission, and her job is to analyse and comment on aspects of society relevant to free speech. To write her off as a right-wing pundit is beyond ignorant. This is another example of why the articles written by this User simply needs to be deleted. The misinformation is beyond repair. For reference, here is the commission Gerhardsen is appointed to: https://www.ykom.no/kommisjonen/ 84.212.206.244 (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's nothing stopping her from being a right wing pundit and a member of this "free speech commission". Just pointing that out. 18:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, this Wiki also will focus more on the things that are mission oriented, regardless of other qualities, and tends to focus on criticism. She doesn't exclusively writes on JK Rowling / trans / #metoo, of course. But her articles on Norwegian art criticism (which is where her expertise would be per her educational background) really don't add or subtract much for this Wiki, so you wouldn't include them here (except maybe as part of background). Also she seems to be of the intellectual pundit tradition, so I don't think calling her a right-wing pundit is "writing her off". Donald Trump may have destroyed this pillar in the United States, but until then, the right-wing pundit world and associated think-tanks had oversized influence in Republican politics (and vice-versa), and she doesn't seem like a shrieking fool like the American right-wing pundit scene has been producing lately. Some of her viewpoints are legitimately debatable, and there may be a viewpoint that this Wiki would view positively. Like, apparently she defended a person named Shaun Henrik Matheson who apparently went on a tirade against Israel and got in some serious trouble. But, you know? If I replaced "Israel" with "the Netanyahu administration", I actually don't see anything in error in Matheson's tirade, it's not automatically anti-Semitic to me. Saying this article is "beyond ignorant" / "beyond repair" however implies complete crap. When I can Google her "De intolerantes seiersgang" article, I think, yes, this and others probably would seem transphobic to certain trans activists (it's the "trans activists are stifling free debate" argument we've seen before). There seems to be some people that do not agree with this position, and a counterpoint might be a worthy insert. But instead of trying to improve the article, you shriek "slander"? PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Norway's government until recently included a far-right party and wingnuts and populists are in fact routinely appointed to these commissions that usually include representatives of the 'people' – Norway has had far-right cabinet members such as Sylvi Listhaug. The government still finances a group considered to be Islamophobic by most experts (Human Rights Service). The fact that she is a member of a commission as a representative of the 'people' doesn't change the fact that she is a right-wing pundit (in itself a rather mild description). There is no general requirement to be left-wing or liberal or centrist to be appointed to political roles in Norway. For example she accepted an award of an anti-feminist group that calls feminism 'gynocentric and narcissistic'. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

