Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrong-body narrative

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Wrong-body narrative}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Wrong-body narrative}})

Wildly pov article down to its title with only four primary sources supporting it, not at all sufficient coverage for a wikipedia article Snokalok (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Transsexual#Causes, studies, and theories. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• If there's POV issues here, I'm not seeing them. I see an article that summarizes the perspectives of three academics and one memoirist on a valid topic in gender studies. No one's perspective seems to be given undue weight, nor presented as objectively correct. And even if that were the case, that would be an argument for cleanup, not for deletion. The sources already cited are enough to establish WP:GNG, and Google Scholar shows plenty more that are yet to be cited, e.g. [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13621025.2014.923705] [https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781351058995-13/wronging-right-body-narrative-laine-hughes] [https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=IWl2EAAAQBAJ] [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14735784.2022.2084130] [https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/80/article/677149/summary] just to take 5 from the first page of results. Keep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Counterpoints on POV:
• :1. The term "narrative" as opposed to "theory", "hypothesis", "model", etc inherently carries the connotation of deception
• :2. We only see criticism listed.
• :These two things come together to form an article inherently opposed to the concept.
• :I agree however on your presentation of several more sources that GNG is probably satisfied, and believe now that the article must rather be upsourced (and have its name changed) Snokalok (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Do reliable sources use terms other than "narrative"? Are there reliable sources (enough to constitute due weight) that take non-critical views? At a glance all of the top sources on Google Scholar seem pretty critical. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::@Tamzin Response forthcoming, I had to take a breather. The UK court ruling has emboldened every terf on the island to try pov rewriting articles on women and trans people to favor a GC view, and that’s been a lot. Anyway, reading over your sources now. Snokalok (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::If you're seeing this as a "GC view", I think you may need to step away from articles like this one for a bit, because that sounds like you're seeing ghosts. Most criticism of the wrong-body narrative comes from trans intellectuals, not TERFs. That's true both in general, and in the sources currently in the article; at least three out of the four authors are trans (not sure on Engdahl). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Nono not this one, just in general I've been tired. I recognize this article is not one of those, but my energy has been sapped elsewhere and that means I had no energy to work on this section. Snokalok (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Anyway, tagging again @Tamzin since this is now my actual rebuttal -
• ::::::"Wrong-body conception" [https://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article/1/1-2/267/91883/Wrong-Body]
• ::::::"wrong-body model" [https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/80/article/677149/summary] (Your #5 source)
• ::::::"Wrong-body claim" [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13621025.2014.923705] (Your #1 source)
• ::::::These may seem like subtle pedantries, but "narrative" carries the connotation of deception from the start, whereas the rest don't. "Model" is better, imo. I would also place a higher burden on centering academic criticism, given that - one is not going to write a paper saying "I agree with the dominant idea" of this nature while one is absolutely going to write something disagreeing with it, so there will naturally be far more academic papers criticizing the idea. Snokalok (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::If a majority of reliable sources don't use "narrative", you should start an RM—but I don't see any basis for your reading of the word as implying deception. As to the rest of your comment, we write articles based on the sources that exist, not the sources we wish existed. And we don't reject critical sources. Lots of people write scholarly articles endorsing the dominant idea. That's what it means for something to be the dominant idea. But transmedicalist and binarist arguments for transgender validity have been out of fashion for a decade or so now. And see Breast cancer awareness and Shipping discourse for two existing cases where there's a critical scholarly consensus despite popular opinion being more split. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:

• Keep per Tamzin; agree that an RM is due, I’d support “model”. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, Tamzin's sources show the GNG is met. Content issues, including a potential move, can be discussed on the article talk page. Toadspike [Talk] 14:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per Tamzin. RationalWikian (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.