Talk:Linda Sarsour

	This social justice related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

The stupid lankaster quotes aren't INaccurate

Doing a cursory search of her opinions about shariah, it's not inaccurate to say she views the concept positively; she sees shariah as the restrictions and practices Muslims enforce on themselves. I'm not sure the quotes in question represent that view entirely fairly. Given that view, it's certainly not the contradiction he's trying to suggest. But also: she's kind of wrong in that opinion. Only kind of. Some theocratic states take that self-enforced law and make it state-enforced. And she drives straight past that fact in all her thoughts and opinions on Shariah. Probably a better way to address it than two "contradictory" quotes that don't contradict in the context of the speaker's understanding, but fuck it, it's not the worst case of quoting we do here. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

"it's certainly not the contradiction he's trying to suggest." I'm not trying to show a contradiction between the two quotes. I put those quotes because I think they are important to understand Sarsour. The first quote is important because it shows that Sarsour support sharia law, which, as you said, she sees as a positive concept. The second quote shows that Sarsour is quite deluded in believing that no Muslim is trying to impose sharia law, which is something as much absurd as believing that all Muslims are trying to impose sharia law. --Lankaster (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Side by side, it definitely strikes any reader reading for context as that being the implication, that she's a liar who's trying to cover up her enforcing shariah plan, talking out both sides of her mouth. I can accept that was not your intention, but it's still the implication of putting the quotes like that. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

"that she's a liar who's trying to cover up her enforcing shariah plan, talking out both sides of her mouth." OK, then I will remove one of the quotes. I think that it is more relevant to show her delusion that no Muslim is trying to impose sharia law, so I will keep it. --Lankaster (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

That aside, I'm more concerned about Lankaster making apologetics of what appears to be reverse racism or trying to paint Sarsour as anti-semitic simply because she doesn't like Israel. And the link to the sexism in the Quran page doesn't really disprove that one can both be a feminist and a Muslim, it's just that yeah, there's sexism in religion. So what? James Earl Cash (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you there, too. Some of history's greatest feminists(though not any of my personal favs) were religious and of a faith that has some pretty shitty misogyny in them. There's a point to be made about believing a religion that goes against one's own morals, but it doesn't need to be on every religious person's page. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@James Earl Cash That's does not explain why you are deleting information about Sarsour wishing she could take away a victim of FGM vagina, and Sarsour "god blessing" Farrkhan. --Lankaster (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The Ayaan Hirsi Ali dispute is about as legit as saying that trans activist Parker Molloy is a bad person because she got fired for the Advocate when she got in an argument with another trans activist and told them to kill themselves, Ali's bad history besides. Nobody's history is spotless, but this is like pouring fuel onto the fire. As far as her support for Farrakhan goes, we already got enough info about him as is, do we really need to look at random Instagram quotes that only reiterate that yes, she supports him, especially in the minor degree that she praised him on Instagram? I'm also loathe to use a source like the Times of Israel.James Earl Cash (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Especially with bullshit like "hates white people" ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

White guy in particular was at a committee for Asian people. If he wants to show support he can, but this seems like he was just out to start trouble. James Earl Cash (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@James Earl Cash "The Ayaan Hirsi Ali dispute is about as legit as saying that trans activist Parker Molloy is a bad person because..." Stop doing your usual false analogies to move away from the real topic. Sarsour says she wished she could take away the vagina of a FGM victim who criticize her, that's inexcusable an must be said. Also, Sarsour praises Farrakhan and a "god blessing" of him is a relevant information that should not be deleted. Finally, Sarsour believes NO Muslims is trying to impose sharia law, which is a complete deluded statement, and must be reported too. -Lankaster (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Now you are being an ass. Of course you'll ignore the analogy, but you'll argue to the ends of the earth about some irrelevant race baiting nonsense about black people on the rape culture page and demand to be taken seriously. She said the man is blessed, so what? God bless is a saying, it's a greeting. I don't really care about shariah law one way or another, but your initial inclusion of the quotes was flat out scaremongering. James Earl Cash (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Israel