User CharlotteTakveis:, seriously? Anki Gerhardsen ... right wing? You have to be kidding? As a matter of fact this specific rationalwiki-article has today received media attention for it's blatant and ridiculous activist-misrepresentation of reality: Aftenposten's debate editor (Aftenposten being Norway's largest newspaper) reacts strongly and negatively to the anonymous and erroneous slander published by rationalwiki. This article should be deleted, and RationalWiki should consider banning the activist account CharlotteTakveis from making future anonyomous allegations against mainstream Norwegian public voices from her own extreme transactivst perspective. https://subjekt.no/2021/06/15/brennmerkes-som-transfob-pa-internett-igjen/ &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2A01:799:A61:2100:249E:125D:BF86:75B5 / talk
 * Subjekt.no is an alt-right website, roughly comparable to Quillette, only far less influential and well known (largely due to being Norwegian). Anyway the blog post notes, correctly, that she has been criticised for her 'trans-critical' views before, and that she is a right-wing pundit is neither controversial, nor a particularly harsh criticism of her. Being a right-wing pundit in itself is completely legitimate. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]This one, like a few of the others, looks ok if you’re unfamiliar with the recent controversies, but there’s no easy way to verify anything as it’s all in Norwegian and I don’t think I’m alone in not trusting Takveis to translate. I’d support deleting all or most of the articles she’s written just to be on the safe side, although the most obviously false ones are already gone. Christopher (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Subjekt is alt-right? You have to kidding. This "rationalwiki" site really is fully intent on distributing garbage to the world if it is going to rely on the truth as per "CharlotteTakveis". What a disgrace. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 185.252.223.39 / talk
 * Y'know, this BoN threatening lawsuits isn't necessarily trustworthy either, *numerous* sources cite Aftenposten as aligned with a moderate conservative stance, are you going to fucking sue Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica as well? Or is the BoN one of those hardline populist assholes I've encountered who consider magazines like the Economist left-wing now? At any rate, the hardline asshole needs to stop threatening Rationalwiki for what one user wrote, that's not how law works in America, this is an American site, and I have no problem blocking this asshole the instant they make empty legal threats. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, they jumped IPs and repeatedly inserted some character assassination nonsense on the main article 30 minutes ago. Just some fan who can't handle criticism of their favorite transphobe apparently. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * the only controversy that I'm aware of is you scaring off editors working on trans issues (splainer seems to have left because of you), and you contantly taking any kind of false claims by admitted representatives of extremist TERF groups (i.e. whrc; see my detailed response to their entirely and deliberately fabricated claim e.g. about the quote that I had correctly translated) and now this alt-right garbage website at face value. None of my articles have contained any kind of falsehoods, that's in itself a blatant falsehood. I agreed to the deletion of a couple of articles (mostly my early work) solely because they duplicated material and I didn't have the time to expand them sufficiently all at once to justify stand-alone articles, but everything in them was adequately sourced and I'm happy to answer any questions regarding their content and sources. Any constructive editor can use Google translate to look into the sources of this article as well if they feel any need; even the garbage alt-right post notes that this is not the first time that she is criticised for her trans-critical views, that this is something that is discussed publicly in Norwegian discourse independently of this article. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Aftenposten used to be moderatly conservative in the late 1980s, but have since then been considered very centrist without any stated political viewpoint. As a matter of fact Aftenposten's chief editor between 2004 and 2008 - Hilde Haugsgjerd was formerly a member of the far-left "Red electorate alliance", a party that in it's own terms promotes "revolutionary socialism".
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilde_Haugsgjerd


 * There is no record of anyone called Charlotte Takveis in any Norwegian phone book (https://www.gulesider.no/charlotte+takveis/personer), with the Norwegian equivalent of IRS (https://tjenester.skatteetaten.no/personsok) or on facebook. The author of this wiki-article is hence for all practical purposes an anonymous activist actively seeking to change other people's perception of reality.


 * The fact that Gerhardsen has been purposely targeted by radical trans activists - and that she is one of very few Norwegians to be included in the trans-activist browser plug-in "shinigami eyes" does in no way make the allegations against her true or Gerhardsen evil or "TERF". That is of course what the activists are trying to accomplish by planting such slanderous stories such as this wiki-article, but the claim has to be evaluated on merit, not on slander.


 * As a commentator Gerhardsen tends to weigh in on many different topics, with a particular interest in topics that are sensitive and where freedom of speech could be under threat and were media involvement on a particular topic might be unbalanced. It should be very easy to run this commentary she has written (https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikk/i/yvrgWA/droemmen-om-det-sanne-jeg-anki-gerhardsen) through Google Translate and evaluate if this is really a person who appears to be "anti-trans" or "transphobe" or whether it's a civilized caring person that is legitimatly worried that the concerned voices of health personell involved with trans people undergoing corrective treatment is not being listened to carefully enough. Sure, you might consider her argument to somehow be factually wrong, or something you want to express disagreement with. But just calling someone "phobic", TERF or hateful and publishing such anonymous allegations as fact on a wiki is NOT a an acceptable way to show a difference of opinion or to get to the truth in a civilized debate.


 * Yes, she expresses a concern about the potential backlash of corrective trans-conversion treatment, but the argument contains absolutely no hatred and no trace of any "phobic" attitude towards other people's gender expression. Her argument refers to scientific arguments, statistics and clearly shows empathy with trans people.


