Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yilangren/Userboxes/radfem

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. $Salvio$ 11:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yilangren/Userboxes/radfem

Gender-critical feminists are criticized for being transphobic due to its close association with "womyn-born-womyn" philosophy. As someone who isn't likely to be traumatized by the discussion, I've decided to nominate the template for deletion myself.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit that I first found out about the userbox and associated category from a discussion on the discord server. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 00:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you or someone else clarify on what grounds the userbox should be deleted? Thank you. Yilangren (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear situation where WP:SOAP applies. It's controversial advocacy that uses inaccurate language, and states the user's opinion as a fact. --ZagOnEm (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would changing the wording in "This user is gender-critical and knows women are oppressed based on their biological sex" from "knows" to "believes" change that? If that isn't the case, then I fail to see how numerous other userboxes which have been on Wikipedia for years shouldn't also be deleted for WP:SOAP. Yilangren (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"@Yilangren and ZagOnEm: Gender critical" is often a dog whistle for "transphobic person". People sometimes use it out of naivety, certainly a possibility for the six people using it and the person who created it, but it's usually used to subtly signal transphobia. Basically, it's discriminating against people. Ed6767 says that I've nominated this because I disagree with it, but it actually goes beyond that; the userbox can provoke transphobic harassment. --I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 07:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really good faith if you're assuming that the only two reasons we'd use the userbox are transphobia or naivete. I think the text is clear enough and I fail to understand how discussing the roots of sexism on a personal userpage harasses trans people. Yilangren (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per no valid rationale for deletion being proposed. I dream of horses, you haven't said much about this past "I don't agree with this and the opinions of the people using the userbox are controversial/transphobic in nature". I don't agree with it either, but I also don't agree with half of the controversial opinions, be it from far-right or far-left that I see on people's user pages. You could say it violates WP:SOAP, okay, then by that rationale so does every other userbox that expresses more politically correct views (I can list plenty). We shouldn't be sole arbitrators of what opinions people can illustrate on their userpage and forcefully wipe those we don't agree with, and deleting this userbox will do nothing in terms of stopping disruption or anything of the like by editors who express these views and opinons. Just because we disagree with it shouldn't mean it should go. Ed talk! 01:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Acceptable self-expression by a Wikipedia on their userpage. Changing "knows" to "believes" feels like an improvement, softened POV language is always better I believe, but this is not an MfD matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disagreeing with something politically is not a reason to delete another user's userbox. It's their opinion and as much as one may disagree with it a userbox is for expressing the opinions of a user, even if unpalatable to the broader community. (I will note, however, that of course there is a line, like userboxes supporting Nazism, that cannot be crossed, but that is different in that it inherently supports violence, and has a distinctly traumatic history, rather than simple disagreement) Zoozaz1 (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I do not see anything that could be considered offensive in this userbox. (I do not know that much on the topic so my vote only goes as far as "weak keep".) If this offends a large number of Wikipedians or violates WP:CIVIL in any way, feel free to vote "delete" or something else. A a s i m 19:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep I would favor getting rid of most user boxes, but as long as we allow any that state political or philosophical views, this one should not be deleted (although I would agree with changing "knows" to "believes"). Does not violated WP:SOAP because this is not a statement of advocacy. Does not vio0late WP:POLEMIC either, because it is in no way polemical, and does not make any negative statements about anyone or any group. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no legitimate reason to delete. Lightburst (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.