I personally loathe how readily anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are equated sometimes, but when Sarsour is calling to "stop humanizing Israelis" that does make her sound pretty horrible. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Clicking through to your sources' source, that seems to be a deliberately inaccurate misquote of her, and then a lengthy interview attacking the very engineered misquote. It's a hell of a reach to go from

“”Her tone often was not aimed at inspiring Muslims to be more politically active, as much as it was to shame them for not doing so. If they aren’t sufficiently engaged in advocating for the Palestinian cause, she said, “you as an American Muslim are complicit in the occupation of Palestinians, in the murder of Palestinian protesters. So when we start debating in the Muslim community about Palestine, it tells me a lot about you and about the type of faith that you have in your heart.” Worse still, “if you’re on the side of the oppressor, or you’re defending the oppressor, or you’re actually trying to humanize the oppressor,” she said, “then that’s a problem sisters and brothers, and we got to be able to say: that is not the position of the Muslim American community.”

—this is still a pretty hostile article that editorializes the quote in the middle of it

...to "dehumanizing Israelis". It's a serious reach. Reviewing more of the Clarion site that you reference, they seem like they've got no agenda besides hating Muslims. It's literally exactly the conflation you say you loathe. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, BoN got me to look up the Clarion Project and woo boy, what a can of worms. The Algemeiner doesn't seem much better either. Lionizing the likes of Mitt Romney, Rupert Murdoch, Stephen Harper, and endorsing the list of Republican presidential candidates in 2012? Hard pass. James Earl Cash (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, worse, I think they might be cutting two quotes together, leaving out part of the statement to make it sound like she's specifically :talking about Israel, rather than oppression in general, but the original transcript and video are impossible find, all there is is an infinite circle jerk of right wing sites repeating each other. I could be giving her way more credit than is due, but the way they've cut it together it doesn't seem to flow as natural language. Hard to prove, but they specifically avoid giving links to full context, while linking to other editorials about how much they hate each speaker. Very common annoyance I have when trying to deal with right wing media sites. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Was just Googling a link to add some context, you know. As I already said, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism aren't the same thing, but it's sort of understandable people go from one to the other when they hear her rail against "humanizing" Israel. Aside from said extreme anti-Zionism though, her references to "the Jewish media" seem pretty suspect to say the least. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but look at that quote, that's not even what she said. "Don't humanize the oppressor" is way different from "Don't humanize Israelis", and again, I seriously think there might be deceptive editting going on here on top of that. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

memri was honest enough, at least, to include a real transcript. Never ever ever ever ever ever ever trust right wing media is my final say on that story. The entire speech doesn't even mention Israel. The quote is very clearly in the broader spectrum of people looking for excuses to humanize the oppressor and attack the oppressed. Fuck the right wing media, and fuck our local right wingers for reproducing their bullshit uncritically. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

She explicitly talks about the struggle of Palestinians right before, so it's not exactly a secret that "the oppressor" refers to Israel, possibly among other oppressors but still. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but contextually, she was also discussing young black men gunned down by police. It's basically impossible to construe in that context, to even remotely be about Israeli citizens. It's an unfair extrapolation of an unfair extrapolation to get there. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on quotes

@Lankaster, it is indeed important that any quote that you give be supported by the reference that you are using that also supplies the context in which it appears. Otherwise, you may — intentionally or not — be guilty of quote mining. My view on the 3 quotes are: Sarsour quotes are relevant if supported contextually. Farrakhan is not really relevant: blessing has about as much meaning as "thoughts and prayers". Lots of people say "bless you" to people who sneezed without thinking about what it means. Bongolian (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