 * The purpose of this rationalwiki article seems clear enough from User CharlotteTakveis' perspective. It is an attempt to systematically undermine Gerhardsen's credibility and portray her as hateful or extremist, where as in reality she is a very serious and mainstream voice. I don't know who wrote about Tonje Gjevjon, but that article has the same element of being a personal attack and trying to make labels stick. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2A01:799:A61:2100:EDA4:72AF:4A36:F4E1 / talk
 * There are multiple editors on this Wiki (and Wikis are anonymous by nature) and many of them have been very critical of CharlotteTakveis' recent edits as too (in some cases, possibly libelous) TERF-waggling over obscure characters. Had there been a more serious attempt to re-balance the article instead of coming in kicking and screaming and threatening to sue, such edits would in all probability be welcomed. I don't think it's out of line (as seen by the browser plugin) to say that some activists do see Gerhardsen as transphobic. I think it's fair to say that many do not as well. I do find it interesting that the Norwegian Wikipedia article on Tonje Gjevjon is also going through a similar talk discussion on trans related topics. I'm not terribly sold on the idea of hormonal or surgical treatment for transsexual minors, personally, if that's what the paywalled article is addressing. Others may disagree. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hilde Haugsgjerd hasn't been a member of any 'far-left' party in over 40 years, and she explicitly said Aftenposten is a conservative newspaper when she became editor and that she was comfortable with that. Anyway, that is not really a primary reason for considering Gerhardsen as a right-wing pundit; for example she accepted the prize of an organization that is explicitly anti-feminist. Right-wing pundit is a mild characterization, it just means she isn't left-wing or entirely centrist. It does not mean she is far-right. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

True, there was some time between Haugsgjerd's affiliation with the radical revolutionary socialist party and her role as chief editor of Aftenposten. Still, she has held both positions and it does say something about the current politics of Aftenpostne. No, there is noone today claiming that Aftenposten is conservative. Most conservatives have migrated to more distinctly conservative media such as Minerva. Some even to alternative media. Aftenposten's editorials will typically express more liberal viewpoints than Washington Post.

Also "Mannsforum" isn't "alt-right" as you outrageously claim in the article. Sure, Mannsforum is an interest group for men's issues. But it's a legitimate interest group supporting men that have their struggles in divorce proceedings and in alimony issues, highlighting men's health issues like prostate cancer or attempting to bring attention to the deteriorating results that young buys are achieving in school. Mannsforum is in no way trying to defend the patriarchy or inflict anything negative on women. Mannsforum is as legitimate an interest group as similar women's groups or feminist groups. The fact that you resort to labeling mannsforum as "alt-right" very much exposes what appears to be fringe radical feminist bias here.
 * I'm calling bullshit. 15:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitly bullshit. 15:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it's less stupid than the MGTOW blackpill world. But yeah, shit like this seems to try to handwave away domestic violence against women with red herrings ("but not all men!" - duh, so you shouldn't care), racism easily disprovable by a Google search, and alt-right terminology. So, nice try, BoN. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody has said that Aftenposten is some horribly far-right newspaper. But you brought up Haugsgjerd, their former editor, and she said it is a conservative newspaper, their traditional affiliation. But that doesn't really matter because it is not the basis for any description of Gerhardsen. Even The Guardian, that is regarded as progressive on most issues, has a horrible reputation as far as trans issues are concerned, as a platform for transphobic commentary. Aftenposten regularly publishes overtly transphobic articles by representatives of organizations such as WHRC and LGB Alliance, articles that whip up transphobic moral panics, label trans women as men, accuse them of being predators, cheating in sports and whatnot. Right-wing pundits are regularly published by Aftenposten. You don't have to agree with every view expressed by a newspaper to publish your opinions there. The only ones who criticize Aftenposten for supposedly now being 'left wing' and having 'abandoned conservatism' are the far-right, Islamophobes etc. They are a pretty mainstream conservative newspaper, but like some other mainstream newspapers their track record on trans issues is bad. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, regarding Gerhardsen, she has pretty much explicitly aligned herself with Rowling's views. And Rowling has faced a ton of criticism for those very views. Just as Rowling isn't the most extreme transphobe in the UK, Gerhardsen isn't the most extreme 'trans-critical' person in Norway. She matters because she has a huge platform in the media, just like Rowling is criticized not for being the most extreme of all transphobes, but for using her significant influence to promote anti-trans views. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat surprised here. You claim that UK-based super-progressive The Guardian has a horrible reputation on trans issues. What exactly qualifies as being "balanced" on trans issues in your view? Is "balanced" the same as only printing trans viewpoints by trans people themselves? Is "balanced" the same as disallowing any open discussion on e.g at what age gender affirming medical procedures should take place? How exactly do you define "transphobic"? Is any person stating a reasoned objection to concrete elements of trans activism by definition transphopic, even if it is clear that their viewpoint is obviously well-intentioned? How exactly does one lose reputation by allowing for public debate where civilized people share differing points of view?


