Talk:Women's Human Rights Campaign
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Reality check[edit]
This article devotes more than 2,000 words to the Norwegian branch of WHRC, an outfit with a Twitter following of < 800. Looking at their website, it appears they've currently attracted all of 242 Norwegian signatories to the WHRC declaration, out of ~17,000 globally. These aren't numbers that scream success, nor do they seem to justify the editorial energy being expended on their activities. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- A few hundred very committed TERFs who constantly are in the media can have a disproportionately large influence on public discourse in a country of five million. The public debate on women's day in Norway this year was dominated by them and their slogans ("stop heresy in primary schools, girls and women don't have penises", "only women are women" and similar ones). They have also managed to almost dominate public discourse on trans issues due to their persistence, even if few people support TERF ideology (and thus follow them on Twitter). Consider that the Westboro Baptist Church has even fewer supporters/members. I don't know enough about Germany and the other countries to write as detailed about them. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- You can't "dominate" public discourse if the overwhelming majority of the public and policy makers have zero interest in what you're saying. Your WBC example is instructive here, just not in the way you think it is. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- You can dominate, or be a highly visible part of, public discourse in a specific topic area such as trans issues if you are persistent enough, and if many people are indifferent or take a sensationalist approach to the topic. For example right-wing media and tabloids are perfectly happy to publish their op-eds because they think it makes for good clickbait, which gives them much visibility. The entire women's movement spent enourmous energy on debating and rejecting their transphobic slogans on women's day. And so forth.
- In the last three years or so trans people have been attacked almost daily in Norwegian media, very often by the individuals behind WHRC who have written dozens of anti-trans op-eds, been interviewed etc. in leading newspapers only during the last few months, whereas during the previous decade there was far less anti-trans hate. So they have had a significant impact on the political/media climate for trans people, even if mainstream people don't openly support them (but many take a 'blame both sides' approach and don't really care about trans people, or find the debate between TERFs and the few trans people who speak up entertaining). --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- WBC is probably one of the least influential groups within the religious right. Shock jock tactics aside, they don't hold a candle to the likes of Falwell Jr. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- You can't "dominate" public discourse if the overwhelming majority of the public and policy makers have zero interest in what you're saying. Your WBC example is instructive here, just not in the way you think it is. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- That may be true in terms of policy, but in terms of visibility it's another story. Obviously they are not entirely comparable. Norway doesn't have the same kind of religious right as the US does, until the TERFs appeared very few people were openly anti-LGBT here and anti-LGBT views didn't figure in the media like they do now. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Don't mistake media posturing for real effect, for they are not one and the same. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I live in Topeka. The WBC is a total joke, and whatever attention we pay to them is entirely a mix of scorn and pity.
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with the information itself, though as others suggest (or opine), I think some emphasis could be placed on that they're not exactly very notable/influential. I think most people reading this article couldn't care less what's going on in Norway specifically, and as it stands it gives one the impression that the Norwegian chapter is the most notable. I'd suggest write a short summary and create a separate article on the Norwegian branch, so as not to overload this article with information that is generally less relevant to the wider WHRC article. Kauri0.o (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I agree, I will do that. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with the information itself, though as others suggest (or opine), I think some emphasis could be placed on that they're not exactly very notable/influential. I think most people reading this article couldn't care less what's going on in Norway specifically, and as it stands it gives one the impression that the Norwegian chapter is the most notable. I'd suggest write a short summary and create a separate article on the Norwegian branch, so as not to overload this article with information that is generally less relevant to the wider WHRC article. Kauri0.o (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- That may be true in terms of policy, but in terms of visibility it's another story. Obviously they are not entirely comparable. Norway doesn't have the same kind of religious right as the US does, until the TERFs appeared very few people were openly anti-LGBT here and anti-LGBT views didn't figure in the media like they do now. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