As I indicated in the above section, the excerpts he chose don't seem to be unrepresentative. I didn't like them side-by-side, but neither seem to reflect something she hasn't expressed clearly in the past. She views Sharia as a harmless religious doctrine/dogmatic system. Which it can be, but we all know about hellholes like Saudi Arabia where it's used to excuse barbaric practices by the state and religious leadership. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bongolian I'm really not following you. The quote "There is NOT ONE example of Muslims trying to impose Sharia..." is a obviously false statement no matter what the context is, false as much as claiming that all Muslims are trying to impose sharia law. The quote "Only Jews in my notifications every night are ones that condone violence..." is highly indicative of a paranoia about Jews, and again I cannot see a context where it could be reasonable. After talking with ikanreed, I have decided to remove the quote "@LaRebelleFleur shariah law is reasonable and once u read..." because it sounded like I wanted to point out at some kind of contradiction with the quote "There is NOT ONE example of Muslims....", although that wasn't my purpose. About Farrakhan, saying "god bless him" is relevant, since indicate that Sarsour hopes the better for an anti-semite she knows well. It's not like Farrakhan sneezed and Sarsour said "god bless you" without knowing who Farrakhan was. -Lankaster (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I should have been clearer. I don't really have a problem with including the first two quotes. The bit about quote mining was meant as a general comment. Bongolian (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleting PFLP and arrests

@James Earl Cash "you're trying to make her out to be an antisemite again based on something as marginal as support for Palestine, and the protest section highlights her arrests. most civil rights leaders have been arrested, so this means nothing at all." (https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_Sarsour&curid=198481&diff=2010170&oldid=2010082)

1) The fact that Sarsour was honored to be on stage with a member of a terrorist group who was convicted for bombing is something noteworthy, there's not reason to hide it. It's not in the section on accusation of antisemitism so I'm not trying to use that to make Sarsour look as an antisemite.

2) As you say: "most civil rights leaders have been arrested", so why should we hide that? It is also an indication of which protests she organized/attended -Lankaster (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

1. Stop being dishonest. You earlier tried to include her support for Odeh as an accusation of antisemitism and you'll still crouch it in language to try and paint her as an antisemite. About as legit as the way people tried to paint Obama as a terrorist during his 2008 campaign.

2. Doesn't mean we should emphasize it either. Who gives a shit man? It's the same logic behind including that dumb tweet, which of course you still failed to address when we had it out here, and the only way it's included was because a mod's edit has rank behind them. James Earl Cash (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@James Earl Cash "Stop being dishonest. You earlier tried to include her support for Odeh as an accusation of antisemitism" I included that in the section about antisemitism accusations, but after your comment I decided that indeed it's not the right section: one can be pro-Palestine terrorist group without being antisemite. However, although not antisemite, being honored to be on stage with a member of a terrorist group who was convicted for bombing is still bad and noteworthy. "About as legit as the way people tried to paint Obama as a terrorist during his 2008 campaign." Are you able, just one time, to stick to the topic?

"Who gives a shit man?" Apparently you give a shit that Sarsour protesting Trump, Kavanaugh, and Ryan and being arrested for that should not be mentioned. -Lankaster (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

1. No, because the Israel-Palestine conflict is a lot more layered than that, and you trying to tar her based on that alone, especially on a judgment as specious as one found in the Israeli kangaroo courts, serves no one. This is guilt by association.

2. Says the guy who race baits on the rape culture talk page. What a fuckin hypocrite.

3. Yes, I give a shit that irrelevant information should not be mentioned. If anything, that's far more damning of those three than of her. Takes me back to the Bush era policies of relocating protesters so they couldn't protest effectively.