 * Your approach to this argument more than makes it clear that you hold an extremist radical position on these issues, and that you consistently grossly mislabel everything you mention in a futile attempt to normalize your own radical viewpoint.


 * Instead of using this lowly approach of slandering the people you disagree with, why can't you just address them with arguments. It would make the world a much better place. It is overtly clear that this particular article was written with blatant hostile intent, not with informative intent. It is not the kind of article which is suitable to keep in a wiki.


 * The way I understand the Mannsforum position on domestic violence is that they do accept that men are more physically violoent than women, but that this doesn't necessarily make all testimony of violence by women true and reciprocally all testimony from men false. It's pretty much a statement of the obvious, namely that both men and women can use cruel methods against eachother when a relationship breaks. Sometimes a man hasn't been violent even if a woman claims that he has, and Mannsforum just wants to ensure that men's legal rights are protected. This has nothing to do with hating women. It has everything to do with ensuring balance between mens' and women's rights. Your consistent use of the term alt-right leads me to believe that you are very unfamiliar with what that concept is all about. The "alt-right" is generally understood to include neo-nazi groups and people like Richard Spencer. Amongst liberals it might also be tempting to include people like Steve Bannon in that concept, but even that is actually a stretch. There is absolutely nothing alt-right political about the group Mannsforum. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2A01:799:A61:2100:EDA4:72AF:4A36:F4E1 / talk
 * Including Steve Bannon, an open "White nationalist" in the categorization of "Alt-right" is a stretch? I'm sorry, what!??!? Further, balance without reason for balance is a fallacious course of action. If we were balanced we'd hem and haw and try to give air time to creationists and climate change deniers, so we could then claim to be "balanced". We here at RationalWiki do not aim for "balance", we aim for accuracy. 18:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The Guardian's problematic track record regarding trans issues is discussed here: The Guardian (I've never edited that article myself). It's not my original analysis, it's pretty well known/commented upon (even by several of the newspaper's own journalists). Also see: Why we take issue with the Guardian’s stance on trans rights in the UK --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Addendum to my previous post. TEXT BASED MEDIA CANNOT BE SLANDER!!!!! 18:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

All these articles should be deleted. this conversation should be held only for any to be re submitted. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So her Wikipedia article says almost nothing about her save for some stuff she's said about various topics. No evidence she's made any kind of impact. Most damning, her Twitter account has only 1,356 followers total. 19:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Whether you decide to include Bannon in an alt-right bucket is extremely irrelevant to this subject. The key point is that alt-right as a term is often used interchangably with "white nationalist". If you think Bannon is a white nationalist, then - sure - he might fit the alt-right bill. "Mannsforum", however, has absolutely nothing to do with white nationalism. It's simply a men's interest group, but this article still uses the alt-right label to attempt to create a chain of guilt-by-association with which to discredit Gerhardsen.


 * The Guardian article which you refer to illustrates my point rather than your. It states that the Guardian has printed an editorial in which they "argue that trans rights “collide” with cis women’s rights; that equality for trans women “could adversely affect other women”; and that allowing trans women to access public spaces threatens cis women’s “safety”. This is a valid argument in the debate on trans issues. It is not phobic. It is not TERF. It is a point of view stated in a tone of respect and consideration for all involved parties. The newspaper isn't even clear on how to settle the issue, just that the conflict of interest is there. If simply allowing such an conflict-of-interest argument to be heard is enough to give you a "horrible reputation on trans issues", then you're essentially arguing that any voice uttering any type of dissent or concern should be silenced. That is the position of a rather militant activist, and not somebody who is intellectually prepared ot defend their point with arguments and facts. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2a01:799:a61:2100:eda4:72af:4a36:f4e1 / talk 21:08, 15 June 2021
 * The last time a "not far-right" TERF came on this site I ended up linking to Neo-Nazis and reactionaries who agreed with them on trans issues. Strangely they never responded to those points.... Do I need to bring out the nuclear citations? 21:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)