PS. Stop pinging me McLaghing.James Earl Cash (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine

"In a controversial episode, Sarsour said she was "honored to be on this stage" with Rasmea Odeh, who was a member of the terrorist group[1][2] "Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine", and who was convicted in 1969 for her involvement in the bombing of an Israeli supermarket on a Friday afternoon, when the shops are most crowded by Jews preparing for Shabbat.[3]

[1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:165:0072:0074:EN:PDF

[2] https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

[3] https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/No-Holds-Barred-Linda-Sarsours-troubling-dismissal-of-homophobia-500438

@Bongolian, @CheeseburgerFace, @CowHouse, @DiamondDisc1, @LeftyGreenMario, @Spud

Can I write this information on the page? -Lankaster (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You always say you want to debate and talk points out, but when you can't get your way, you whine to the brass. Every single time. And of course they'll inevitably relent on some issues and give ground to you because they can't be bothered to investigate every issue, they're busy people and hey sometimes, your propositions sound reasonable. But still. You're about as transparent as Elvis, McLaghing.

I even looked at your sources and have no idea what you seek to accomplish. The Jerusalem Post is right-wing propaganda and I don't know what you're trying to gain with the other two websites. Sure, Odeh is definitely a controversial figure to say the least and despite how fucked up the justice system is in Israel to say nothing of the American tendency to favor it and Israel as a whole, I wouldn't be surprised if every word against her is true, but this is classic guilt by association. There's legitimate problems here, but you're using it to overshadow everything about Sarsour. To wit, the only pieces that seriously make a big deal of her association with Odeh are right wing guttershite. Might as well label MLK as the devil because he was an unrelenting poon hound and even as his most condemning and righteous indignation was willing to work with both political parties so long as they supported his cause. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lankaster Can what you're saying be supported by better known and less right-wing sources such as The Guardian, The New York Times or the BBC? Spud (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Spud I can do better: This is the original video of Sarsour's speech at JVP Conference. At about 2:37 she said: "I'm also honored and privileged to be here in this space and honored to be on the stage with Rasmea". If you want a source that Media Bias/Fact Check classified as "Left-center biased", here you have forward.com. -Lankaster (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lankaster Well, I'm satisfied with that. Spud (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Lol

Just thought it's hilarious that anyone would consider drawing parallels between Sarsour and Martin Luther King Jr. ROFL. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I was highlighting the methods of criticism rather than the figures in particular. But please, do link to more uber right-wing propaganda pieces and whine a little harder about leftist identity politics in the age of Trump so we can all know your utter brilliance. James Earl Cash (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You might have me confused with someone else. By all means continue making ridiculous comparisons like this, it's endlessly amusing. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

People can look into your history of contributions. Just a head's up. James Earl Cash (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

People can be paranoid and imagine things that aren't there. A head's up to you too. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey. Keep things cool, okay? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of right-wing propaganda, look what I just found. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:04, 12 November 42018 AQD (UTC)

Protests and arrests

@Bongolian, @CheeseburgerFace, @CowHouse, @DiamondDisc1, @LeftyGreenMario, @Spud

Can I add the following information to the page?

Due to her acts of protest, Sarsour has been arrested in several occasions:

* On March 8, 2017, Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez and Bob Bland were arrested after a day of loud but orderly protests for "A Day Without a Woman," a strike the group organized to mark International Women's Day. The group was arrested for disrupting traffic by sitting in the street near the Trump Hotel at Columbus Circle.<ref>{{cite news|title=[http://time.com/4695840/womens-march-arrests-trump-hotel/ Women's March Organizers Arrested at 'Day Without a Woman' Protest Outside Trump Hotel]|date=March 8, 2017|work=Time}}</ref>

* On March 6, 2018, Sarsour and other Muslim-American leaders were arrested at the office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, [[Paul Ryan]], after demanding that he meet them to hear their concerns.<ref>{{cite news|title=[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/linda-sarsour-arrested-paul-ryan-office-180306103336945.html Linda Sarsour arrested at Paul Ryan's office]|date=March 6, 2018|work=Al Jazeera}}</ref>

* On September 4, 2018, Sarsour and other women were arrested for obstructing the proceedings at [[Brett Kavanaugh]] supreme court hearing.<ref>{{cite news|title=[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/04/brett-kavanaugh-protests-disrupt-senate-supreme-court-hearing Brett Kavanaugh: protests disrupt Senate supreme court hearing]|date=September 5, 2018|work=The Guardian}}</ref>

-Lankaster (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I need to know what she and others are arrested for. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I don't understand what you mean. Why they were arrested is provided: "The group was arrested for disrupting traffic", "were arrested [...] after demanding that he meet them", "were arrested for obstructing". -Lankaster (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Protesting is what she's most known for. Dunno if it's particularly relevant to list all the times she got arrested for it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I overlooked the text. Anyhow, maybe we can summarize that she's known for disruptive protests that entailed in arrests. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Like the following? "Sarsour is known for having organized several disruptive protests which entailed in the arrest of her and the other protesters (references to the three articles above)." -Lankaster (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lankaster Yeah. That's all we need IMO. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Look here, @Lankaster, we moderators are not the arbiters of what appears and doesn't appear on RationalWiki pages. We are here as the arbiters of last resort. It would be better for you to either make a posting in the Saloon Bar to get more editors interested in this page or to come to some sort of agreement with your current detractors here on this talk page. I think that the relevance of your quotes depends on the context that they might support. Generally speaking, we don't care that someone was arrested for something unless it's important to showing a point in an article. Bongolian (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and sometimes, reading through this conversation and parsing through sources and edit histories can get very, very tiring. It's unreasonable to expect a timely response here. If you want to get a moderator, try summarizing the situation to the best of your abilities. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bongolian "We are here as the arbiters of last resort." The point is that it's always last resort. Because almost anytime I make an edit, this gets deleted (without previous discussion on the talk page), having a conversation on the talk page is futile, then if I continue to edit this starts an edit war, and the page is always locked in a version before my edit was made. And this is almost always because of the same user, who objects to what I write for ideological reasons. "It would be better for you to either make a posting in the Saloon Bar" Done. But it seems to me that no other user has to ask to the Saloon bar to add factual information supported by reliable sources on a page. -Lankaster (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bongolian "It would be better for you to either make a posting in the Saloon Bar" It didn't work, @Avida Dollars moved my post out of the Saloon Bar. -Lankaster (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lankaster That would probably be because that posting was too long, which makes it look out of place in the Saloon Bar. Just say something like, "Can other users please join in the discussion on the X section on the X talk page? Thank you." Spud (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Just here to say I didn't move it because it was too long, but because I think discussions about a single article belong on that article's talk page. I apologise for not leaving a link to here. Avida Dollars^{her again} 19:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. -Lankaster (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Factually accurate, but what are you trying to communicate? Protesters are deemed disruptive and arrested a lot in the US. It's kinda shitty. Why does the reader care she's arrested? What does it say about her positions on pseudoscience, authoritarianism, crankery, etc? I mean, I guess you could say "the reader can decided for themselves", but what are they even deciding about? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"but what are you trying to communicate?" First, the kind of protests that Sarsour organizes and get involved in. Second, the methods she uses to protest. For example, one knows that she does not engage in violence, neither she sits in an office writing letters to Congressmen. Third, one can judge the effectiveness/plausibility of her methods (a strike can be quite effective and reasonable, screaming at a hearing much less...) "What does it say about her positions on pseudoscience, authoritarianism, crankery, etc?" it tells about her approach to politics. -Lankaster (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean, superficially, I don't see anything deeply wrong with that text. It's not overly lengthy or a distortion or anything. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Superficially there's nothing wrong with it, but it's all about the implication and the deeper meaning. I saw in that argument on your talk page that Lankaster is, ahem, sympathetic to some of Sam Harris's ideals and that's enough, and I'm sure mostly everyone here has seen some of the things he's said to be (or they should be) suspicious of what he's really trying to get across. Most activists and civil rights leaders have been arrested, so fucking what? This is a mix of tone policing and the sea lion/JAQing off bullshit that the contemporary extreme right wing tries to pull so they look reasonable. They ask for a nice and calm civil debate, one so they can get platformed and spread their hateful rhetoric, and two, so they can pain their opposition as the irrational ones when people have every right to be suspicious to the point of violence. Milo Yiannopoulos for example has still cried wolf over and over again even after it was revealed that he was a pedoshit apologist that even NYU started to buy into his bullshit and offered him a place for a "debate." And guess what, Lankaster started off writing misogynist nonsense, defending Brett Kavanaugh, and race baited on the rape culture talk page, but he pisses and moans about how I'm the one ideologically motivated because I can see through his lies. Cut this bullshit off at the quick. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Jumpin' Jesus. Replace the whole thing with one sentence, e.g. "Due to her acts of protest, Sarsour has been arrested on several occasions." and move everything else to annotated footnotes. Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Brevity is the soul of... well... I was going to say "wit" but really I mean "inclusion of ancillary information of low relevance". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

James Earl Cash, I'm not sure how the inclusion of how she's arrested is inherently bad. If you think you need to say, "this is typical of civil rights protestors", then go for it, don't need to remove entire sections. *tired voice* --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleting about Mohammad Tawhidi's irrelevant opinion

I am deleting the bits about Mohammad Tawhidi's opinion which is irrelevant considering how he's described in his own article here at RationalWiki. I read the linked article and it's nothing more than whinning about Linda being mean to MAGA loving GOPers. And Linda does not support Sharia law. Wearing a hijab is no more support for Sharia than a christian woman dressing conservatively doesn't mean that christian womans wants to burn thousands at the stake Tuxer (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

TERF

I noticed that she has the categories TERF and transphobe. So far, what I'm seeing is that she made a horrible tweet about linking the idea of a vagina to being a woman (saying Ayaan Hirsi Alishould get her vagina taken away). So far, while it's tasteless and can be interpreted as transphobic, I think she didn't intend to harm trans people in the process. I notice she didn't apologize for the tweet or didn't remember it, but for me, it's hard to determine a lie or not since human memory is so suspect to being flawed and even forgotten. The other evidence of being TERF is failure to condemn Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan for holding many bigoted views, including transphobia. Beyond this, it's not much I can find, and I saw her in an article criticizing the banning of trans soliders and tweeted in solidarity with a black trans woman who got brutalized. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as a trans woman— What she said about taking away vaginas, and not being women, was horrifically, shockingly, misogynistic and violent, especially coming from a feminist. I don't see it as actively or consciously transphobic, though. The casually assumed equation of vaginas and womanhood is a lazy, outmoded habit of thought. Would it better if everyone stopped thinking that way? Sure. Is it alone sufficient to land her in the "Transphobia" category? No.

When cis people forget and goof up references to trans people's gender, it wounds us; yes, it wounds us grievously every time. Even when it wasn't intentional. That isn't what Sarsour did. Those words were offensive to all women— but she aimed no attack at trans women. It was offensive to us as trans women only incidentally, which is more rationally explained by momentary forgetfulness than conscious malice on her part. In my mind, I set that aspect of it aside, because the offense to all women was directly both conscious and egregious.

So that's why I'm going to delete the "Transphobia" category from Sarsour. OK? Ipazia (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

TERFs and transphobes tags, again

So it looks like someone re-added those, since per the previous discussion (right above me) they were taken down, as her comments were clueless and transphobic but not necessarily indicative of someone who subscribed to TERF beliefs. Has there been a change, has she said something that more clearly suggests agreement with that ideology or more directly attacking trans women? I don't want to downplay the transphobia of statements like that, but I think that it's important for accuracy's sake that we reserve the term for people who actually do oppose trans rights/hate trans people based on faux-feminist justifications. That could be true of Sarsour for all I know - I haven't paid much attention to her since the various controversies around the Women's March - but there's nothing added alongside it to the article to suggest that. 2601:14D:4700:478C:5871:C1E4:C0D1:EA50 (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)